Reward Power – universities are granted new funding or increased research funding if they meet the requirements of weapons manufacturers.

Expert Power – universities trust the expertise of weapons manufacturers in an area of research that is new for them.

Legitimate Power – universities accept the authority of weapons manufacturers and express their obligation through reciprocity and responsibility.

Demographics – the students were not only thinking of their local university context, but were responding to the influence of weapons manufacturers on government policy and global conflicts.

Efficacy – as students of the university, they felt that their protests were more likely to gain traction than the protests of the general public.

Group Membership – students acted collectively to lobby for the university leadership to become transparent about their involvement with weapons manufacturers.

Transaction/Interaction Salience – students were concerned by the secrecy applied by the university leadership to funding received from weapons manufacturers.

Resources – students centred their protests on their own university campus and set up spaces to highlight their concerns and to call for transparency.

Benefit-Cost Analysis – students committed to a sustained protest, believing that a change in approach by the university was achievable.

This expression of structural power relies on commercial in-confidence arrangements which conflicts with the transparency and academic freedom that normally characterises universities.

In relation to "power over", three significant internal stakeholders have influenced the project outcomes - legitimate position power expressed by the CEO and Board and expert power by the new COO, who is leading the CRM Project.

In terms of “power to”, the CRM project was designed to enable the day-to-day work of engaging with clients and provide benefits for employees in being able to document their interactions and collaborate internally and externally.  A divergence in the responses made by different employees and groups of employees became apparent.

One client team works in a highly collaborative manner, based in the same office, and were highly impacted by push factors (group membership and transaction/interaction salience), engaging strongly with the CRM in their daily work together, as they believed it would be of great benefit to them and enable them to serve their clients well.  

Another client team operates in a highly geographically dispersed manner and has a much weaker sense of group membership. They have been impacted significantly by their own cost-benefit analysis, believing that the benefits of the CRM do not compensate for the loss of autonomy and the difficulty in using it.

Passive resistance has been apparent in this group – emotions of anxiety and frustration, disengaged resistance (indifference to the CRM), non-compliance with use of the CRM (inferred but not overtly stated), negativity (focussing on the problems and ignoring the benefits of the CRM), avoidant resistance (work arounds and maintaining legacy systems) and maintaining secrecy (not being upfront about concerns and how they can be addressed).

It is clear from the ADKAR model that more work needs to be done to “circle back” earlier in the change journey, to acknowledge and address resistance through a combination of “power over” and “power to” approaches.

This would involve revisiting the earlier stages of Awareness Desire and Knowledge to improve recognition of the need for change, increase levels of motivation to participate in and support the change and ensuring that all employees have what they need to engage in the change.

Emotional resistance - because there is likely anger and frustration; anger that the decision is seen as unethical and promoting conflict, and frustration that there isn't an alternative way to make their voices heard.

Acting out resistance - the protest is a form of conflict.

Reward Power - the funding decisions from weapons companies to a particular research project at a particular university can be seen as a reward given how competitive this type of funding is likely to be.

Coercive Power - the opposite of reward power in this circumstance. The funding decision can be reversed and awarded to competitor research groups or universities.

Referent Power - where the people receiving the funding are 'beholden' to the weapons companies. Depending on a university's or researcher's world view, they may be looking to emulate the world view of the weapons company who is providing the funding.

Transaction/Interaction Salience - Similar to efficacy, protest is a very visible way of showing dissatisfaction with a situation - not just noticed by the universities, but much more publicly

Benefit-Cost Analysis - Students are likely already on the university campus and so getting together to protest there has a low cost. The benefit is that their presence at a protest is very visible and may be able to persuade others to join in (also on campus and so a low cost to participate)

Stakeholder profile - the protesting students are clearly invested in the reputation of their university, and are using protest to directly demonstrate their concern.

In situations where our audit opinion may go counter to management's opinion, there is significant stakeholder engagement to agree a position. The content in this module is useful in understanding relationships between groups and how this can support ways of engagement which lead to minimal conflict when reporting on the audit outcome.

At the same time as a reporting position needs to be agreed there is the conflict that Internal Audit is to operate independently, so as not to have the opinion outcome influenced by management (an example of power over). Those in the internal audit team may also wish to work elsewhere in the company in future, and so exercising the power over the business (in the opposite direction) may also limit opportunities.

Structural resistance occurred because students wanted universities to change their policies and relationships with weapons manufacturers. They were asking for greater transparency and for universities to stop investing in or working with these companies.

• they were concerned that university partnerships supported weapons used in wars;

• universities were not transparent about their defence contracts and investments;

• these partnerships conflicted with students’ values and human rights;

• defence funding could influence university research; and

• students felt protests were needed to make universities listen and take action.

Reward Power: The offering of funding or increased funding for research.

Legitimate Power: Universities may feel a sense of obligation and reciprocity.

Transaction / Interaction Salience - Dissatisfied with the Universities decision and lack of transparency.

Demographics - The students collective interest in their learning and further education and what that means for their future.

Stakeholder Profile - the emotional investment to their learning and future.

Their protests, campaigns and public discussions also showed collective resistance, where students used their shared voice to challenge decisions made by people with greater institutional and financial power.

For me, this shows that resistance can be constructive. It can push organisations to be more transparent, explain their decisions and consider the ethical impact on different stakeholders.

• Reward power – companies can provide research funding, scholarships, jobs and other opportunities to universities and students.

• Legitimate power – universities and defence companies have formal authority and influence through contracts and partnerships.

• Expert power – weapons manufacturers bring specialised technology, engineering knowledge and industry expertise.

• Referent power – large companies such as Lockheed Martin can carry reputation and status, which may make partnerships attractive to universities.

• Coercive power less obvious, but financial dependence could make universities reluctant to challenge or end partnerships.

There may also have been frustration about a lack of transparency or student involvement in these decisions. For some students, protesting was a way to have their voices heard and encourage the university to reconsider whether these partnerships matched its social responsibilities.

For students, this can create an imbalance because they may have limited formal power over these partnerships. It shows how power sits within the structure of an organisation, not just with individual people.

Looking back, using the ADKAR model would have helped me understand that resistance was not always about people being difficult. Some employees may not have had enough awareness of why the change was needed, enough knowledge about how to use the system, or a clear understanding of the benefits to them.

Using tools such as ADKAR, power mapping and stakeholder analysis would have helped identify concerns earlier, provide better training and communication, and involve employees more meaningfully in the change process.