| Course | OML-8030 Seminar in Leading Change for Innovation, Sustainability, and Competitive Advantage |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Seminar paper: readiness, resistance and commitment |
| Length | About 1,003 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for OML 8030 Module 2
Not Stubborn, Worried: Building Readiness for Automation on a Box Plant Floor
Student Name
Doctor of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University
OML-8030: Seminar in Leading Change for Innovation, Sustainability, and Competitive Advantage
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Not Stubborn, Worried: Building Readiness for Automation on a Box Plant Floor
Introduction
When we announced the automated lines, the reaction on the floor was cool. Experienced operators asked whether they would still have jobs, and some predicted the machines would never run as promised. A manager called them resistant to change. This paper asks what research says about why employees support or resist change and how leaders can build readiness.
Creating Readiness
Armenakis et al. (1993) describe readiness as what organizational members believe, feel and intend about whether change is necessary and whether the organization is able to carry it out. Readiness is the cognitive precursor to behaviors of either resistance or support. They argued that the change message should convey two things: discrepancy, the gap between the current state and the desired state, and efficacy, confidence that both the people and the organization are able to close that gap. Leaders can build readiness through persuasive communication, active participation in decisions and the management of external information, such as reports from customers or industry sources that confirm the need for change. The credibility of the change agent matters, as does the urgency of the change.
Resistance as a Response
Oreg (2006) studied employees of a large organization undergoing a major restructuring and examined three dimensions of resistance: affective, how people feel about the change; cognitive, what they think about it; and behavioral, what they do or intend to do. He measured both a dispositional tendency to resist change and contextual factors. Dispositional resistance was related to the affective dimension, but contextual factors were more important overall. Trust in management, the information employees received and perceived threats to job security and to power and prestige were strongly related to resistance. Higher resistance went along with lower satisfaction, weaker commitment and greater intention to leave.
Commitment to Change
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) applied a three-part model of commitment to the specific case of organizational change. Affective commitment is a desire to support the change because of belief in its benefits. Normative commitment rests on feeling obliged to back it. Continuance commitment is a recognition that there are costs to not supporting it. All three were related to compliance with the change, but only affective and normative commitment were related to going beyond compliance, through cooperation and championing. Continuance commitment, support given only because resisting is costly, produced the minimum.
| Source | Key finding | Implication at the plant |
|---|---|---|
| Armenakis et al. (1993) | Readiness needs a message of discrepancy and efficacy | Show why change is needed and that crews can master it |
| Oreg (2006) | Context, especially trust, information and job threat, drives resistance | Address job security and share information early |
| Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) | Only affective and normative commitment produce championing | Build belief in the change, not just fear of opposing it |
Reading the Floor
Applying Oreg's findings, the operators' reaction looks less like stubbornness than like a rational response to context. The announcement said little about jobs, which raised the job security threat. Information came in a single meeting with few details. Trust in management had been strained by a pay freeze two years ago. The skeptical comments about the machines may reflect cognitive resistance grounded in experience, since the last equipment upgrade did run poorly for months.
Supervisors in the Middle
The shift supervisors face a double task. They must explain the change to crews while holding many of the same worries, since automation will also change their jobs. In early conversations, two supervisors admitted they did not know how to answer operators' questions about jobs and pay grades. If supervisors are not ready themselves, the readiness of their crews will lag. The plan therefore gives supervisors information first, a week before each crew update, and a short session on handling difficult questions. Their own concerns about new roles will be addressed in one-on-one meetings with me and the human resources manager, and each will have a say in how their shift's training is scheduled.
A Readiness Plan
Following Armenakis and colleagues, the message will make discrepancy concrete: two large customers now require recycled content and on-time rates we cannot meet with the old lines, and we lost a major bid last year on both counts. Efficacy will be built by showing a training plan, by arranging visits to a plant already running the same equipment and by sharing the vendor's performance data. To address Oreg's job security concern, the owners have agreed that no operator will be laid off because of automation; operators displaced from the old lines will be retrained for the new ones or for maintenance roles. Information will be shared through weekly updates and a question board answered within 48 hours. Following Lewin and Armenakis, a group of operators from each shift will help decide line layout and training sequence.
Building Affective Commitment
Herscovitch and Meyer's findings suggest that compliance is not enough. To build affective commitment, the plan emphasizes benefits operators value: safer work with less lifting, higher skill and pay grades for technicians and a stronger future for the plant. Experienced operators who become trainers on the new lines may become champions.
Measuring Readiness
Before the first line arrives, a short readiness survey will ask about the need for change, confidence in mastering the new equipment, trust in management and concerns. It will be repeated after the first line starts, so that leaders can see whether readiness is building and where concerns remain.
