Studying Business Changes - Essay Example

?Critically analyze the role of senior managers as barriers to organizational change and explore how these can be addressed ­­­­ Resistance to changeis one aspect of business m­­anagement that will require a deeper analysis because of contrasting theories and principles brought forth by researchers and experts through the passage of time. One of these theories pertains to the role of senior managers as barriers or deterrents to change, instead of chief purveyors of change to attain higher profitability and efficiency. Quite ironic, as senior managers are tasked to undertake management and operational initiatives for improvements and innovations and to conclude otherwise will cast doubt on their sincerity and loyalty to the ideals of the organization which they lead. It is the objective of this study to delve deeper into this controversial premise, explore how management overcome resistance to change, compare how differing and contrasting theories impact the work organization, and finally to present methodologies to address resistance to proposed change(s) in the organizational, administrative and technological structures. As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “Change is the only ever constant in this world”, and change is inevitable for evolution, development and fulfillment of any tangible or intangible object, concept or idea. Change creates opportunity for growth (Baker).It is the basic nature of man to resist change, and as Dr. Claude Brodeur states “We resist change. We choose to keep our habits, rather, the comfort of our habits” (Barriers…cited by E-commerce Expert ) It is this becoming too comfortable and complacent with our habits that gives rise to our distinct culture or behavior which often are not receptive to any disturbance or change,and as such, habit has become our individual culture and custom. Change cannot be easily undertaken by clashing with this individual culture, but rather by focusing on the work itself (Beer and Spector,1990). Change can be implemented on three potential areas: organizational structure, technology and people (Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior,2006; Aladwani, 2001) and each area has its own definite, peculiar concerns that can impact and affect over-all employee attitude and behavior. Some changes may call for a company’s organizational upgrading and this may cover the company’s own policies, rules and regulations; the creation or abolishment of certain departments, altering the number of employees under each supervisor, or can be much simpler like clarifying someone’s job description (UnderstandingBehavior… 2006). Technological change refers to new gadgets or equipment for better efficiency, while changes in people refer to changing employees’ set behavioral patterns and attitudes. Of all these changes, change in people offer the most challenge and level of difficulty, and this is the area where this paper will focus thoroughly. Changing employees’ behavioral patterns and attitude perspective is a challenge for management, as employees are creatures of habit, and habits, as the saying goes, are hard to break. Early studies on change and resistance to change was undertaken by Kurt Lewin (Dent and Goldberg 1999; Burke, Lake and Paine, 2008) and clearly explained how habits are hard nuts to crack, and enumerates three steps to assimilate change. This three-step model is widely accepted when studying change theories and these can be summarized as unfreezing, moving and refreezing (Burke, Lake and Paine, 2008, p. 233). Lewin refers to a person as a “complex, energy field in which all behavior could be conceived of as a change in some site of a field” (Marrow, 1969). Marrow’s further research showed that David Bowers and Stanley Seashore , both pioneers of organizational behavior, acknowledged Lewin’s view that a person’s biological system of homeostasis, i.e., man’s natural ability to resist change should undergo a three step cycle: first, an unfreezing or disruption of an already existing steady state, followed by a period of disturbance utilizing and adopting various possibilities, and lastly, a period of consolidation or assimilation of change with a refreezing of the new, steady state (Marrow, 1972). This clearly showed that adoption of changes, although readily accepted by employees, usually undergoes a series of evolution to address numerous concerns, making the change a work in progress until these concerns are addressed or met. In business endeavors, change is initiated principally for economic profits, and employees who may be resistant to policies of change do not averse the change per se, but the accompanying risks and negative implications of such change that may yield negative results instead of the positive expectations. In studies conducted by authors Kreitner (1992), Griffin (1993), Aldag and Stearns (1989) and Dublin and Ireland (1993), they listed the causes of resistance, in varying orders of importance, as: fear of failure and poor outcome, uncertainty, threats to job security, breakdown of group work dynamics, lack of training, misunderstanding, lack of trust, surprise, emotional side effects etc., and suggested strategies and methodologies to overcome such resistance through education and discussion, participation, facilitation, negotiation