Systematic literature review of interpretative positions and potential sources of resistance to change in organizations

Purpose: This article addresses the main concerns of existing literature about resistance to change (RC) in organizations, namely the limited interpretative position regarding RC focusing mainly on negative aspects and excluding potential benefits, and the poor consensus or even understanding of RC sources in organizations. Design/methodology: To approach our goal, a systematic literature review will be carried out. The initial sample, obtained using reproducible search algorithms on Scopus and Web of Science, comprises 65 papers. After applying five inclusion/exclusion criteria supported by previous systematic reviews, the final sample consists of 30 papers. Findings: This article demonstrates the prevalence of a negative position toward RC and reveals efforts to harness the potential benefits of RC. In addition, from 126 specific RC sources extracted from the analyzed papers, it discovers and discusses 22 sub-typologies of RC sources, which are grouped into five typologies. Practical implications: The paper enables the future identification of, evaluation of, and intervention in 22 potential RC sources in organizations distinguished into five typologies. The taxonomy also enables researchers to organize and summarize study topics/subtopics regarding RC in the organizational arena. Social implications: This paper draws attention to the need to recognize the meaning and implications of three alternative positions relating to RC in organizations (positive, negative, and neutral). Originality/value: The paper provides a comprehensive taxonomy of RC sources beyond the traditional classification of individual/organizational factors.


Introduction
Resistance to change (RC) is a natural and critical phenomenon for managers and organizations. To date, a variety of studies have been carried out on RC and its potential sources; however, the effectiveness of interventions to mitigate or take advantage of it continues to be questioned. For example, it has been reported that only one-third of improvement programs are successful, with the ineffective approach to RC being the main reason for the associated failures (Meaney & Pung, 2008;Shahbaz, Gao, Zhai, Shahzad & Hu, 2019). In other words, the scant attention to RC in organizations translates, among other risks, into higher costs when managing change initiatives (Ansoff & McDonnell, 1990). Besides, the literature on RC diverges regarding its favorable or unfavorable impact on the change process (Bareil, 2013;Schweiger, Stouten & Bleijenbergh, 2018).
This situation -practical consequences and divergence-demands a better understanding of RC in organizational contexts. Hence, this article focuses on two aspects. One of them is the interpretive position of RC, which tends to govern attitudes and behaviors toward it (Waddell & Sohal, 1998). The other corresponds to identifying its main potential sources, which is decisive in helping to understand the causal patterns behind RC in organizational settings.
The manner of addressing RC usually depends on the interpretative posture that the organization and its actors have adopted toward it. In this regard, we can speak of two groups of studies. One group has investigated RC from a negative perspective (Atkinson, 2005;Lawrence, 1969), viewing it as an obstacle that managers must eradicate to promote organizational performance (Agboola & Salawu, 2010). On the contrary, the other group has taken a positive approach to RC and invited the discovery of weak points in change initiatives. In other words, studies have considered RC as a valuable resource for organizational improvement (Pardo del Val, Martínez & Roig, 2012;Waddell & Sohal, 1998).
Ignoring either of these two positions, positive and negative, of RC is counterproductive in organizational practice since, before implementing the change, there is not enough information about the effects of RC (Hultman, 1979;Waddell & Sohal, 1998). Despite the importance of understanding the subject, there has been little discussion of these two RC positions together in the scientific literature. For example, Waddell and Sohal (1998) warned that the negative connotation of RC was the dominant approach at that time; DuBose and Mayo (2020) reinforced this statement in a nursing setting and highlighted that RC is natural in individuals; and Burke (2011) and Pardo del Va et al. (2012) emphasized the need to consider the potential benefits of RC. However, the extent to which these calls have been taken into account today is unknown, and they can only be evaluated by consolidating and analyzing the available empirical evidence.
Regarding the identification of sources of RC, to date, countless proposals have been made that differ in terms of the labels, descriptions, and implications of the change process. This high diversity of sources makes it difficult to understand and use the common/convergent knowledge in the available literature's different proposals. For example, Scheiner (2018) pointed out habits, heuristics, personalities, and regimes; Mulombe and Mugova (2018) listed poor communication, little leadership, and poor change management; and Amarantou, Kazakopoulou, Chatzoudes and Chatzoglou (2018) sources of RC included personality traits, job insecurity, little participation in decisions, perceptions of work, low quality of communication, poor management-employee relationships, and attitudes and dispositions toward change and its anticipated impact.
Additionally, studies that have provided some classification in this regard (e.g., García-Cabrera, Álamo-Vera & García- Barba, 2011;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017;Valero & Castilla, 2011) have tended to divide RC sources into two categories: individual (or personal) and organizational. For example, Kot and Sidorenko (2013) stated that one of their contributions was to delineate and expand the potential causes of RC in the corporate field of gas transportation by differentiating between individual and organizational sources. However, these generic typologies, such as individual/organizational factors, do not reveal the multiple mechanisms of the individual and the organization or the interaction between them through which an organizational change can be prevented or improved. In addition to the individual and organizational classes, Dallavalle (1991), Demski (1993), and Zanin and Bisel (2020) drew attention to the group factors that can generate RC. Amarantou et al. (2018, p. 426) emphasized that 'there is still quite a limited knowledge about the factors that trigger this behavior [RC] in organizations.' Hence, the opportunity to provide a more comprehensive taxonomy of RC sources emerges from the consolidation and grouping of the empirical evidence available using a systematic review approach (e.g., inclusion/exclusion criteria of studies, search protocol, reproducibility).This is essential since, to date, there has been no integration, homogenization, and systematization of reliable/reproducible evidence on interpretive positions toward and sources of RC. A study of this nature is essential as it would provide actionable information for situations before, during, and after implementing the change (Landaeta, Mun, Rabadi & Levin, 2008).
Accordingly, the objective is to carry out a systematic review of the literature on RC in organizational contexts to answer two research questions: Addressing the first question helps discuss, more than 20 years later, what Waddell and Sohal (1998) reported on research in RC: prevalence of the negative position toward RC. It also allows us to analyze and discuss the extent to which the calls of Burke (2011) andPardo del Val et al. (2012), among other authors, regarding the relevance of also recognizing the potential benefits of RC have been considered as vehicles for improving change initiatives. The position assumed towards RC (positive or negative) enables managers, professionals, and researchers to have a more comprehensive understanding of RC than its traditionally negative view when evaluating and reconfiguring future initiatives exchange. Moreover, our study draws attention to a third position, with reference to reasonable doubt, as the first lens of the researcher, leader, or professional when facing RC.

