Forms of Workplace Resistance Working for Managers - Essay Example

Explain the arguments that many forms of workplace resistance are in fact functional for managers. Do you agree? I. Introduction Usually the conflicts in the workplace refer to the employees’ personal attitudes however there are many cases where these conflicts appear as a result of specific managerial decisions related with the implementation of particular plans in a specific organizational sector. These conflicts then can be characterized broadly as ‘resistance’ and can have many forms in accordance with the methods chosen by the employees against the plans proposed by the firm’s managers. In order to handle the above conflicts, managers proceed to the design and implementation of appropriate schemes that can reduce workplace resistance and promote the creative communication and cooperation among employees. However, in many cases, the effects of resistance in the workplace can continue for long. In this case, it is the manager’s responsibility to identify the potential chances, i.e. conditions which will be positive towards the development of a particular plan of change trying not to affect the worker’s fundamental rights and benefits. II. Workplace resistance – description and characteristics In order to create the necessary conditions for the development of employees’ performance, we should primarily proceed to a thorough examination of the workplace in order to identify any possible elements that could create constraints in the relevant effort. In this context, workplace could be considered as a network of relationships within a particular organization that have a significant importance for all individuals of the specific organization (Sias, 2005). Because of the importance of workplace relationships as described above, it is necessary for managers to ensure that there are no conflicts within the organizational environment or if any dispute appears, it has to be handled carefully, trying to avoid the expansion of the problem. Handling of resistance in the workplace can be an extremely difficult task for any manager. For this reason Karp (2000) supported that resistance should be regarded by the designers of the diversity plans with a particular organization as having a positive influence on the employees’ performance rather than ‘reducing’ it. In other words, because resistance is a common phenomenon for the workplace no matter the industry involved, it is necessary for the managers to adopt a ‘friendly’ strategy when handling it in order to gain specific advantages. In this context, Karp et al. (2000) found that the following issues related with resistance in workplace should be taken into consideration by managers: resistance exists within all organizations. On the other hand, resistance could operate as a protection tool for the organization being a source of positive energy and increasing the performance of the employees participated in the particular workplace. In case that the managers will consider the above principles when dealing with resistance, it is very likely that the particular situation will become an advantage for the enterprise instead of a resource of delays and decrease of productivity. The reasons for the appearance of resistance in the workplace can be identified – as already described above – in the plans of change proposed by the firm’s managers. Organizations need to deal with their employees’ emotions. Such a strategy could not be regarded as a weakness for a particular firm but rather as a criterion of success regarding the application of particular corporate plans. The importance of the workplace relations has been also highlighted by Frankel (2002) who noticed that the relations developed within a particular organization can have a significant influence on the personal lives of the employees. At the same time, these relations can operate as indicators of the social, financial and political conditions of the area in which the particular organization operates. Workplace relations are therefore recognized as a primary element for the success of any organizational plan, however, because of their complexity a specific strategy needs to be implemented in the workplace for their evaluation. On the other hand, the appearance of variations and changes in the workplace is a common phenomenon that should be taken into account when designing and implementing any relevant plan of action. In fact, the study of Frankel (2002) showed that the variations in the workplace can be explained by many facts, however the most crucial factors in the development of differentiations within the workplace are: the financial and labour conditions of the market, the structure and the culture of the particular organization and the manager’s personal attitudes regarding the management of human resources. However, even if all the above issues are taken into account, the existence of turbulences in the workplace cannot be avoided. These turbulences can result from a series of events but the existence of high diversity in the workplace has been found most commonly to lead to strong conflicts within the organizational environment especially when there are no specific measures for the co-existence of employees from different cultural and educational backgrounds. Towards this direction, the study of Muir (1996) showed that the recognition of the importance of diversity in the workplace has led to the creation of relevant schemes that guarantee the equality within the organization; however this effort can be led to the failure if appropriate have not been taken for the implementation of the relevant strategy in the above organization. The identification of the problem cannot lead to its resolution by itself. There are specific measures that need to be implemented within the organization both in the short and the long term in order to avoid similar conditions. The creation of a ‘high-performance’ workplace as suggested by many theorists in the literature can be possibly helpful for the effective handling of conflicts in the organization. Parks (1995) supports this view stating that workplaces of this type can include a series of advantages for employees like the improvement in methods of payment, the creation of an effective decision making scheme, the provision of appropriate training to the employees and the existence of higher flexibility in the workplace. The participation of employees in the above schemes should be considered as the main element of success of the relevant corporate plan. However, it is necessary that all the appropriate measures have been taken in order for these strategies to be successfully implemented. Lack of preparation at this point can lead to the failure of the corporate plans. The effects of lack of appropriate preparation when attempting to implement specific organizational measures has been studied by Muir (1996) who used as an example the implementation of specific diversity strategies within the organization. The above study proved that the potential failure of these strategies can be explained by the lack o appropriate preparation by the manager. In other words, if the relevant scheme has