and through explicit and implicit coercion and manipulation by withholding information so employees may not worry prematurely, and by hinting at possible incentives like job promotions and pay hikes along with the policies of change (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). Change in business is brought about by a lot of factors which are inevitable. Advances in technology, people’s demographics, changes in economic situations, political upheavals, market trends, and so forth, and all contribute to instigate change to stay on top of competition. Change may specifically point to organizational structure, production methods, marketing schemes, over-all company set-up or even for a modification in the way a system or change effort is being implemented. Change and resistance to it have been subjects of research and books as early as the late 1920s, and intensified in the1950’s, the period of ultimate high in U.S. unionism (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). The role of senior managers as barriers to organizational change was well stated by Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) in their study of 3,000 Ford managers, where middle managers blamed their higher-up executives for resisting change initiatives. This is in coherent with Smith’s (1982) findings that people in power will concentrate on maintaining the status quo, rather than greatly changing it. Managers usually have the goal of producing profits for the company, and once this goal has been achieved, the initiatives just stop at this point, and maintaining profits will be the running goal, and not the introduction of change or new business methodologies for further expansion. In addressing the question of how senior managers become barriers to change, it relates to the kind of leadership qualities the senior manager possesses. A manager is different from a leader. It is the ability of man to easily adapt to change and envision opportunities that he becomes a leader, and not just a mere follower. A manager may be just that, one who administers but may never innovate. A leader, on the other hand, has the ability to motivate, innovate, and can become an effective manager. Managers become barriers to change when they fail to implement the much needed imperatives for the change to be successful. Information plays a great role in this aspect. Alvin Zander (1950), a close friend and colleague of Kurt Lewin, an authority on resistance to change and its methodologies, has enumerated various reasons for resistance, which are all principally anchored on the principle of information dissemination: lack of employee orientation on who will be affected by the change; clarity of the change which may be interpreted in a variety of ways, if the change is made on personal grounds, if it ignores well-established norms, and so on. This dissemination of information is made easier depending on the structural organization. A tall, organizational structure has all data and information going down from the top level down to a cascading trajectory of senior manager, junior managers then finally to the employees, that most times, information is not easily accessed. In the linear and flat organizational structure, a chief executive directly communicates to his subordinates below him simultaneously, making communications faster and more accurate. A manager may also make decisions that may prove to be a failure later on, defeating the purpose of the change. It is in this context that managers should immerse themselves in group discussions, to develop social interaction, and thereby at the same time enable them to secure feedbacks. Another theory on how senior managers can be barriers to change is the one pursued by Cyert and March (1963, cited by Proctor and Doukakis, 2003), where he argued that managers usually work in coalition, and company objectives should be in line with their own personal promotion of self-interests or agenda. Managers, though implementing company objectives, usually adapt policies that will not disrupt or disturb their current standing to relegate to a lower status, and hence a complex process of bargaining should be conducted within groups in an organization to be able to come up with appropriate, collective goals (Proctor and Doukakis, 2003). The common denominator in resistance to change, as studies have shown, is fear (Dubrin and Ireland, 1993; Baker; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Proctor and Doukakis,2003). Fear of uncertainty and this fear encompass a wide spectrum of concerns: loss of job, difficulty in adapting to new work ethics or technology, deduction in earning capacity or income, threats to status, lack of perceived benefits (Proctor and Doukakis, 2003); failure to see the potential of the prescribed change, lack of confidence to undertake the change, failure to exercise their particular skill in the proposed change, loss of status, and so forth (Schuler,2003). Lewin, as early as 1928 in his studies, states that the status quo means an equilibrium between the barriers to change and the forces favoring change, and the movement to initiate change means the lessening of the barriers and the strengthening of the driving force for change, and that it is easier to lessen the barriers than to strengthen the motivating drivers (Weisbord, 