RQ1
Likewise, through the answers to the second question, we seek to extend the classifications used by authors such as Nakhoda and Tajik (2017), who referred to personal factors; Pardo del Val et al. (2012) and Valero and Castilla (2011) on individual (or personal) and organizational factors; Dallavalle (1991) and Demski (1993) on individual, group, and organizational factors; and Stegaroiu and Talmaciu (2016), who used the labels 'cognitive,''emotional,' and 'personal,' which in themselves are extensions of individual factors. Hence, this paper contributes to ameliorating the poor consensus/understanding of RC sources in organizations (Amarantou et al., 2018) by providing a comprehensive taxonomy to group and classify RC sources, informed by empirical research. Moreover, our taxonomy extends the understanding of RC triggers in organizations beyond the two traditional typologies (organizational and individual factors) of sources recognized by the literature by incorporating inter/intra-organizational social relations (collective action, individual-organization interactions, and exogenous factors). The five typologies and 22 RC sources make our taxonomy the most complete and up-to-date investigative and managerial resource to conceptually explain why RC can be generated in organizations. This encourages leaders, professionals, and researchers to identify, evaluate, and intervene in RC sources to anticipate and mitigate conflicts, failures, and waste of resources in scenarios of change initiatives in organizations.
The following section details the systematic review protocol used. The subsequent sections present the results of each research question, followed by a general discussion of the findings (including practical implications). The final two sections present the conclusions/future work and limitations.

Materials and methods
This study follows the general protocol of a systematic review, summarized as planning the study, selecting the documents, analyzing/synthesizing the information, and reporting the results (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009;Pérez-Rave, 2012;Torgerson, 2003). Three inclusion/exclusion criteria supported by previous systematic reviews were used: C1 -peer review (one of the requirements for indexing in Scopus and the Web of Science -WoS); C2language (following Amor et al. (2019) and García-Sancho, Salguero and Fernández (2014)), we included documents in English and Spanish, which are in the authors' domain); and C3 -empirical studies (with original data and the IMRaD structure). These three criteria were also use by Barber-Westin and Noyes (2011), Li and Siegrist (2012), and Wagman and Håkansson (2019). Two other criteria were added: C4 -study context (organizational); and C5 -provision of at least one source of RC considering expressions such as the factor, antecedent, determinant, source, or cause of RC (C5 is a domain-specific criterion according to the study purpose).
Then, we proceeded with the definition of the search terms, the planning of the fieldwork, and the retrieval of the starting documents. Table 1 shows the search expressions used in Scopus and the WoS.