Limits
Oreg's study was conducted in one organization outside the United States. Readiness surveys measure stated attitudes, which may differ from behavior. The plant is invented.
Conclusion
Armenakis and colleagues showed that readiness rests on a clear message of discrepancy and efficacy, Oreg showed that resistance responds to trust, information and threats more than to personality and Herscovitch and Meyer showed that only commitment rooted in belief or obligation produces championing. At the plant, a no-layoff guarantee, early and regular information, participation in decisions and visible benefits are the best ways to turn worry into readiness.
References
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247
Reading the OML 8030 Module 2 assignment instructions
Managing change through people is the emphasis TESU's catalog gives OML-8030, so in the absence of a public syllabus, module two is set up as a paper on readiness and resistance. Define readiness and the two messages that build it, present research on what actually drives resistance, separate the forms of commitment by what they produce and analyze reactions in a real workplace without blaming the people involved. The plan you propose should change conditions, such as job security or information flow, not only attitudes, and it should include a way to measure readiness more than once. Some seminars focus on middle managers' resistance instead. Ask early whether a readiness survey belongs in an appendix. Give supervisors' readiness its own attention, since they carry the message.
Inside the OML 8030 Module 2 example
Machine operators react coolly when Tomás, a fictional plant director, announces automated converting lines. The readiness model of Armenakis and colleagues, Oreg's study of what drives resistance and Herscovitch and Meyer's three forms of commitment are summarized side by side in a table. The floor's reaction is read as information rather than stubbornness, and a section on supervisors caught between crews and management follows. A readiness plan offers a message of discrepancy and efficacy, a no-layoff guarantee, regular updates and crew participation, then turns to building affective commitment and repeating a readiness survey before limits and a conclusion. Margin notes link each step of the plan to a research finding.
Where the marks sit in the OML 8030 Module 2 rubric
Strong readiness papers define the concept exactly, show that context drives resistance more than personality and explain why only some forms of commitment lead people to champion a change. Treating employees' doubts as possibly accurate, especially when past upgrades went badly, marks mature analysis. A plan that tackles job security and information directly follows from Oreg's evidence. Aiming for belief in the change rather than grudging compliance reflects Herscovitch and Meyer. Attention to supervisors, who must carry the message while sharing the worry, adds depth, and a repeated survey shows rigor. Briefing supervisors before crews, and giving them a say in training schedules, shows awareness of the middle layer.
OML 8030 Module 2 help from the desk
Avoid calling employees resistant before you examine trust, information and threats to their jobs. Avoid, too, a communication plan that changes nothing about the conditions people fear. State the need for change in concrete terms, show people how they will master it, answer the job security question honestly and let crews help decide how the work changes. Give supervisors their own support, since they sit in the middle. Aim for commitment rooted in belief. Measure readiness before and during the change. Share the seminar question and your workplace for a free first draft. Brief supervisors first, and let them shape the training schedule for their own shifts.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More OML 8030 and Doctor of Business Administration sample papers
- OML 8030 Module 1: Classic Change Models Seminar Paper: Lewin, Kotter and the 70 Percent Myth
- OML 8030 Module 3: Innovation Seminar Paper: Exploration, Exploitation and Ambidexterity
- OML 8030 Module 4: Sustainability Seminar Paper: Environmental Strategy as Competitive Advantage
- OML 8030 Module 5: Leading Change Seminar Paper: Transformational and Change-Specific Leader Behaviors
- OML 8030 Module 6: Change Research Seminar Paper: Evidence-Based Steps and Multilevel Readiness
- DBA 8010 Module 2: Discussion: Exporting, a Toll Processor or an Acquisition in Europe
- DBA 8030 Module 4: Comprehensive Assessment: Four Essays on Leading Strategic Change
- HRM 8010 Module 3: Written Assignment: Training and Development Across Sites
- HRM 8030 Module 1: Written Assignment: HR Leadership and Organizational Culture
OML 8030 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free OML 8030 Module 2 sample paper?
The readiness and resistance seminar paper about automation at an invented packaging plant is reproduced in full here.
What is readiness for change?
What members believe, feel and intend about whether a change is necessary and whether their organization can pull it off.
What drives resistance to change?
Oreg found context, especially trust in management, information and threats to job security and status, mattered more than personality.
What are the three forms of commitment to change?
Affective, a desire to support it; normative, an obligation; and continuance, a recognition of the costs of not supporting it.
Which commitment leads employees to champion a change?
Affective and normative commitment were linked to cooperation and championing; continuance commitment only to compliance.