The rate of technological change within organizations has been fast-tracked by the recent global health crisis and shifting workplace dynamics. As many organizations decide how to best manage the implementation of new technologies, they must also consider the human response, which can facilitate the success of the overall implementation. Complementing the focus of this book (how is change perceived by recipients?), we focus on what is known about how employees respond to technological changes. In this review, we provide a retrospective account of the body of work on this topic. First, we review the types of technological changes that have been studied in relation to broader dimensions of organizational change. Second, we elaborate on theoretical perspectives that have been used, including comparing technology-specific models with broader theoretical approaches. Third, we summarize the antecedent-response relationships that have been examined. We hope that this bird’s-eye view of the field allows scholars to span disciplines and consider aspects related to the design and type of the technology, which have been largely treated as a setting, in future research.

Employee resistance is often seen as the major force against the enactment of change. The literature has privileged the view that resistance, for the most extent, is the resistors’ own fault. As Ford and Ford put it, “the assumption is that they resisted a perfectly logical move.” I build on the approach that resistance to change is a form of feedback, to argue that, if organizations and their agents examine the underlying reasons, they will be better equipped to deal with the challenges related to resistance. In light of Uncertainty Reduction Theory, I also suggest that we need to move beyond the viewpoint that examines change as a one-off phenomenon and interpret it as grounded in the broader organizational life. Finally, and building on recent empirical evidence, I put forth a framework on anticipating intentions to resist future change that integrates the organization’s history of change, individual characteristics, leadership factors, and organizational factors, alongside important boundary conditions that influence the sensemaking process underlying the development of intentions to resist future changes.

Organizational identification might become weaker when confronted with organizational changes, such as mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Identification change in M&As has received significant attention from scholars, but the extant theoretical evidence might not apply to employees involved in Chinese M&As. Indeed, cultural characteristics (e.g., dialectical thinking, collectivism, power distance) might make Chinese employees more tolerant of contradictions and ambivalence than employees in the Western hemisphere. To address this gap, we will refer to the social identity theory and the extant knowledge on identification change in cross-border M&As. We will present a framework of organizational identification change for Chinese employees after acquisition together with factors that contribute to the success of M&As. We illustrate it with the case of a Chinese acquisition in Europe: ChinaCorp and EuroMall. We theorize on the role of identity leadership wherein a leader’s behavior has a particularly strong impact on identification processes in high power distance and collectivist cultures. We will show how acts of identity leadership matter for the transfer from pre-merger to post-merger identification in the case of Chinese acquirers.

Frontline crisis teams are typically very cohesive, characterized by strong bonds between members. Cohesion ensures that team members look out for each other in dangerous work environments, operate resiliently in crisis contexts, and can rapidly coordinate in stressful situations. This explains why many crisis organizations are total institutions. Yet, cohesion may also produce dysfunctional group dynamics, as open debate about the crisis and the required response is avoided. Contestation in crisis teams is often deplored and might escalate into conflict, but it does ensure a thorough analysis of the situation from diverse viewpoints and thus facilitates the adoption of a well-considered, mindful response. The simultaneous need for cohesion and contestation creates a dilemma. To deal with this dilemma, it is important to note that team tensions are varied. Crisis organizations, particularly those with complex tasks, can pursue task-related contestation, while upholding relationship-related cohesion. This requires an investment in mutual trust and respect, so that team develops a safe space for open interactions without risking hostility or disintegration.

Here I comment on the chapters that have formed the contribution of this volume. I note that this second edition makes contributions considerably beyond those of the first edition, in particular by devoting attention to the dynamics of planned organizational change, not simply its instigators and outcomes. In particular, the chapters contribute to several important themes associated with dynamics of planned change. These include ways of classifying types of organizational change, the importance of change leaders and the development of change leadership, the importance of both affective and cognitive processes (especially sensemaking) in change, the roles of several types of identity processes in change, and the recognition of temporal processes in change. The chapters show the salience of these dynamics, whether they are recognized or not, to sensitize scholars to look for them. I conclude by suggesting some possible new directions for future investigations of change. These include the use of process as well as variance theorizing, attention to change emergence, and attention to changes that extend beyond individual organizations.

By integrating the fragmented research on emergency services, armed forces, and humanitarian organizations, this book identifies the components of a new theory on frontline crisis response. To begin with, the work of responders is characterized by persistent operational dilemmas. Since there are no universal solutions, they need to adapt their approaches and decisions to the situational contingencies of a crisis. These adaptations continue throughout the crisis response process as the situation evolves. Responders usually pragmatically act their way through operational dilemmas in the crisis response process. These experiences nevertheless have an existential effect on their identities and lives. Thus, the new theory comprises operational dilemmas, situational contingencies, response processes, pragmatic principles, and existentialist ideas. This theory offers a basis for crisis response improvements and contributes to the literature on strategic crisis management, frontline work in organizations, reliable organizing in risky contexts, and post-crisis operations. The chapter ends with a research agenda and a call for more academic engagement with frontline crisis response.

New technologies hold great promises of making crisis response better. These technologies may improve information positions and enable faster communication as well as produce more rapid and targeted responses in crises. As such, technological progress boosts effectiveness and efficiency, while reducing risks to frontline responders. Still, the reality does not always match these great expectations due to technical failures and implementation difficulties as well as persistent social problems that cannot be resolved by new tools or systems. There are often even undesirable side effects. The dilemma for frontline responders revolves around finding the right attitude toward new technologies. Technological progress is a historical inevitability, but new innovations should only be adopted if these match a recognized problem in the response and not just for their own sake. There are guiding principles, based on earlier experiences, that offer useful insights in how to best incorporate modern tools and systems. This requires a prudent approach that considers new technology with a mix of hesitation and curiosity.

We offer in this chapter an overview of the state of research on organization members’ responses to organizational change since the publication of the first edition of the book. We also review this edition’s structure and content.

Leadership in crisis response has traditionally been strongly centralized and hierarchical. Top-down command and control is popular, because a strict hierarchy and clear lines of command enable rapid decision-making and coordinated actions. Critics, however, have argued that centralization is both impossible and undesirable during crises, because leaders lack situational awareness and cannot control frontline responders from a distance. They argue that operational personnel should take charge to ensure an adaptive frontline response, potentially at the cost of efficiency and speed. The operational dilemma of crisis leadership revolves therefore around the tension between centralization and decentralization. To deal with this dilemma, it is useful to study how influence is exercised and power circulates during crises. Rather than a static authority structure, different types and phases of crises require different forms of leadership. Authority structures have to be tested and adjusted throughout the response, so they can be continuously co-constructed by frontline responders and operational leaders, as the complex and dynamic crisis situation evolves.