Resource Search expressions Documents
Scopus #1 TITLE-ABS-KEY ("sources of resistance to change" OR"causes of resistance to change" OR "factors of resistance to change" OR"determinants of resistance to change" OR "antecedents of resistance to change" OR"resistance-to-change sources" OR "resistance-to-change factors" OR "resistance-to-change causes" OR "resistance-to-change determinants" OR "resistance-to-change antecedents") AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "English") ORLIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "Spanish")) 50 WoS #3 TS=("sources of resistance to change" OR"causes of resistance to change" OR "factors of resistance to change"OR"determinants of resistance to change"OR"antecedents of resistance to change" OR"resistance-to-change sources"OR"resistance-to-change factors"OR"resistance-to-change causes"OR"resistance-to-change determinants"OR"resistance-to-change antecedents") There is no defined minimum number of papers necessary to carry out a systematic literature review (Albliwi, Antony, Halim Lim & van der Wiele, 2014). What is required is that researchers report the number of documents found based on representative/reproducible search algorithms (initial sample) as well as the number of accepted (final sample) documents when precise/supported criteria are applied (Pérez-Rave, 2012;Torgerson, 2003). For example, the final sample in the study by Breitenstein, Gross and Christophersen (2014) contained 11 papers, that in the study by Payne, Lister, West and Bernhardt (2015) consisted of 24 papers, and that in the study by Walker (2010) amounted to 54 papers.
Thus, once the search algorithms had been carried out, an initial set of 65 documents was obtained, which was verified (initially the title and abstract and then the rest of the paper) as meeting the selection criteria. A final sample of 30 studies was obtained that complied with the established criteria and therefore made up the 'Relevant Literary Space' -RLS-(Pérez-Rave, 2012) under review. Then, each study was reread and synthesized, considering its objective, justification, methods, results, conclusions, limitations/challenges, and position regarding RC. In addition, specific RC sources were extracted from each article (126 in total), considering the lexical (words, e.g., causes, determinants, factors, see Table 1) and syntactic (phrases) analysis of the contents. Each specific RC source was transcribed on post-it notes for easy viewing and processing. Next, a manual discovery procedure of taxonomic patterns was carried out from documents (e.g., Arroyave, Redondo & Dasí, 2021;Pérez-Rave, 2019), assisted by "agreement between judges" (Hayes, 2002). Thus, two judges independently displayed the grouping of the sources considering a semantic analysis of the 126 previously extracted sources (post-its). Next, the degree of agreement between the judges was assessed, and those groups of sources that reached at least 70% agreement were accepted. In total, it took two rounds on different days to cover all of the sources. In the first round, consensus was obtained for two underlying groups (covering 80% of the post-its); in the second round, there was an agreement for two other groups (accumulating 85% of the post-its). The remaining 15% of RC sources were examined through debate between the two judges, first exposing the position of each one, then the reasons for the groupings, and, finally, utilizing rational persuasion. A third judge would be used if consensus had not been reached; however, it was unnecessary since consensus was reached among the participants. Thus, the grouping of 15% of RC sources provided an additional group of sources. The findings configure a taxonomic model comprising five categories of RC sources, which was also used to characterize the RLS under study.
The study as a whole and, mainly, the discovery of patterns described emerges from an inductive approach to generating knowledge (from data to theory). This approach is used in order to, similar to Siggelkow (2007) and Noble and Paveglio (2020), propose a model based on data that favors theorizing/explaining some phenomenon of interest; in our case: Why is RC generated in organizations? (That is, identify its sources). Thus, thanks to the creation of this model, future quantitative works will be able to examine the proposed components (taxonomic categories and typologies) under a deductive approach (from theory to data) to knowledge generation (Siggelkow, 2007)."

Results and analysis
This section presents the findings in three parts. The first is a general characterization of the study sample. The second provides answers about the interpretative positions toward RC. The third focuses on the taxonomic model of potential RC sources.

General characterization of the sample of studies under review
This section summarizes the study of RC in organizational contexts, considering the bibliometric aspects, type of study (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed), and kind of change that triggered RC. Thus, Table 2 Table 2 shows that all the articles that made up the RLS come from journals indexed in Scopus or WoS, which implies that the journals satisfy, among other aspects, content quality assurance processes (Baas, Schotten, Plume, Côté & Karimi, 2020;Kim, 2015). Likewise, 85% of the documents that make up the RLS addressed come from journals classified in the first or second quartile in SJR, among those that reported such information. Moreover, the documents included in the RLS meet all the predefined selection criteria (see Section 2). Thus, the identified RLS is a valuable scientific resource to extract information about sources of RC.
Table 2 also shows that most (70%) of the RLS contains European journals, the United Kingdom prevailing with 86% of these journals. Likewise, among the 27 studies from scientific journals (three studies come from congresses).
Regarding the studies' typology, Table 3 describes the RLS under the categories of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed, including expressions summarizing the aims of the studies in each category.

Study type
Central topics covered by the studies Freq. Percentage Qualitative Change processes and tacit knowledge Aramburu and Zeballos (2016) 20 66.70 Organizational change in universities Caruth and Caruth (2013) Individuals' psychological reaction to change Curtis and White (2002) Organizational culture (values and social understandings) as a RC source Danisman (2010) RC sources in organizations Demski (1993) Making decisions regarding initiating/maintaining collaborative organizational relationships Disogra et al (1990) Change management in translational informatics Edgerton et al. (2010) Micro-model of change and resistance to change in organizations George and Jones (2001) RC in industry and firms considering forces at both the organization and field level Herremans et al. (2009) RC generated by the language use among participants in change programs Homan et al. (2012) How the Estonian government meets international standards in the evidence-based policy-making process Kiilo and Kutsar (2015) Sources of RC in managers of a gas-transportation company Kot and Sidorenko (2013) Sources of RC in healthcare Landaeta et al. (2008) Barriers and sources of RC in hotel organizations Okumus and Hemmington (1998) Change procedures to facing early intervention programs Olson (1989) Errors in the formulation/implementation of strategic concepts Pechlaner and Sauerwein (2002) Values/perceptions about the use of ICT applications in elder care Savenstedt et al. (2006) Table 3 shows that most of the works (66.7%) were qualitative studies. Among them is the study by Homan et al. (2012), who discovered that RC can be the consequence of differences in the professional discourse of work teams. The second category in the study typologies is quantitative works. For example, García-Cabrera et al. (2011) identified the factors that determine the RC of employees, incorporating new individual antecedents related to personality. They used a structured questionnaire, confirmatory factor analysis, and linear regression. The last category in the study typologies is mixed works, which amounted to 6.6% of the total RLS. In this typology are Johnston and Oman (1990), who proposed a model for understanding RC sources in US federal organizations. They addressed a sample of 347 officials; the qualitative phase was based mainly on the use of documentary analysis and semantic-syntactic analysis, and the quantitative phase involved analysis of variance, ttests, and correlation analysis.
However, the investigations that make up the RLS sometimes addressed organizational change in a more general sense (not in a specific project or area), but others focused on a specific type of change. Table 4 summarizes the types of change that caused RC that were presented in the RLS.