1987). And how can barriers be lessened? Principal factor is information, to assure employees, and educate them on the changes to be done, including education and training of any new skill or technology that may be needed, and lessen the fear factor (Proctor and Doukakis, 2003). Change, when it encounters resistance within the workforce, is generally believed to be instigated by individual initiatives, but other factors outside of one’s self may also be possible as contributors to the resistance. And this is where group dynamics enter the picture. Lewin believes that change and resistance to change was a systems phenomenon, part of group dynamics where there is a system of roles, attitudes, behaviors, norms, and other factors which can go out of balance and create disequilibrium. Further to this, Marrow (1957) recognized formal and informal groups in an organization, and how they influence the conduct of their members. Lewin as early as 1945 identified these group dynamics and suggested as to why these groups accept or resist change should be the subject of investigation (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). These groups, later on, would then comprise what we call in present day, as the labor groups or labor unions, where disequilibrium is created by demanding for change beneficial to their group’s interests, i.e., higher pay, better working conditions and benefits. It is also because of this recognition of the power of group dynamics that managers are advised to participate in group discussions whenever there are changes to be implemented to lessen resistance to change. This was also based on the findings of Coch and French (1989) where they concluded from their experiments that groups that were allowed to join in the design and development of proposed changes have much lower resistance than those that did not. And by joining, Coch and French (1989) means not just representation but actual participation, and further advised managers that to effectively carry out change, managers should hold group meetings to communicate the need for change, and include or involve the employees in the over-all planning and implementation of the change. Failure of management to facilitate these group discussions and orientation may mean failure on effectively implementing the change, and in this aspect, senior management may have become barriers, rather than purveyors of change, as studies have concluded that employees normally embrace change (Kotter 1995) and resistance are generally just fears due to lack of orientation and information (Proctor and Doukakis, 2003). This is strengthened by Cartwright (cited by Marrow, 1957) when he stated that the best way an executive can achieve “dynamic change “ is to make himself a part of the group, and thereby, making the change a joint effort of the group, like everybody’s business . Further, Michell Lee Marks, a professor of management at the San Francisco State College of business, in his recent article in Wall Street Journal, noted that it is important to address two aspects in effectively dealing with change: to weaken support for the previous method by showing its own weaknesses; and secondly, to provide a detailed information campaign of the change, and further stressed that empathy is needed on the part of management to effectively communicate these ideas (Eisold, 2010). Resistance to change is also more severe if the company is already successful (Hansson and Klefsjo, 2003), such that in this scenario, the tendency is to maintain the status quo and remain complacent,and change is only implemented when there is already an imminent ,threatening challenge from competition. Change can also be affected by a company’s conventional system wherein it is employee loyalty which is at the forefront, not the employee’s distinguished or outstanding performance (Overcoming barriers…). It is important to note that the role of managers as barriers to change in the early days of the 1950s and the 1960s generally do not consider managers as deterrents or barriers to change because change is principally anchored on an individual’s own self, and not as part of social group dynamics (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). It is only later on that managers are considered barriers if they fail to coordinate with employees to disseminate proper information on an impending change. During the era of early history of resistance to change, five authors came out with their own studies on resistance to change, giving out results distinct from each other. Alvin F. Zander (1950), a close colleague of Lewin, has basically the same principles as the latter, and maybe they both influenced each other in their respective works. Zander’s slant on resistance to change is to know the causes and the symptoms of the resistance and from there, work on the causes instead of the symptoms, like getting on the grassroots or the origin of the cause(es). Another author, Paul R. Lawrence (1954) in his studies, contends that resistance to change has two dimensions: technological and social. Technological change is unavoidable , and resistance may be brought about by ignorance. Higher resistance to change normally happens if the social aspect is not addressed. Mitchell Dreese (1955 speech) focused on the capabilities of an individual to avoid being