“The Post-Neoliberal Imperative: Contesting the Next Economic Paradigm” by Jennifer M. Harris. Credit: Cinta Fosch / Foreign Affairs. For editorial and educational purposes. All rights reserved by Foreign Affairs / Council on Foreign Relations.
Yin, Mueller & Wakslak (2024), in their review, published in the Academy of Management Annals, synthesize seven research clusters (marketing, technological innovation adoption, creativity, voice, macro-organizational change, micro-organizational change, individual adaptation) into a unified Domain of Uncertainty (DOU) framework.
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
It identifies four key questions people ask when facing change: What is the change? (conceptual), What is its value? (functional), How will it happen? (process), And what is the broader impact? (impact).
The framework explains when people resist or embrace change and how change agents can foster positive reactions.
Seven siloed research clusters on reactions to change
Research on how individuals react to change spans management, psychology, and marketing — but different communities rarely speak to each other. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of 259 empirical articles and identified seven distinct clusters, each with its own focus:
Three broad research questions
- How people evaluate new things (Clusters 1–3: marketing, tech adoption, creativity) → focus on functional value and process
- How decision-makers evaluate change (Clusters 4–5: voice, macro-organizational change first stream) → focus on functional value and impact
- How change recipients evaluate change (Clusters 5–7: macro second stream, micro, adaptation) → focus on process and impact
The Domain of Uncertainty (DOU) Framework
When confronted with change, people seek to reduce uncertainty. The authors identify four distinct domains of uncertainty, each reflected in a specific question:
“What is the change?”
People struggle to understand the nature of the change itself. Common when change is highly novel or abstract (e.g., strategic change, new product categories).
Primary clusters: Marketing, macro-organizational change
“What is the value of the change?”
People question whether the change offers improvement over the status quo. Central to adoption decisions for products, ideas, and organizational changes.
Primary clusters: Marketing, tech adoption, creativity, voice, macro change
“How will the change come about?”
People worry about the difficulty of implementing or adapting to the change — switching costs, learning curves, organizational support.
Primary clusters: Marketing, tech adoption, macro/micro change, individual adaptation
“What is the broader impact of the change?”
People consider how change affects their status, identity, job security, and other personal goals beyond the change’s stated purpose.
Primary clusters: Voice, macro/micro organizational change
Direct vs. indirect routes to reducing uncertainty
Direct uncertainty reduction: Accessing information directly relevant to the question (e.g., reading product reviews to assess value, observing others’ implementation experiences to assess process).
Indirect uncertainty reduction: Relying on cues not directly related to the question — the reputation of the change agent, one’s own mood, trust in leadership, perceptions of fairness, etc.
Key insight
- When direct information is unavailable or unreliable, people default to indirect cues.
- This explains why seemingly “irrelevant” factors (mood, trust, weather) influence reactions to change.
- Different clusters have focused on different indirect cues — the DOU framework integrates these findings.
How change features shape uncertainty reduction
When change is highly novel (radical/discontinuous), it doesn’t fit existing schemas. Direct information is scarce → people rely more on indirect cues.
Examples: Really new products, discontinuous technologies, radical organizational change
When change is highly ambiguous, people don’t know how to interpret it. Abstract labels (strategy, identity) or conflicting messages make direct reduction difficult.
Examples: Strategic change, identity change, early-stage ideas
Early-stage changes are doubly challenging
- Early-stage ideas/projects are both highly novel AND highly ambiguous.
- Information is scant, metrics are unavailable, and interpretation is unclear.
- This explains why managers often reject early-stage ideas — not because ideas are bad, but because uncertainty is difficult to reduce.
Individual differences and change agent strategies
Dispositional tendencies
- Tolerance of ambiguity
- Intolerance of uncertainty
- Need for closure
- Openness to experience
- Dispositional resistance to change
Lower comfort → more negative reactions to change
- Regulatory focus (prevention vs. promotion)
- Self-efficacy
- Locus of control
- Positive affectivity
- Cognitive flexibility
More negative expectations → more negative reactions to change
Strategies change agents can use (by DOU)
- Conceptual uncertainty: Use analogies, metaphors, mental simulation, narratives, gestures, and concrete examples to help people understand what the change is.
- Functional value uncertainty: Communicate benefits, compare to alternatives, create “small wins,” align framing with evaluator’s mindset (abstract “why” for novices, concrete “how” for experts).
- Process uncertainty: Provide transparent communication about implementation, training, support, and involve affected individuals in decisions.
- Impact uncertainty: Frame status/identity implications positively, affirm status, align change with culture/identity, enhance fairness perceptions.
Implications for research and practice
Open questions for future research
- What makes a DOU relevant? Responsibility, accountability, and temporal distance may shape which uncertainty domains matter most.
- How do people handle multiple DOUs simultaneously? When change is positive in one domain (e.g., functional value) but negative in another (e.g., impact), how do people reconcile conflicting reactions?
- Can uncertainty create positive reactions? Uncertainty isn’t always negative — excitement, curiosity, and awe can be evoked by change and lead to more positive responses.
- How can the DOU framework bridge macro and micro organizational change research? Macro research has examined conceptual uncertainty; micro research has not — there is opportunity for cross-pollination.
Practical takeaway
Change inherently involves uncertainty, but not all uncertainty is the same. To successfully implement change, leaders must identify which questions their stakeholders are asking (conceptual, functional, process, or impact) and address those specific uncertainties — directly when possible, indirectly when direct information is unavailable. One size does not fit all.
Full reference
Yin, Y., Mueller, J., & Wakslak, C. (2024). Understanding how people react to change: A domain of uncertainty approach. Academy of Management Annals, 18(2), 712‑754. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0033
Key contributions: Integration of 7 research clusters; identification of 4 DOUs; framework for understanding when people resist vs. embrace change; practical strategies for change agents.
This summary is for educational and commentary purposes. All findings are accurately represented from the original article.
