The Issue of Resistance to Organisational Change - Research Paper Example

?Critically analyze the issue of resistance to change and discuss ways of handling it, at an individual and group level. Today, new trends, new issues and new tensions characterise the environment that organisations must operate in. It is brought about by powerful forces such as technology, globalization and even politics. Managers have to cope with their tremendous impact on organisational processes and must adopt sudden changes in order for their organisations to survive. This paper explores the rationale behind change interventions and the difficulty in implementing them in organisations. In addition, this paper will explain two approaches that may become critical in addressing such difficulty: project management and systems approach to management. Change in Organisations There are at least three important changes in organisational life today. First, there is the case of changing the organisational goals and objectives. An organisation passes through a life cycle and that, along the way, it is inevitable to make modifications in order to address and adapt to unforeseen challenges as well as new opportunities. Managers, in these cases, revise organisational objectives in order to enforce better management and operational initiatives (Stam and Andriessen, 2009, p. 136). Changing this fundamental aspect in an organisation entails far ranging restructuring and shifts. It involves the changing the rationale behind the organisation’s existence. Secondly, there is cultural change. It is the next logical step once a strategic change is adopted or when management decides to change the organisational goals and objectives. The rationale is that in order to achieve effective change in that direction, a gradual change in mentalities must be achieved as well (Hamalainen and Saarinen, 2004, p.143). This is crucial in changing the organisational behaviour. Finally, there is the shortened organisational life cycle, which according to Nelson et al., are the life-stages of an organisation beginning with its birth, growth, maturity and its inevitable decline and potential revival (Nelson et al., 2012, p.258). Technology plays an important part in the emergence of this trend. The new capabilities brought about by this variable have revolutionized many processes, streamlining most of them. In tandem with several external variables such as the spurt of innovations in the market, the increase in competition, and the level of complexity of the supply chain, among others, it forces organisations to change. Resistance Resistance to change is inherent in every organisation. This is the general consensus in academic literature and is largely based on the principle that organisations are made up of human beings and that resistance is part of human characteristics (Passmore, Woodman and Shani, 2010, p.234). Even researchers and academics who question the assumption of such pervasiveness, tacitly recognize the inevitability of resistance when they argue in focusing on the differences and contexts in the way people respond to change (Fisher and Howell, 2004; Piderit, 2000). The human variable in this theme ensures the persistence of such behaviour and underpins the methods behind change initiatives. Several thoughts attempted to explain resistance as a concept. For example, there is the position that it is “a reactive process where agents embedded in power relations oppose initiatives by other agents” (Jermier et al., 1994, p.9). The breadth of scholarly work and empirical evidences on this subject show conceptualizations of resistance as a behaviour, emotion and belief that determine the way people respond to change (Piderit, 2000, p.786). All in all, the theoretical and empirical evidences highlight the dominant view that resistance is both negative and counterproductive in implementing change; hence, it must be addressed. An excellent way to demonstrate the difficulty in handling resistance to change at the group level is to explain the dynamics of an approach in forming a team. When one is building a team from the ground up, a widely used step is the Behavioural Event Interview (BEI), which essentially provides the tools in selecting the best candidate that are not only skillful but also those that will contribute meaningfully to the objectives of the organisation (Grosse, 2002, p.1). This highlights the fact that the perceived best candidates that would constitute such a team are not necessarily those highly skilled individuals. The BEI works because it identifies the right members that could contribute best in the team’s objectives and activities. Dubois’ (1998, p.235) study has found that this approach reveals not only the competency of an individual but, more importantly, the pattern of behaviour which would reveal whether an individual’s behavioural pattern is aligned and appropriate to the team’s goals and activities. Imagine, hence, when one needs to handle an existing team and introduce change interventions. There are no opportunities to choose the right candidates. Instead, there is an existing workplace, employees and, hence, well entrenched patterns of behaviours and culture. The task of changing an organisation becomes incredibly complex on account of the sheer strength of the resistance from either the individual