resistant. Oliver D. Flower (1962 film, cited by Dent and Goldberg, 1999) discussed the role of managers in handling a recaltrant group, and considers the manager as solely responsible to overcome employee resistance. In all these authors, the role of senior managers or the supervisors took center stage when it comes to resistance to change, in the sense that they are the leading authority to overcome, or subdue resistance, and that resistance is a natural expectation in the workforce, and as employees, resistance is always inappropriate. With the exception of Dreese, all other authors described the role of the supervisor as the chief implementer of the change, and employee resistance, if any, is just an ordinary occurrence when there is something new. Methodologies suggested by the different authors to overcome resistance to change are actually all preventive measures, and not overcoming solutions. Thus, the titles of their works are actually just misnomers, and do not mean overcoming per se. These authors, in a nutshell, conclude that resistance is natural and should be accepted as perceived truth, and thus, any new change should not be resisted, but rather should be followed. Among the common methodologies suggested to prevent/overcome resistance to change are: Orient and discuss with employees the nature and benefits of the change to make them feel that they are part of the change; continuously adopt a two-way communications system and address concerns individually; make the change non-threatening and consistent with the employees’ self-image, which all point to what has been stated earlier: information dissemination and campaign to address all concerns. Generally, senior managers have direct participation on how change should be implemented, it is their role to influence people to adopt the change (Bregman,2009) and their failure to effectively implement changes can mean inaction on their part. Pardo del Martinez and Fuentes, in their study, classified change as either radical or evolutionary and requires proper change management and awareness, to effectively address change with the least resistance. Senior managers particularly may be unreceptive to technological changes like modern gadgets and updating electronic technology, as these are normally more appreciated by younger generation leaders, such that they also need proper education and training to carry out the change. Senior managers must also practice micromanagement, and leadership engagement on all steps of the change is very crucial (Pexton, 2009). In retrospect, change is the least resisted when factors like security, money or income, freedom, pride, responsibility, authority, good working conditions, status, friends or contacts are not compromised (cited from Kirpatrick and Jossey-Baas, 1985 by Bacal). Conclusion: As can be gleaned from the studies by previous authors, employers have to do their part to lessen the shock or impact of the proposed changes, such that employees, from the objective point of view, seem to be treated with “kid gloves”. Early methodologies proposed seem to be more pro-labor, such that they are sometimes regarded as obsolete by some scholars. This is because in those times that theories of change are being created, the labor sector still lack the power and the grit that are now accorded them. Principal materials on resistance to change may be considered already obsolete and irrelevant, with no longer derivative value, as basis from these materials has passed through several decades and data are already outdated, and hence can be kept for their historical value. Through time, laws have been created to safeguard the welfare of the working sector, for they are the backbone of any business endeavor. Change is now seen as a constant and a definite part of a business to stay on top of competition. Resistance to change in this modern day and age are subjects that will not be of major concern, as employment dynamics has evolved into areas of specialization such that to achieve maximum results, people are hired according to their highest levels of particular skills and study, coupled with previous hands-on job experience. As stated, laws have been put in place to address dissatisfaction on the worksite, and resistance to change can enable the employee to leave the organization without so much fear of the unknown as social benefits have been clearly defined by the state. Competition has grown into global proportions that for management to worry about employees resistance, dissatisfaction and unrest will just be additional stress without foreseen benefits, that company rules and policies are laid out prior to the employee’s actual and formal employment. With the change in the world’s population and demographics, interchanging of labor and talents across borders is already possible, through business process outsourcing, and overseas employment and labor migration is already common. Changes in today’s business is usually a joint collaborative effort of both senior and upper management together with the workforce, backed up by systematic research and first hand observations of existing markets, such that business managers have good back-up and support in information dissemination. As the present business logic stands, it is the employer calling the shots, and employers know the burden of change, so