Types of change Reference
Freq. Percentage   Table 4 shows that 'general' change occupies the first place in the RLS, with representation of 56.7%. It is worth mentioning that Curtis and White (2002) examined individuals' psychological reaction to change. They identified several reasons provided by the literature (management and psychology) that cause RC behaviors in employees. Among the main causes are increased stress, self-interest, low self-esteem, a lack of understanding of the proposed change, authoritarian pressure to materialize the change, perceptions about the change event, and low motivation. On the other hand, within the specific changes (43%), the technological one stands out, accounting for 16.6% of the total RLS. Among the works on this type of change is the study by Edgerton et al. (2010), who addressed an organizational case of change events in hardware, software, data model, procedures, and terminology standards. This work identified obstacles that prevent the successful management of change: inadequate communication of the change process, cultural aspects in work practice, a lack of leadership, and a lack of training for employees involved in the change process.   Table 5, the 'negative' label refers to the studies that planned proposals to reduce or eliminate RC because it was considered as a problem exclusively for employees and as harmful to the change process. In this group of studies, we found expressions such as 'RC makes improvement difficult or impossible' (Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017, p. 527), 'RC obstructs the efforts of leaders' (Valero & Castilla, 2011, p. 440), and 'RC is a critical state of employees that affects the success of change initiatives' (García-Cabrera et al., 2011, p. 231). Meanwhile, the 'positive' label includes studies that viewed RC as a valuable resource or an opportunity to improve the change process, with phrases such as 'RC could improve the results of change' (Pardo del Val et al., 2012, p. 1856 and 'through RC a deeper and ethical discussion about change can be given' (Savenstedt et al., 2006, p. 23). From this position, RC is not conceived of as a threat to change. Thus, it calls critically and reflective ly for the consideration of new points of view in the face of the change process. For its part, the 'neutral' label includes studies that do not show a positive or negative position toward RC regarding the change process. Table 5 shows that the vast majority of studies had a negative view of RC and sought to eliminate it (76.7%). Of the 30 selected studies, only two (6.7%) approached RC positively. This approach was mentioned by Pardo del Val et al. (2012), who studied the effect of the participatory management style on RC and its impact on change performance by using previously published scales to measure the main concepts and correlation analysis in their exploration of the relationships between the variables of interest. They suggested that participatory management offers an organization's members the necessary information to question aspects that must be considered during the implementation of change. They concluded that RC can be useful in examining some elements that are not considered in the conception or planning of change, generating danger for the change itself. The other work that assumed a positive position toward RC was the study by Savenstedt et al. (2006), who conducted interviews with 10 members of health care staff dedicated to caring for the elderly. They examined the perceptions of this type of professional on the use of technological applications in such work. They found that caregivers perceived this technology as a promoter of the dehumanization of care for the elderly, so they were resistant to its use. They concluded that an ethical and in-depth discussion should be carried out before introducing technological applications dedicated to the care of the elderly.

Classification of RC sources in organizational settings (RQ2)
This section consists of three subsections. The first describes the new taxonomic model of RC sources building on previous contributions that focused merely on the individual/organization, the second describes its five proposed typologies, and the third uses the model to characterize the object of work of the RLS.
• Proposed taxonomy Figure 1 provides the proposed taxonomy for RC sources.
In Figure 1, the type of RC sources associated with the 'individual' refers to those sources that can be attributed directly to each person who disagrees with a proposal for change in the organization. The RC sources associated with the 'organization' refer to RC sources that can be attributed directly to the organization proposing the change. 'Collective action' includes RC sources originating simultaneously from a fully identified group of people who jointly express their dissatisfaction with the proposal or process of change, which is consistent with the concept of concertive resistance (Zanin & Bisel, 2020). 'Individual-organization interaction' consolidates those sources that emerge from the joint individual-organizational exchanges. The interpretation given here to the interaction concept corresponds to Wagner's (1994) definition, which assumes that reciprocal events require at least two objects and two actions. In the approach based on interactions, the work environment as well as the social and economic relationships of the different employees with that environment are considered (Kling, 1980). This interactionist approach to RC originates from people's interaction with the organization's various factors; therefore, neither the organization nor the people are the direct cause of RC (Jiang, Muhanna & Klain, 2000;Kling, 1980). An example of this is the organizational climate, which, according to Rao and Sagui (1982), is attributable neither to the individual nor to the organization but is a direct consequence of their interactions.
The type of RC associated with 'exogenous factors' refers to RC's external sources, both the company's and the individual's, that prevent the change. There are unforeseen external factors that can prevent organizational change. These are beyond the organization's control, such as political, economic, and social factors and even competition (Chirimbu, 2011;Jiang, Muhanna & Klain, 2000) and consultants/advisers' influence. These factors bring uncertainty, which has been recognized as a source of RC (Waddell & Sohal, 1998). Therefore, even if conformity, agreements, and a harmonious environment lead to a specific change, these external factors can force the company or the individual to resist a particular change in a non-confrontational way. This typology will be expanded in the discussion section. Figure 1. Typologies of RC sources proposed from the RLS analysis. Note: the numbering included in the figure corresponds to the 'id' of each study that reported a certain source; the numerical correspondence can be seen in Table 2 •