been designed without examining previously very carefully the problems arisen in a particular workplace because of the absence of diversity, it is very likely that this scheme will be led to a failure. On the other hand, it should be noticed that even if all appropriate preparations have been made regarding the implementation of a particular strategy of change within a specific organization, it is likely that phenomena of resistance will appear. These phenomena can take various forms, even dangerous for the firm as an entity, most common of which is sabotage which is defined as “any deliberate action or inaction that is intended to damage, destroy, or disrupt some aspect of the workplace environment, including the organizationss property, product, or reputation” (Morill et al. 2003, 391). The effects of sabotage in the firm’s operation can be many. Moreover, it should be noticed that sabotage can take various forms most important of which are the following two: ‘sabotage by direct action’ and ‘sabotage by circumvention’. Both the above forms cause severe problems to the firm involved. More specifically, the former “describes behaviours that directly "damage or destroy organizational property or products," whereas the latter refers to actions that facilitate other events or situations that eventually harm an organization” (Morill et al., 2003, 391). There are also cases where sabotage is not visible though it may continue for a significant period of time. In all cases, the reaction of the firm’s management team should be analogous with the damage caused. As for the punishment of the responsible persons, it would be more valuable for the managers to identify the reasons for the particular action in order to handle it successfully not only in the specific case but mostly in the future. II. Workplace resistance and managers Managers have a role of primary importance regarding the handling of resistance within the organization. However, their responses to the phenomenon can be differentiated in accordance with their attitudes. More specifically, the study of Engel (1997) showed that there is a significant differentiation between traditional and non-traditional managers. The formers tend to reject any proposal for innovative management practices having the opinion that such a strategy could threaten the ‘traditional’ structure of the organization and possibly affects its operation. On the other hand, the non – traditional managers promote the team working and communication in the workplace trying to participate equally in any relevant plan. The role of managers in handling conflicts in the workplace has been also examined by Muir (1996, 478) who supported that manager can participate actively in the resolution of any problem appeared in the workplace including the development of resistance by the employees against a proposed plan of change. In any case, any relevant plan of action will be influenced by the managers’ attitudes and for this reason, any potential failure (even partially) should be justified – at least in the short term. This issue has been studied by Miller (1994) who came to the result that the managers within the organization can proceed to the development and the implementation of appropriate plans of change; however they have to take into account that these plans have to be in accordance with the demands of the specific market, the corporate culture and the personal attitudes of the employeesOn the other hand, because there are specific standards for the design and the implementation of any corporate plan, it would be preferable for the manager to follow them at least in the initial phase of the strategy’s implementation. As for the example used above, diversity training, it has to be noticed that it is a common phenomenon in the workplace and for this reason it has been chosen as a basis for the theoretical explanation of managers’ role in the inter-organizational conflicts. Towards the same direction, it has been supported by Karp et al. (2000) that when designing and implementing diversity strategies, managers should focus on the personal attitudes of the employees trying to propose changes that will be accepted positively by employees and which will not significant differentiations in the traditional structure and operation of the particular organization. Diversity is considered to be a major problem for any organization. It can lead to severe conflicts within a particular organization if not been handled successfully in the first instance. At a next level, it is a common source of resistance in the workplace and for this reason it has to be studied thoroughly. The identification of resistance in the workplace is a major task for managers. In this context, Karp et al. (2000) has presented specific facts that can help managers to identify the existence of resistance in a particular workplace. In accordance with the above study the creation of resistance is the expected effect of the manager’s behaviour within a particular workplace. More specifically, as soon as the manager impose a particular situation to one or more of the employees, resistance is expected to appear (Karp et al., 2000). On the other hand, the reaction of managers in resistance should be immediate. However, managers should take all appropriate measures in order to protect their company from such phenomena. The fair and effective treatment of all employees is a first and significant initiative towards this direction. For this reason, it has been supported by Rowden (1999, 22) that ‘the new business context is prompting managements to take a greater interest in the utilization of their organizations’ human resources”. From a similar point of view Cooper (1997, 79) notices that “based on partnerships among human resources developers, managers, and peers, the workplace can provide opportunities for team-based learning and growth in basic competencies such as listening; that is, the work environment itself can become a development tool”. However, the retrieval of the appropriate methods of reaction in the resistance occurred in the workplace is not an easy task. However, there are certain methods which – if followed – can help managers to successfully face resistance in the workplace. The application of the above measures can be really helpful to the managers that are trying to handle specific resistance – related problems in the workplace. However, it should be taken into account that the above measures should be differentiated in any case in order to meet the requirements of each particular organization. In general, it is stated by Coombs et al. (2004) that managers should understand primarily that within the workplace, their behaviour is of critical importance as it can lead to the development of resistance. However, the most important issue for managers trying to effectively handle cases of resistance in the workplace is to understand their role and their potential to ‘turn’ the situation in favour of the organization transforming the disadvantages of resistance into advantages, i.e. into reasons for the improvement of the corporate performance and the increase of communication in the workplace. III. Conclusion