level or the group level. In order to address the dilemma, one could turn to two important concepts in management: project management and systems theory. The Change Project In understanding change, one should view it as process as opposed to a mere event. Van Tiem, Moseley and Dessinger (2012, p.74) explained this further by identifying five stages that supposedly accomplish change. These are: Awareness, Curiousity, Visualization, Tryout and Use and are addressed by advertisement, information dissemination, demonstration, training and support, respectively. The dynamics of these variables necessitate a systematic strategy in order to be effective. This is where project management could come in. Essentially, project management is an organisational operation, which entails the completion of a set of tasks in order to produce or provide (Andersen, Grude and Haug, 2009, p.9). As an organisational process, this is usually adopted in product development, implementing strategies, objectives, campaigns and other organisational initiatives. As a change intervention strategy it will take on the entire organisation in a huge wide-reaching process as opposed to being a mere aspect of the organisational operations or strategy. It will be like an organisation change project, with a goal of introducing and implementing a sudden, radical and purposeful change. Organisations traditionally rely on the organisational structure and communication, with the expectation that workers with different function will logically achieve objectives. However, tasks and projects can be typified by unforeseen risks and problems that emerge in their duration. That is why organisations adopt the project approach, which is seen as highly efficient and effective method in the management of both tasks and risks within a specific project (Andersen, Grude and Haug, 2009, p.9). Management, for its part, is consisted of the organisation of resources and the work so that goals and targets are achieved. According to Andersen, Grude and Haug (2000, p.6), management provides the framework by which work and the organisation are harnessed in order to deliver a composite result. Walker (2007) provided a specific definition of project management, opting to explain it in terms of the traditional project management and the soft technique. The traditional technique also known as the hard system approach consider project management as the quantitative techniques in project planning, scheduling and control whereas the soft system approach focuses on project management as a process that consider factors such as human behaviour in addition to techniques such as the scientific method (Walker, 2007, p.66). Based on the body of literature, one could conclude that, overall, project management is composed of varied management styles and activities adopted to ensure effective and successful project performance. In the context of systems approach, management is employed not just to organize resources in order to achieve objectives but also to manage tensions that emerge in the process. This particular aspect necessitated project management and the systems approach to it. The use of project management strategy to change intervention is not without precedence or support. Van Tiem, Moseley and Dessinger (2012, p.502), for example, explained the how project management provides the structure “that supports successful intervention implementations and maintenance,” and at the same time “it is also a technique for enabling successful change.” The extant literature demonstrates the theoretical underpinnings that rationalize its use as a method in change interventions. There are several cases that depict the use of project management in change interventions. In a case study involving a municipal service unit for Vienna, for instance, the person in charge was a project manager (Ellinger, Watkins and Marsick, 2009, p.20). The change intervention initiatives included a comprehensive restructuring strategy; a shift in focus towards customer-oriented operation, autonomous budget responsibility, team leadership; incentive system; and, a general quality orientation (p.20). All these strategies were implemented within overarching grand plan, with the ultimate objective of changing the culture, behaviour and orientation of the organisation. There is also the work of Todnem By and Macleod (2012, p.193) on public sector institutions wherein they recommended – based on an examination of several change management initiatives - that in order for change to be effectively introduced and implemented, it is crucial to improve project management skills, along with drive to increase employee commitment to change. The theoretical explanations and empirical evidence to its use, makes project management – as a framework – effective in effecting change in organisations. The impact, however, can further be enhanced when complemented by other approaches. In this respect, one could use the systems approach to management. Systems Approach When viewed as a project, change management is then understood and approached as a complex process. The adoption of this pluralistic perspective would lead to the development of control mechanisms and effective management based of the systems approach to reform. Gregory outlined this as he contextualized the link of control to the systems