An Age-Old Challenge to Organisational Change - Essay Example

Resistance: An Age-Old Challenge to Organisational Change Introduction Numerous studies have tried to describe the nature, causes, and outcomes of organisational change, why it is extremely hard to attain, and how to effectively manage it. Despite of the abundance of theories, paradigms, and multifaceted change models, organisations still endure poor change outcomes. The failure to cope with internal and/or external changes has been the reason for the downfall of large numbers of organisations. Therefore, the major question to be answered is ‘why is change tremendously challenging?’ This paper discusses why people in an organisation resist change. It also recommends approaches for minimising resistance to change and, thus, achieving successful organisational change. Forces for Organisational Change Organisations normally structure their basic operations along with traditional paradigms, or patterns, in their field. These patterns are a guide for managing organisational behaviour that put emphasis on organisational goals and structure and embody a unique value system. For instance, law and accounting organisations have customarily applied patterns that stressed equality among groups and individual self-reliance (Robbins 2000). A number of patterns are quite recurring and permanent throughout an organisational domain that people think this pattern is the appropriate and most effective organisation approach (Burnes 1996). But organisations at times discard such patterns, deviating from traditional paradigms in their domain, which consequently brings about organisational change. The Force of Innovation Innovative activities diverge radically from existing activities. Innovations may alter the current technology, norms, routines, skills, and outcomes in an organisation. Innovations are prone to generate major cognitive difficulties when they contain a new basic knowledge or new connections among basic concepts, indicating that novelty in relation to the knowledge of the core organisation may create the problem of acceptance or change (Davidson 2002). Organisations with well-built procedures and activities confront the challenge of integrating change in the midst of stability. A traditional procedure has slight uncertainty in implementation and a substantiated history of successes, whereas an innovation has extremely ambiguous future successes (Blake 1992). Moreover, organisations have a tendency to stick to practices that brought good outcomes in the past and are arranged to take advantage of the activities they regard to be competencies or competitive advantage. Thus, the preference of many organisations is to carry on with their existing practices or routines. Innovations are uncommon, yet when they take place, the outcomes for the competitors and the adopter are normally crucial. Organisations perform product and/or service innovations to advance into other businesses, experiment with new technologies, or carry out process innovations to gain higher profits or acquire leverages over competitors (Greve & Taylor 2000). Organisations exploit innovations as means to obtain resources, as witnessed most evidently in the launching of groundbreaking technologies that weaken the existing technological structure. Such technologies are usually not launched by the major companies but by novice competitors. These innovations heighten the research and development activities of current companies and new competitors (Greve & Taylor 2000), as they try to gain knowledge of and become proficient in the technology and for its repercussions for businesses. Only when organisations have opted for a particular way of exploiting new technologies, a governing pattern, does the exhaustive research and development efforts end. This theory of interrupted continuity in technological development has been broadened to encompass other forms of changes in capacities, like changes in organisational structure and market approach (Schraeder, Swamidass & Morrison 2006). The capacity to take advantage of innovations as a competitive advantage grants organisations opportunities to build capabilities to perform their own innovative activities or gain knowledge of those of their competitors (Schraeder et al. 2006). As stated by Greve and Taylor (2000), judgments to acquire the capabilities to build or adopt innovations are particularly vital for organisations, as capabilities are profoundly embedded, hard to imitate, and be used for a significant duration of time. Because innovative activities have both permanent and momentary effects, it is hard to assess their impacts in order to determine the most favourable strategy. Rather, decision makers may depend on a generalised principle of choosing the first option that meets their conditions (Gilley, Godek & Gilley 2009). This agreeable principle is vulnerable to the promptness of decisions and the arrangement of choosing options, rendering the heuristic principles of performing research on options important to the decision. Innovations performed by other entities attract the interest of decision makers, boosting the possibilities that they