and recommendations The confrontation of resistance in the workplace is a challenging task for all managers. On the other hand, the measures used cannot guarantee the success of the effort. However, the use of change agents within the organization has been proved to be particularly effective. More specifically, the study of Muir (1996) showed that managers should use ‘change agents’ who are people that have the responsibility for the development of a particular ‘trend’ within a specific organization. These change agents will proceed to all activities suggested by the firm’s manager trying to make sure that all activities are performed on time having the expected qualityIn any case, the use of change agents should be decided in accordance with the conditions of the organizational workplace – if this one could accept such a strategy. Towards this direction, the study of Jackson et al. (1995) showed that employees use to examine thoroughly every change strategy proposed by the organization in order to identify any potential differentiation of their roles or their value within the specific organization. Because of the existence of such differentiations, the provision of quality information to the employees is a necessary element of the organizational success. For this reason, it has been found that “practitioners in troubled organizations (e.g., those with high levels of turnover, low levels of performance and morale) might examine the quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationships in their organizations to determine how that might be detracting from the dispersion of quality information throughout the organization” (Sias, 2005, 385). On the other hand, there are cases where the quality of information provided to employees cannot be examined in advance. It is usually afterwards – when examining the level of performance of employees – that the information provided to employees is evaluated. On the other hand, the development of technology and the changes taking place in the workplace have created new criteria of corporate success. In this context, it is noticed that “flattened managerial hierarchies, the domination of teams and work groups, and new patterns of work (such as home-based work sites, job-sharing, and variable work hours) will become the norm rather than the exception; in addition, an increase in the number of diverse, multi-generational employees will force attention upon social, cultural and value-based issues” (Cooper, 1997, 79). The development of relations in the workplace and the phenomena of resistance in the organizational plans proposed will have to face a significant challenge in the years to come. Trends for redundancy practices applied by the companies worldwide are expecting to change the corporate relations at a significant level. In this context, managers in organizations have to realize that resistance in the workplace could also operate positively. For this reason, they have to deal with resistance and try to analyze employee attitudes and behaviours in the workplace. If they apply such a strategy there are specific benefits that will appear in the short term. However, in order for the above benefits to result, managers should make in prior all necessary preparation making sure that any potential negative outcome will be avoided. Of course such an initiative will have specific risks. For this reason, it has been found by Parks (1995, 21) that “the greater uncertainties associated with the labour, capital, and more fragmented product markets require more dynamic and flexible responses from firms; these responses are characterized as a reliance on small incremental adjustments, resistance to fundamental modifications, and the use of traditional strategies to maximize efficiency by relying on bureaucratic structures”. In other words, possible risks can be avoided if managers follow a ‘dynamic’ behaviour when applying plans of change within the organization. Such an attitude will probably prohibit the appearance of resistance in the workplace regarding the implementation of these plans. It could be also noticed that the implementation of ‘favourable’ for the employees plans of change can lead to the increase of corporate performance. The improvement of the firm’s image to the public could be also expected. In this context, it has been found by Comer et al. (1996, 47) that there are organizations that decide to design and implement specific diversity programs not because of the necessity of these programs for the development of diversity within the workplace but for reasons of marketing. In other words, the reactions of the public are considered particularly important and for this reason they are always taken into account when planning and applying a specific plan of change. However, this reaction of the public is not always the case. Resistance can improve the firm’s performance through the application of the appropriate measures and the increase of communication within a particular corporate environment. The increase of company’s profitability is then expected to follow. In accordance with the above, organizational resistance can be both positive and negative for the organization. However, regarding the issues already examined, workplace resistance tends to have a negative impact on the organizational performance causing delays on the performance of employees and reducing the firm’s profits. Only if the manager has the appropriate competencies, this resistance (negative primarily) can be transformed into a ‘positive’ power leading to the improvement of the organizational performance. References Comer, D., Soliman, C. (1996) Organizational Efforts to Manage Diversity: Do They Really Work? Journal of Managerial Issues, 8(4): 470-480 Coombs, T., Holladay, S. (2004). Understanding the Aggressive Workplace: Development of the Workplace Aggression Tolerance Questionnaire. Communication Studies, 55(3): 481-497 Engel, M. (1997) The New Non-Manager Managers. Management Quarterly, 38(2): 22-27 Frenkel, S. (2002). Workplace Relations: Past, Present and Future. Australian Journal of Management, 27(2): 149-158 Huy, O. (2002). Emotional Balancing of Organizational Continuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of Middle Managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1): 31-66 Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. (1995) ‘Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environments’, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237-258 Miller, E. (1994) Diversity and Its Management: Training Managers for Cultural Competence within the Organization. Management Quarterly, 35(2): 17-24 Morill, C., Rao, H., Zald, M. (2003). Covert Political Conflict in Organizations: Challenges from Below. Annual Review of Sociology, 29: 391-413 Muir, C. (1996) Workplace Readiness for Communicating Diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(4): 475-483 Parks, S. (1995) Improving Workplace Performance: Historical and Theoretical Contexts. Monthly Labor Review, 118(5): 18-32 Sias, P. (2005) Workplace Relationship Quality and Employee Information Experiences. Communication Studies, 56(4): 375-392 Read More