that additional monetary compensation and material benefits are bundled with the proposed change, if such change will prove too cumbersome, or will entail longer hours and more difficulties for the employees. Change, when discussed and written in this age and times, focus not on resistance to change, but more on change as a tool to increase productivity and achieve other company objectives, like the ones written by American author and Harvard business school professor John P. Kotter, who tackled change more as a tool of success rather than a tool for resistance, by coming out with publications and webinars relevant for today’s business leaders, enterpreneurs and employees. References: Aladwani, AM 2001, ‘Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation’.Business Process Management Journal, vol. 7, no. 3 pp. 266-275 Aldag, R. J., & Stearns, T. M. 1991. Management (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Bacal, R ‘ Resistance to Change-how and why people resist’ The Work911.comSupersite http://work911.com/managingchange/resistancetochange1.htm Baker, J, ‘Overcome the four barriers of change’ My Article Archive http://www.myarticlearchive.com/articles/8/149.htm Barriers to Change-individual and organizational barriers to change ‘Anon.’ E-Commerce Expert http://www.robabdul.com/individual-and-organisational-barriers-to-change-management-resistance.asp Beer, M., Eisenstat, RA., & Spector, B 1990. ‘ Why change programs do not produce change’. Harvard Business Review, vol.68, no.6 http://gbat9202.blogspot.com/2011/08/8-beer-m-eisenstat-r-spector-b-1990-why.html Bregman, P 2009 ‘How to counter resistance to change’. Harvard Business Review. http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2009/04/how-to-counter-resistance-to-c.html Burke, WW, Lake, DG, Paine, JW 2008. ‘Organization Change- A comprehensive reader’. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco p. 233 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrdq.20027/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+3+Dec+from+10-12+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance Chapman, A, ‘Change Management- organizational and change management, process, plans, change management and business development tips’ Business balls.com http://www.businessballs.com/changemanagement.htm Coch, L, & French, JRP Jr. 1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, pp.512-532. Dent, EB & Goldberg, SG1999, ‘Challenging Resistance to Change’ Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 35, no.1, pp. 25-41 Eisold, K 2010, ‘Resistance to Change in Organizations’ Psychology Today, 26 May 2010 Dubrin, AJ., & Ireland, RD 1993, Management and organization (2nd ed.), Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern Publishing. Griffin, RW 1993, Management (4th ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Hansson, J, Klefsjo, B 2003, ‘Perspective: a core value model for implementing total quality management in small organizations’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 15, no. 2 pp. 71-81 Kotter, JP 1995, ‘ Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail’, Harvard Business Review, vol.73, no.2 pp.59-60 Kreitner, R 1999, Management (5th ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin Lawrence, PR 1954, ‘ How to deal with resistance to change’, Harvard Business Review, vol.32, no. 3, pp. 49-57 Marrow, AJ 1957, Making management human, New York: McGraw-Hill. Marrow, AJ 1969, The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books. Marrow, AJ 1972, The failure of success, New York: AMACOM ‘Overcoming barriers to change-a corus case study’ The Times 100 Business Case Studies http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/corus/overcoming-barriers-to-change/reasons-for-change.html Pardo del Val, M & Martinez Fuentes, C ‘Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study’ University Paper: Universitat de Valencia, Spain http://www.uv.es/~pardoman/resistencias.PDF Pexton, C 2009, ‘Overcoming organizational barriers to change in healthcare’ FT Press Financial Times, 23 Feb. 2009 http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1327759 Proctor, T & Doukakis, I 2003, ‘Change management: the role of internal communication and employee development’ Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 8, no. 4 pp. 268-277 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=858082&show=html Schuler, J 2003, ‘Resistance to change –overcoming resistance to change: top ten reasons for change resistance’, AJ@SchulerSolutions.com http://www.schulersolutions.com/What_s_Up_Doc_-_Schuler_Solutions_Newsletter_Feb_2006.pdf Smith, KK 1982, Groups in conflict: Prisons in disguise. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Spreitzer, GM, & Quinn, RE 1996, ‘ Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders’ Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol.32, no.3, pp. 238-261 Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior ‘Anon.’ Copyright 2006,Delta Publishing Company http://www.apexcpe.com/publications/471001.pdf Weisbord, MR 1987, Productive workplaces: Organizing and managing for dignity, meaning and community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Zander, AF 1950, Resistance to change—Its analysis and prevention. Advanced Management, vol. 4, no. 5, pp.9-11. Read More