will select an option in the area of current innovative endeavours of others (Gilley et al. 2009) and, in turn, inducing organisational change. Market and Institutional Forces Organisational change is more prone to take place within organisational domains that have powerful, confined market forces and powerful, but diverse, institutional forces. Firms confront powerful, confined market forces to the degree that strong local competition in the industry and low demand for their products/services arise (D’Aunno, Succi & Alexander 2000). Earlier studies report that competition in a particular industry is forceful at local stages. Poor local demand for the products/services of an organisation and cutthroat competition in the industry at the local stage result in intense organisational changes as weak competitors exit a market on the lookout for alternatives to their existing patterns (D’Aunno et al. 2000). Organisations that have strong statuses in relation to their competitors can behave adequately to preserve their stability. On the contrary, organisations that possess relative weaknesses in major domains, like product differentiation or size, have to initiate major changes in behaviours (D’Aunno et al. 2000) as they look for areas in which they can acquire a strong competitive advantage. Findings from a number of empirical studies indicate that the entrance of a company into a population has sturdier competitive influences on local companies than on those that are more remote. This implies that companies that have identical products/services and are positioned near to local markets will confront comparatively intense competition, since they are attempting to target the same consumer population (Gilley et al. 2009). Consequently, added by Gilley and colleagues (2009), competition in a local market heightens the possibility that at least one of the neighbouring competitors will perform badly and will hence require to initiate organisational change to diverge itself from other organisations and avoid more failures and losses. The size of organisations in relation to competitors in a specific industry is likely to determine which of them will fail and hence be compelled to look for other options. In particular, it is prone to be a competitive weakness for companies that are comparatively smaller than other companies in the local market (D’Aunno et al. 2000). This weakness seems to originate, at least partly, from the powerful capacity of bigger firms to obtain resources that are required to generate products/services effectively and efficiently (D’Aunno et al. 2000). For instance, in comparison to bigger organisations in their local market, undersized organisations will encounter more challenges both in acquiring resources or capital to buy new facilities and technologies and in employing professional staff. Furthermore, organisations confront powerful, diverse, institutional forces to the point that the outside forces are composed of strong but varied cognitive paradigms, norms, and parameters. Organisational change takes place, in theory, when an organisation leaves an institutionalised pattern (Burnes 1996). This change is likely when an organisational domain has diverse institutional components that are in conflict with the prevailing paradigm; these circumstances provide organisations a certain extent of judgment—they are weakly tied to their existing paradigms (Burnes 1996). Hence, diversity in institutional components can contribute to the promotion of organisational change that is mainly consistent with the function of local markets—although local market forces compel organisations to look for other paradigms, diversity in institutional components renders these pursuits favourable and effective (Schraeder et al. 2006). For instance, two public organisations may function autonomously in the same organisational domain and, consequently, formulate principles for state-level agencies that run counter to each other. When powerful individuals throughout an organisational domain advance various cognitive paradigms, norms, and rules, a major outcome is a comparatively broad array of established organisational procedures and models (Burnes 1996). In such domains, organisations that are evoked to initiate organisational changes because of market demands have the chance to do so, although it implies that they are leaving a paradigm that had been established all over the domain (D’Aunno et al. 2000). Because of the absence of core coordination or regulation in diverse institutional contexts, nevertheless, cognitive, normative, and regulative components each serve a unique and separate function (D’Aunno et al. 2000) in affecting organisational change. Responses to Organisational Change Organisational change can be traumatic or taxing for employees, impinging on the strength of an organisation. Employee responses to change, partly, affect the outcome of change efforts. It is simpler to execute change that is perceived favourably by personnel than that which is perceived unfavourably. Hence, it is proposed that managing the responses of employees to change is a critical part in managing the entire change initiative. Jick (1993 as cited in Gilley et al. 2009) adds that employees who have not took part in the formulation and execution of the change encounter the overall effect of the change. In particular, employees frequently undergo changes in occupational tasks or other duties that were formulated and executed entirely by managers that are indirectly affected by the changes (Blake 1992). Findings show that employees who have been engaged in the decision-making process may respond in a different way, by being more accommodating of the change initiative (Fincham & Rhodes 2005), than personnel who did not participate. There are different types of responses to change. Different studies view work attitudes, like contentment or satisfaction at work, as responses to change. Nonetheless, more current studies have tried to evaluate the emotional responses of employees to change by examining the pattern of qualitative answers to open-ended survey instruments (Gilley et al. 2009). Current studies present proofs that permitting personnel to take part in decision making related to a change programme has a favourable effect on the general effectiveness of change initiatives. In relation to technology, it has been reported that user participation in technology choices is critical to the success of technological adoption or change (Schraeder et al. 2006). Nevertheless, failure to involve workers in the programme can have several detrimental repercussions for organisations, such as resistance or disruption. Moreover, a number of attitudinal repercussions are linked to employee involvement or disengagement. In particular, failing to involve workers in the initiative can result in distrust (Statt 2004). Distrust, according to Blake (1992), consequently, is connected unfavourably to employee satisfaction and dedication. Individuals are innately defiant to change, and circumventing or opposing change is inherently human. Even though this defiance is normal, not being able to change can be damaging. Organisations that do not change die, just like what happened to General Motors which was compelled to declare insolvency because of its failure to change and cope with aggressive economic and competitive environments (Gilley et al. 2009). In contrast, organisations like Microsoft and Amazon flourish on innovation and change, which is a component of their organisational paradigms. According to Watt and Piotrowski (2008), causes of change resistance are varied, comprising fear of failure, routine distraction, fear of unpredictability, loss of security, position, influence, or control, etc. Rogers (2003 as cited in Gilley et al. 2009) elaborates the change process in his study of innovative activities. The level of novelty to the person affects his/her response. Adoption of innovations is affected by how the change initiative is conveyed among organisational members. Further studies show that several factors minimises resistance, such as employee participation, empowerment by management, strong leadership, and so on (Gilley et al. 2009). In contrast, according to Cooper and Robertson (1995), obstacles to change comprise poor performance, reluctance to handle resistance, dysfunctional culture, absence of dedication to change, lack of trust between management and employees, and poor leadership. Minimising Resistance to Change Because obstacles to change involve elements of the organisational structure itself, it is crucial to bear in mind that techniques to conquer resistance should centre on all organisational levels, from top management to rank-and-file. Particular techniques for minimising resistance to change are discussed. First, organisations may cover up change or make it less threatening or less unfavourable through steady, friendly language and measures (Billsberry 1996). Steady, progressive change takes place gradually, almost unnoticeably, within current organisational structures, environments, cultures, or value systems. People view progressive change as more controllable, manageable, simpler, and less intimidating to incorporate into current practices (Billsberry 1996). Consequently, according to Mullins (1999), individuals are more capable of adapting to and integrating changes that take place gradually, traditionally. As stated by Gilley and colleagues (2009), cases in point of progressive change are regular amendments of employee handbook, uninterrupted research and development, staffing, and improvement of facilities. Second is to change behaviours. Changing the behaviours of employees and managers so they could accept change necessitates patience, effort, time, and continuous focus on human and organisational structures (Buchanan & Huczynski 2009). The structures comprise those influencing stress management, culture, and competencies of the members of the organisation (Buchanan & Huczynski 2009). Third is to build a culture of change. Organisational functions take place within the context and strength of its dominant culture, which includes the collective assumptions, behaviours, norms, beliefs, and values obtained over time by the members of the organisation (Cooper & Robertson 1995). Culture strongly influences the obvious and