Description of the RC source typologies present in the proposed taxonomy
This section briefly conceptualizes each RC source within each category.
Sources of RC associated with the individual. The nine sources of RC attributable to the individual are described and exemplified as follows. (i) Particular interests: the perception of personal impairments resulting from the change (e.g., Mahdavian et al., 2012;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017;Valero & Castilla, 2011). Among its manifestations are a loss of status or prestige and a decrease in salary, power, or influence. (ii) Personal structures oriented toward crises: inherent personality traits that make an individual perceive constant problems in different work situations (e.g., Curtis & White, 2002;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017;Pardo del Val & Martínez, 2003). It is manifested, for example, as affective reactions, such as anxiety, anguish, depression, and so on. (iii) Skepticism about the benefits of change: the belief that a certain change will not improve the current benefits offered by the organization (e.g., García-Cabrera et al., 2011;Mahdavian et al., 2012;Zulu et al., 2004). This situation emerges, for example, due to perceptions or feelings of little trust in or credibility of the person proposing the change. (iv) Demotivation: a lack of desire and drive to satisfy different needs (e.g., Curtis & White, 2002;Pardo del Val & Martínez, 2003). Among its manifestations is the lack of individual desire to improve the working or social conditions in the company. (v) Negative attitudes toward change: self-negating attitudes (toward the need for change), emerging, for example, due to the fear of what the change represents (e.g., Herremans et al., 2009;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017). Within this group, immediate stress can be cited, given the uncertainty generated by a change. (vi) Distorted mental models: a subjective and distorted evaluation that an employee makes of a change and its potential consequences due to biased social, educational, and ideological factors, among others (e.g., George & Jones, 2001;Landaeta et al., 2008;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017;Savenstedt etal., 2006). For example, when recommending a change, it is judged without sufficient objective information but by appearances or according to pre-established beliefs. (vii) Knowledge/skills gap: an individual's low ability, capacity, or knowledge to perform specific new tasks (e.g., Disogra et al., 1990;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017;Savenstedt et al., 2006). For example, this source manifests in new skill requirements to carry out a new process, such as the handling of new software. (viii) Inertia (natural-temporal): understood as avoiding any change that modifies the way of performing tasks due to the power of habit (e.g., Kot & Sidorenko, 2013;Mahdavian et al., 2012;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017;Pihlak & Alas, 2012). This group includes evading proposals for change and avoiding learning new working methods. (ix) Low self-esteem: the perception that an individual has of his or her low value for the organization (García-Cabrera et al., 2011). It occurs, for example, when the employee feels little relevance to the organization.
RC sources associated with the organization. The nine sources of RC associated with the organization are described and exemplified as follows. (i) Ambiguity of the change elements: this refers to a lack of clarity in the way in which the change process will be approached (e.g., Mahdavian et al., 2012;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017). In part, it manifests due to improvisation in the instructions to develop a change process. (ii) Counterproductive solutions: these refer to proposed changes that do not fulfill the need due to a lack of competence on the part of the leaders (e.g., Pardo del Val & Martínez, 2003;Pechlaner & Sauerwein, 2002;Teare & Monk, 2002). These are manifested in processes that seek to change only people's behavior and routines without plainly/systemically to address the problems. (iii) Poor communication: this refers to change processes that have not been explained and reported well (e.g., Chiang, 2010;Olson, 1989;Pihlak & Alas, 2012;Valero & Castilla, 2011). Among its consequences are a lack of understanding of the need for change, the reason for and the process of change, and its repercussions.
(iv) Weak organizational support at the levels of operations, technology, and management: this refers to the feeling that there is little involvement of the managerial staff in the process of change (e.g., Mahdavian et al., 2012;Nakhoda & Tajik, 2017;Pechlaner & Sauerwein, 2002;Pihlak & Alas, 2012). It occurs when there is a delay in responding to requirements, concerns, or requests to continue the change process. (v) Low personnel involvement: this refers to the feeling among the change actors that they are not part of the change process (García-Cabrera et al., 2011;Olson, 1989;Pihlak & Alas, 2012). It manifests as the very limited opportunities for participation in the planning and implementation of change by those involved (Linstead, 1997). (vi) Poor monitoring and control: these refer to the absence of follow-up and recommendations in the change process by the leaders of the organization (Disogra et al, 1990). They can occur due to a lack of leadership among the organization's managers, which can be perceived as a lack of interest in the change process. (vii) Incompatibility with cultural factors: a perception that what will be achieved opposes the social beliefs, manifestations, and assumptions that unite a whole group of people within the organization (e.g., Danisman, 2010;Disogra, Glanz & Roger, 1990;Pardo del Val & Martinez, 2003;Pihlak & Alas, 2012). It can be manifested as changes that are not aligned with the values shared by employees. (viii) Incompatibility with individual factors: the organization's decisions might generate conflict between what the employee believes and what he/she will have to do (cognitive dissonance) (e.g., Disogra et al, 1990;Kot & Sidorenko, 2013). This happens, for example, when the organization seeks to reduce the costs of a process at the expense of a deterioration in quality, which is not a practice that is approved of by the employee. (ix) Detrimental behavior of managers: this refers to the attitude of managers who impose their points of view instead of convincing or persuading others (Curtis & White, 2002;Demski, 1993;Disogra et al, 1990). It can appear in those change s imposed in an authoritarian way. For example, this is consistent with the need for modifications of some managers' attitudes toward favoring change processes (Torres, Grau & Barranco, 1998).
Sources of RC associated with collective action. Next, the two sources of RC associated with collective action are described and exemplified. (i) Problems of collective domain: these are problems that affect a group in a general way, rather than individually (e.g., Pardo del Val & Martinez, 2003;Zanin & Bisel, 2020;Zulu et al., 2004), for example public health problems. (ii) Groups with a strong influence on members of the organization: this source refers to current practices supported by specific norms within a group, which is united by a certain interest of its members (e.g., Landaeta et al., 2008;Zulu et al., 2004). It is manifested through group members who do not respond individually but wait for guidance from group leaders.