approach. He stressed: Control is a key systems concept and systems thinking [that] can help managers come to understand that work is all about changing and managing the interactions between system variables in order to bring about more desirable emergent properties and maximize the performance of the whole rather than parts (Gregory, 2007, p.1506). Gregory (2007, p.1506) highlighted an important character of a complex project in his comment over the UK example – that it is ever changing and ever expanding, with interactions facilitated by interrelated variables. The most important aspect of this characteristic in systems approach is the recognition of the complexity as a given and as a necessity. Control is only wielded in order to effectively manage them and drive the flexibility of organisations to adapt accordingly. The level of control and integration allowed enable change agents and managers embrace pluralities and tensions but ensure that change initiatives are steered to its successful completion. A specific example of initiatives pursued to reform the UK public sector is the protocols introduced in construction procurement being implemented by the Office of Government Commerce. These protocols are innovations that result from the above principles. When Hall and Holt (2003, p.273) conducted a study of 122 completed construction projects within a two-year period, they found that because of good practices linked to the reforms in project management, public construction procurement has markedly and continuously increased. The traditional project management has a weakness. It is focused on the performance of the parts. The systems approach addresses this vulnerability by emphasizing on the performance of the whole system, including the interaction within. Conclusion There are two important elements in organisational change: the changes itself and the resistance to these changes. The former is an organisational response to external and internal variables in a bid to survive and thrive. It is, hence, an imperative. For many for-profit organisations, a failure in this respect could mean the loss of resources, efficiencies and competitive advantage. Resistance is a natural response to change. Since organisations are composed of human beings living in different contexts, it is to be expected. Project management and systems approach are frameworks that aim to address these elements. These strategies highlight the extent of the change project. They underpin the need for a system, one that would let change agents control the complexities involved in the process. In addition, they highlight the aspect that any change project requires an understanding of human nature and the dynamics of organisational behaviour and culture. References Andersen, E., Grude, K., and Haug, T., 2009. Goal Directed Project Management: Effective Techniques and Strategies. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Dubois, D., 1998. The Competency Casebook: Twelve Studies in Competency-based Performance Improvement. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Ellinger, A., Watkins, K., and Marsick, V., 2009. Research in Organisations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Fisher, S.L. and Howell, A.W., 2004. Beyond user experience: An examination of employee reactions to information technology systems. Human Resource Management, 43(2), 243-258. Gregory, A., 2007. Target Setting, Lean Systems and Viable Systems: A Systems Perspective on Control and Performance Measurement. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(11), pp. 1503-1517. Grosse, E., 2002. Interview Skills for Managers. American Society for Training and Development. Hall, M., and Holt, R., 2003. Developing a Culture of Performance Learning in U.K. Public Sector Project Management. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(3), pp.263-275. Hamalainen, R. and Saarinen, E., 2004. Systems Intelligence - Discovering a Hidden Competence in Human Action and Organisational Life. Helsinki: SAL Research Reports. Jermier, J.M., Knights, D., and Nord, W.R., 1994. Resistance and power in organisations. London: Routledge. Nelson, D., Armstrong, A., Condie, J. and Quick, J., 2012. ORGB. New York: Cengage Learning. Pasmore, W., Woodman, R., and Shani, A., 2010. Research in Organisational Change and Development. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Pich, M., Loch, C. and de Meyer, A., 2002. On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management. Management Science, 48(8), pp.1008-1023. Piderit, S.K., 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organisational change. Academy of Management Review 25(4), pp.783-794. Stam, C. and Andriessen, D., 2009. Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital, IN Holland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands 28-29 April 2009. Reading, UK: Academic Conferences Limited. Todnem, By, R., Macleod, C., 2012. Managing Organisational Change in Public Services: International Issues, Challenges and Cases. London: Routledge. Walker, A., 2007. Project Management in Construction. 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J., and Dessinger, J., 2012. Fundamentals of Performance Improvement: Optimizing Results through People, Process, and Organisations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Read More