hidden activities of people within any organisation, as well as their resistant to or approval of change (Davidson 2002). Companies like Apple and Microsoft depend on innovation and change to stay alive. These organisations have several commonalities, as stated by Gilley and colleagues (2009): they integrate innovation duties and change into performance appraisal procedures; they employ people who flourish in fast evolving environments; recognise change initiatives, and; invest effort and time to employee growth and development. Transforming a culture from detrimental resistance to favourable approval of change is challenging. In addition, culture is anti-change. Some of the strategies to build effective change of culture according to Gilley and colleagues (2009) are: (1) define and clarify the concept of culture change; (2) explain why culture change is critical to organisational success; (3) define a process for assessing the current culture, desired future culture, and the gap between the two; (4) identify alternative approaches to creating culture change; (5) create an action plan that integrates multiple approaches to culture change; (6) implement and manage the culture change; (7) monitor the culture change; and (8) integrate change into the culture (Gilley et al. 2009, 6). Fourth strategy is to develop open, mutual communication to lessen defiance by updating all organisational members on the change initiative and giving stakeholders an opportunity to voice out their concerns. People want chances, contributions, and information to become successful (Robbins 2000). Strong and efficient communication lessens anxiety over the unpredictable and encourages the favourable features of the change. Suitable communications concerning change are optimally dealt with in person (Statt 2004). Billsberry (1996) adds that regular meetings between employees and managers or among teams facilitate deliberation of issues, problem solving, and communication of successes and optimal strategies. Fifth is employee participation. Employee participation generates mental possession of responsibility for and judgement of their success (Cooper & Robertson 1995). Fundamentally, people approve of what they build because individuals who are permitted to take part significantly to or get involved in change processes are more dedicated to its triumph (Mullins 1999). For instance, a leading electric company that aimed to transform its human system asked for the participation of its employees in deliberations about changes in duties, roles, staff, and strategic plan. As a result, anxiety was mitigated as the members of the organisation approved of the plan and understood its intentions and advantages. Conclusions Due to the unpredictable movement of management trends and the usually weak execution of change initiative by organisations, it becomes clear why resistance to change arises and why organisational members become alienated from their jobs. Nevertheless, those who contribute to the process of change should be fully informed of the possible effect of organisational change resistance and persistently try to understand it more accurately and manage it effectively. Hence, although it is sensible to expect organisational change resistance, catalysts of change, where necessary, should try to evaluate its presence before any designed change programmes and try to control or handle it. References Billsberry, J. (1996) The Effective Manager: Perspectives and Illustrations. Indiana University: Sage Publications. Blake, L. (1992) “Reduce Employees’ Resistance to Change” Personnel Journal, 71(9), 72+ Buchanan, D. & Huczynski, A. (2009) Organisational Behaviour- An Introductory Text. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall. Burnes, B. (1996) Managing Change. UK: FT Pitman Publishing. Cooper, J.C. & Robertson, I. (1995) Work Psychology. UK: FT Pitman Publishing. D’Aunno, T., Succi, M. & Alexander, J. (2000) “The Role of Institutional and Market Forces in Divergent Organisational Change” Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679. Davidson, J. (2002) “Overcoming Resistance to Change” Public Management, 84(11), 20+ Fincham, R. & Rhodes, P. (2005) Organisational Behaviour. UK: Oxford. Gilley, A., Godek, M. & Gilley, J. (2009) “Change, Resistance and the Organisational Immune System” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 74(4), 4+ Greve, H. & Taylor, A. (2000) “Innovations as Catalysts for Organisational Change: Shifts in Organisational Cognition and Search” Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 54. Mullins, L.J. (1999) Management and Organisational Behaviour. UK: FT Pitman Publishing. Robbins, S.P. (2000) Organisational Behaviour. New York: Prentice Hall. Schraeder, M., Swamidass, P. & Morrison, R. (2006) “Employee Involvement, Attitudes and Reactions to Technology Changes” Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 12(3), 85+ Statt, D.A. (2004) Psychology and the World of Work. UK: Palgrave McMillan. Watt, J. & Piotrowski, C. (2008) “Organisational Change Cynicism: a Review of the Literature and Intervention Strategies” Organisation Development Journal, 26(3), 23+ Read More