RC sources associated with the individual-organization interaction.
In the typology of individual-organization interaction, a single factor was portrayed in the RLS as 'personal-company dissonance.' This factor refers to the lack of correspondence in the individual-organization interaction before or during the change process (e.g., García-Cabrera et al., 2011;Homan et al., 2012;Mahdavian et al., 2012). An example is skepticism due to previous failures that had adverse effects on at least one change actor during the interaction between them. It should be noted that this impact depends on the needs and expectations that define the exchanges suffered by the change actor. The skepticism exposed in this type of source is different from the skepticism regarding the benefits from change revealed in the first typology (individual). In the latter, it is not necessarily considered that there has been a negative experience in interacting with the organization. This is consistent, for example, with the belief that interactions within a work group can significantly influence the behaviors, motivations, and attitudes of its members (Katz & Allen, 1982).

Sources of RC associated with exogenous factors.
In the typology associated with external factors, a single factor was identified in the RLS that has been called the 'macrosystem to which the organization belongs.' This includes those issues that are external to the organization, such as new sectoral or national political regulations that prevent changes (Pechlaner & Sauerwein, 2002). It also considers the influence that the competition, external consultants/advisers, or suppliers may have on one or more organizational members. Depending on the effects of such factors, RC events can be generated in the face of the organization's change initiatives.

• Characterization of the RLS under the proposed model
Considering the proposed taxonomy for RC sources, Figure 2 summarizes the presence of studies that make up the RLS in each typology already described.  Mahdavian, et al. 2012;Herremans et al., 2009;Disogra et al., 1990); G (Pechlaner & Sauerwein, 2002); H (Pardo del Val & Martinez, 2003;Zulu et al., 2004;Kot & Sidorenko, 2013;Landaeta et al., 2008); I (Demski, 1993). Figure 2 shows, at a horizontal level, the RLS study groups according to the types of RC sources these comprised (letters A -I) under the lens of the proposed taxonomy. The evidence presented in this figure corroborates the prevalence of the scopes focused mainly on organizational and individual factors (93.3% of the RLS works included at least RC sources associated with the individual or organization). Also, Figure 2 shows limited coverage of all five typologies by the same study. In fact, the maximum that one work addressed was four typologies (Demski, 1993). In other words, Figure 2 makes it possible to quickly identify the scope of the works under review, considering the lens of the types of RC sources proposed by our taxonomy. Figure 2 that the typologies with the greatest presence in the RLS are factors associated with at least the individual (77% of the studies in the RLS stated at least one source in this regard) or organization (73% of the studies in the RLS expressed at least one source in this regard). In other words, they are the most obvious actors. However, the reciprocity that arises from the exchanges between these two actors of change has received little attention (30%), as have the much more incipient typologies 'collective action' (17%) and 'exogenous factors' (3%). This finding reflects the prevalence of a reductionist approach when dealing with the understanding of the determinants of RC and calls for and makes viable the establishment of a more comprehensive approach. In the latter, the fact that an organization is affected by internal and external factors is prominent. The consequences of decisions are derived from individual actors (e.g., mental models) but mainly from their constant exchanges (e.g., team working). Likewise, Figure 1 provides a more comprehensive view of the classification of RC sources. Therefore, it encourages new studies to cover a broader theoretical and empirical domain when it comes to understanding and operationalizing RC sources.

Discussion
This paper provides a good portrait of the study of RC sources using a systematic literature review, which has several benefits compared to the traditional (or narrative) review, among them: showing a complete panorama of the available research; employing a more neutral position in choosing/addressing available evidence; explicitly stating the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the reviewed studies; and describing the different stages of the review to allow for critical appraisal and reproducibility. To the authors' knowledge, no previous work on the sources of RC has been found, conducted using a systematic review of the literature.
This systematic review identified and characterized the study of RC from different perspectives. It could be inferred that 92% of the 25 RLS studies that provided information on the position regarding RC assumed a negative interpretation, providing recommendations to eliminate it since they considered it to be a threat to the good performance of the organization. Only the remaining 8% referred to RC as a vehicle to perfect the different aspects of change and generate more organizational benefits. This reveals that, despite some authors' (e.g., Burke, 2011;Pardo del Val et al., 2012) concerns about the importance of also considering the positive approach to RC to complement traditional thinking, this approach continues to receive inadequate attention from the academic community. It should be noted that both studies with a positive approach and those with a negative approach of RC present a fundamental assumption, which can be questioned. These studies assume that any change, regardless of timing, direction, and speed, is beneficial to an organization. Contrary to this assumption, authors such as Hultman (1979) and Waddell and Sohal (1998) have suggested that change is not inherently beneficial for an organization since it can only be evaluated through its future consequences. Therefore, this paper invites not only to consider the positive view of RC as a possible vehicle for detecting opportunities to improve the proposals for change (Pardo del Val et al., 2012;Waddell & Sohal, 1998), but also to adopt a neutral perspective based on reasonable doubt.
The systematic review carried out allowed the identification of 126 specific sources of RC, which were grouped into 22 RC sub-typologies, and these, in turn, were grouped into five typologies, giving rise to a new taxonomy of sources with a more comprehensive scope than that addressed by previous works. This new taxonomy distinguishes and classifies RC sources associated with the individual (9 sources), the organization (9), collective action (2), individual-organization interaction (1), and exogenous factors (1). Considering the proposed taxonomy, 93.3% of the RLS works included at least RC sources associated with the individual or the organization, positioning them as the two most studied typologies in the study of RC. This finding was also observed when considering recent studies (2019-2020) that were not part of the RLS. For example, the search algorithm previously exposed in Table 1 was used again in Scopus to collect works published between 2019 and 2020 as long as they had not been part of the RLS (that is, they were indexed in Scopus after July19, 2019). In total, the search yielded four papers, of which one was already part of the RLS (Cornelison et al., 2019). Allaoui and Benmoussa (2020) identified aspects of the individual as sources of RC: a low level of education, fear of the unknown, and dissatisfaction with working conditions. They identified organizational sources, such as strained relationships with managers and routine jobs, and collective action sources, such as the influence of groups within the organization. Gao, Shao and Sun (2019) pointed out individuals' sources-routines, cognitive rigidity, and emotional reaction-and Ekowati (2019) indicated negative emotions, territorial behavior, and psychological attachment. Considering RC sources associated with the traditional typologies (individual or organization) is demanded by previous studies to favor relevant organizational changes. For example, managers can deploy selfdeveloped programs that improve soft skills in employees, such as critical thinking, open mind, and systemic view. These programs may help reconfigure mental models and provide information/knowledge in favor of rationality during employees' evaluation of change initiatives. Likewise, considering RC sources associated with the organization is relevant for stimulating and guiding managers' self-critique during the design of changes initiatives. Thus, considering RC sources associated with individuals or organizations is essential to define strategies that mitigate the attitude/behavior of assigning blame to others (blame virus, Pérez-Rave & González-Echavarría, 2018): managers blaming employees, and employees blaming managers.
Concerning the individual-organization relationship, it is worth highlighting that, although RC is not manifested in the employee or the organization's strategists at a given moment, the objective/subjective exchanges between these actors generate intervening factors that can lead to manifestations of RC. For example, this can be seen in soccer players who stood out and shone in different teams before being hired by another team to reinforce new strategies. However, the talent and potential that is inherent to a player may not necessarily be deployed in favor of the strategy envisaged by his new team due to a variety of factors stemming from unfavorable interactions with a teammate, the coach, or even the fans. Analogous situations arise in organizations since soccer teams are companies with similar administrative situations (Berrone, 2011).Thus, if managers understand how the individual-organization relationships can produce RC, this may help improve the alignment and synergy between leaders and team members in organizations using strategies such as selection procedures or team configurations that mitigate or take advantage of the possible individual-company dissonance.
The type of RC associated with exogenous factors is understood as one to which different external factors belong, both for the organization and for the individual, and they prevent the implementation of a new change. This is the case with new government regulations that can affect a company or an entire sector, preventing it from carrying out change initiatives. It is worth recognizing that an implicit component of organizations' management is the scanning of the environment (its needs, expectations, restrictions, etc.) and the proactive preparation to adapt, survive, and prosper. However, there are unpredictable situations at the time of change planning, which is why they only emerge when the intention to change has been expressed and when resources have already been invested and activities have been developed. Consequently, due to more willingness and articulation between the organization's actors in favor of a specific change, such situations that are external to the organization could lead to a non-conflictive manifestation of RC since they force the organization's actors to resist their willingness to undertake change. That is, it is a kind of non-conflicting self-resistance to change in the company.
This self-impeding situation, the cause of which is the external factor, which is assumed to be unforeseen, can be understood from the viewpoint of risk management. Such a management framework provides theoretical and methodological aspects that are useful to the organization in anticipating these risks of impending change by identifying, measuring, and controlling possible adverse events. However, the feasible events to identify and address following the proactive approach demanded by the management of organizations do not correspond to the RC sources of this proposed typology (exogenous factors). If organizational inertia was a reasonably predictable or feasible event to anticipate under a risk management framework, the main mistake of not having considered it should lie with the strategists of the organization and the change initiative. On the contrary, if the particular event (the cause of the forced inertia of the organization) was not viable as it had been prevented or controlled, such as a sudden event without a qualitative or quantitative precedent, it does correspond to a type of source recognized in this study (factors exogenous to the organization). Now, in the face of this type of event that triggers the organization's self-resistance, it could take one of the following three paths at a given moment: (a) remain inert, that is, renounce change; (b) adopt self-resistance and reconfigure the event of a change; or (c) take actions to break down the impediment (social or political influence, high investments, or even social movements between organizations or sectors, etc.).
At this point in the discussion, we want to extend these external factors to situations that can untimely cause changes that lead to new governmental policies, such as threats to national security, the environment, or public health. Regarding the latter, we can mention the unpredictable impact of the coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19), which has caused an unexpected regulatory change, both nationally and internationally, and has prevented many companies from carrying out various change projects. This is true, for example, of the mandatory isolation decreed by different governments, which, in the case of the tourism sector, has halted a large part of its projects due to the new regulations and restrictions imposed. For example, in Colombia, the Center for Socioeconomic Studies and Research of the Chamber of Commerce of Pereira published a special report on the economy of tourism in the Coffee Axis due to the isolation measures decreed by the national government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The report concluded that thousands of people who had decided to change their economic activities by moving from the agricultural sector to the ecotourism sector saw this change truncated. In other words, they had to resist their initiatives for change due to the new mandatory isolation regulations decreed by the national government and the high losses experienced (Usma & Sepúlveda, 2020). Likewise, the Chamber of Commerce of Armenia produced a report on the impact of the measures of the national government (as a result of Covid-19) on the productive sector of the region. This report surveyed 1,300 business people from the commercial and industrial sectors and services and indicated that 73% of the respondents were working at between 0% and 10% of their capacity, which has affected their cash flow and therefore the realization of their new projects (Usma & Sepúlveda, 2020).
In these last two studies, entrepreneurs from different sectors can be seen to be motivated by the will and resources to carry out changes in their respective businesses. However, due to an unexpected regulation related to mandatory isolation (which is an external factor to the organization), they must renounce the partial or definitive implementation of those planned changes. This isolation has forced a large number of new ecotourism entrepreneurs to alter their intentions to change due to the government's travel ban, both by air and by land transport, in addition to the restrictions on the provision of tourist services. Therefore, they followed path (a) outlined above (remained inert, that is, gave up the change). In addition, the second report showed the impacts on other types of businesspeople related to commerce, industry, and services, in which both the new regulations and the liquidity restrictions due to these new regulations led to the adaptation and modification of the new changes that they had foreseen; that is, they followed path (b) (adopted self-resistance and reconfigured the change event). Thus, understanding the RC sources associated with external factors is also fundamental to nourishing the construction of strategic plans incorporating additional potential threats (external factors) to be examined, quantified, and addressed proactively.
On the other hand, the RC sources related to 'collective action' are relevant since this typology considers the effects, needs, and impressions of social movements, institutionalized or not, in the organization, concerning change initiatives. For this reason, this typology covers manifestations that go beyond the individual and considers solidarity concerning collective well-being; it is consistent with authors such as Atkinson, Bagnall, Corcoran, South and Curtis (2020) in the sense of 'being well together.' Considering the RC sources attributable to this typology is decisive for the processes of change since its repercussions tend to trigger social reactions of much greater magnitude and speed (e.g., organizational, national stoppages) than those attributable merely to the individual or organizational factors. Likewise, considering the positive view of RC and the RC sources associated with collective action, leaders can be promptly informed of risks or anomalies in the design of change initiatives. Moreover, leaders can consider wide-ranging needs in certain formalized or non-formalized population groups (but whose members show high affinity/empathy/solidarity with each other). Thus, the 'collective action' typology invites managers, professionals, and researchers to consider the forces of social movements characterized by individual well-being based on common well-being.

Conclusions and future work
Through the systematic literature review, this paper reveals the prevalence of the negative interpretative position compared with the positive position toward RC, using evidence in empirical research on RC in organizations. Italso draws attention to the importance of considering a neutral position based on reasonable doubt. Hence, managers, practitioners, and researchers should consider the discussed meaning and implications of the three named alternatives to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding/addressing of RC in organizations. Thus, this study allows managers to recognize, in addition to the traditionally negative view of RC, positive and neutral views that enable them to take advantage of RC to help to evaluate and reconfigure future change initiatives. Future studies should delve into the positive/neutral position of RC, which has been shown to have been poorly investigated despite multiple calls from different researchers in the field to consider different perspectives from the negative RC position. Researchers in this line of study should not consider that a change is favorable per se but address it from the viewpoint of reasonable doubt, which can lead to the promotion or avoidance of the change initiative.
Our paper also provides a comprehensive taxonomy of RC sources composed of 22 sub-typologies distinguished into 5 typologies, which organizes, structures, summarizes, and describes 126 specific RC sources reported by empirical research. This encourages the identification, evaluation, and intervention of these sources in favor of understanding the issue and making organizational improvements. Besides, this taxonomy allows information practitioners to identify study topics/subtopics regarding RC in the organizational setting. Thus, the proposed taxonomy enables managers and practitioners to recognize and consider the RC sources (typologies and sub-typologies) to anticipate and mitigate conflicts, failures, and waste of resources in settings of change initiatives in organizations. Likewise, leaders of social movements, unions, and assemblies, among others, can find useful information in this study to recognize the factors to be considered when they are considering modifications to change initiatives and to enable consensus between different actors of change. Future research should also focus on RC sources associated with collective movements in organizations since they were only treated in 17% of the reviewed studies.
This study motivates the consideration of actors, interrelationships, collective movements, and exogenous factors associated with RC in organizations, which are essential for a better understanding of RC, its consequences, and the ways to address it.

Limitations
Despite having strongly cared to carry out a reliable and exhaustive systematic literature review, this study is not without some limitations. Although Scopus and the WoS are the most recognized and complete bibliographic databases worldwide, other studies that are not included in these databases could have been omitted; therefore, we suggest that future studies should analyze the generalizability of the present findings using additional databases. Likewise, although English is the main language of science, other possible relevant works could have been overlooked due to being published in different languages. Thus, other studies could use the present work as a guide to examine RC sources in organizations from geographic areas with specific languages, such as Mandarin, Portuguese, Arabic, French, and German.