Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How - Essay Example

? Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How Organisational change meets resistance, especially when it is unclear, does not offer benefits, and can lead to individual/group/social/environmental harms. This essay reviews some of the causes of resistance to organisational changes and what employees can do to effectively resist these changes. Its main objectives are: 1) to review literature on the common causes of change resistance and 2) to offer recommendations on opposing changes without jeopardising their interests and employment status. This essay does not aim to manage resistance to changes but to help students and managers understand the conditions, where resisting changes may be advantageous for the organisation. The suggested leadership approach for the resistance effort is LMX, particularly for paternalistic or team-based organisational cultures. Leaders are recommended to develop buy in through tapping initial quality relations and the use of evidence to support their arguments. These leaders have ethos, but they must boost logos and pathos appeals to became convincing to employees and management alike. Through their communication and networking efforts, they are believed to create a scintillating force that can resist harmful or unproductive organisational changes. If changes can be attained through strong leadership, a similarly engaging leadership can also result to powerful resistance efforts to changes. Managing resistance to organisational changes has been examined in numerous management, organisational behaviour (OB), and psychology journals. Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009: 144) noted from their review of literature that several management science and OB articles in particular see resistance as an obstacle to organisational development and success. Recommendations are commonly provided to avoid, control and reduce the causes of resistance (Cummings and Worley, 2009: 165; Kwahk and Kim, 2008). Moreover, a number of studies wholly focused on the change agent (Kwahk and Kim, 2008; van Dam, Oreg and Schyns, 2008). When journals examine employee perspectives, they do so with the purpose of understanding the causes of resistance, so that they could be identified for resolution later on (Meyer et al., 2007) as if all forms of resistance are problematic and unproductive per se. Scanty research has been done on why employees oppose particular kinds of changes and how they can go about preventing the implementation of unhelpful/damaging change efforts. This essay fills this information gap through exploring existing literature and applying concepts and studies to the process of effectively resisting organisational changes that are unbeneficial or harmful to employees or other stakeholder groups. This essay agrees that some organisational changes should be opposed, especially when goals, processes and outcomes are unclear and when potential for harmful/unbeneficial consequences exist. It reviews some of the causes of resistance to organisational changes and what employees can do to effectively resist these changes. Its main objectives are: 1) to review literature on the common causes of resistance to change and 2) to provide recommendations on how employees can effectively resist change without jeopardising their welfare and employment status. This essay does not aim to manage resistance to changes, but to help students and managers understand the conditions, where resisting changes may be good for the organisation, particularly, when the change goals, processes and outcomes would not be beneficial or would be detrimental to stakeholders. The reviewed literature shows how the management can effectively respond to employee resistance to changes while other studies and books examined the varied reasons behind resistance to changes. The framework for resistance is presented below (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, these studies do not identify that some of the possible reasons for resistance are due to lack of clarity and/or benefits and misalignment with personal ethical beliefs (Piderit, 2000: 784). Kirkman, Jones, and Shapiro (2000) and Cummings and Worley (2009: 167) noted that when employees are not aware of the goals and effects of changes on their jobs, they are most likely to resist changes (76). Teams, in particular, are concerned of role clarity and workload issues (Kirkman et al., 2000: 76). Aside from unclear aspects of change initiatives, absence of benefits can lead to resistance. Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009) asserted that some employees might resist change because it does not improve their workplace conditions, either financially or non-financially (144). Another cause of resistance is the belief that the changes will be detrimental to the self or others. Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009) explored from their study that self-enhancement strategies are responses to organisational changes. Self-enhancement refers to the need to attain a positive identity, and people resisting changes may do so to enhance their self-images to themselves and to others (Van Dijk and Van Dick, 2009: 167). Piderit (2000) highlighted ethical concerns as well as compassion for other affected stakeholders. With these kinds of reasons, resisting changes become urgent and meaningful. Figure 1: Change Resistance Framework Sources: Cummings and Worley (2009: 167); Kirkman et al. (2000); Piderit (2000); Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009) Figure 1 shows the suggested leadership strategies that can help gain support for resistance, and they are the participatory approach and the LMX approach. Participation means that the majority, if not all employees will engage in planning and implementing the resistance to changes (van Dam et al., 2008: 317). The LMX approach rests on the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, where leaders are believed to have diverse relationships with their employees through dyadic interactions (Graen, 2004). High-quality relationships are correlated with loyalty, liking, and professional respect for the leaders (van Dam et al., 2008: 318). This section proceeds to discussing the advantages of participatory approach. Firstly, a participatory approach can increase commitment to resistance in the same way it can enhance support for change efforts. Secondly, the participation of key leaders can affect change agents. Change agents might consider the rationality of the resistance and make fitting changes to their change programs. Thirdly, the participatory approach can address ambivalence to changes. Piderit (2000) argued that ambivalence, or combinations of positive and negative attitudes, can result in poor implementation of changes. Increasing the participation of these ambivalent people can boost their engagement with the resistance effort. Finally, a participatory approach can enhance awareness of the necessity and effects of changes. When more people are participating in analysing the consequences of changes, they are more aware of its effects and what they can do about it. Nevertheless, the disadvantages of the participatory approach must not be overlooked. First, it may be ineffective if key stakeholders are uninvolved or ambivalent to the resistance. Increasing participation per se does not always translate to engagement of key leaders. Second, employees may not feel ready for any form of public resistance. Readiness is an important concept in the organisational change management framework because it is a cognitive condition that can lead employees to embrace or oppose changes (Kwahk and Kim, 2008: 80). It includes sentiments and opinions about the justification for organisational changes and its related consequences (Kwahk and Kim, 2008: 80). Lastly, a participatory approach can increase risks for participants. They might feel that their job security will be threatened if they participate actively in change resistance efforts. LMX aims to manage some of the disadvantages of a participatory approach. Firstly, it can reduce risks to individuals if high LMX relationships are leveraged to influence the most decisive leaders and followers. With clear leadership, people feel more secure in supporting resistance efforts. They might feel fewer risks in openly supporting resistance. Secondly, the leaders can decrease the impact of loyalty to organisation on loyalty to changes. Kwahk and Kim (2008) showed that self-efficacy beliefs and commitment to the organisation facilitated the acceptance and implementation of organisational changes. LMX can decrease organisational loyalty effects by magnifying collaboration and social cohesion. Leaders can tap their workplace ties to argue that the changes will not be beneficial to the organisation. Thirdly, this approach may be advantageous for paternalistic or team-based organisational cultures. These organisational cultures value team cohesion and social harmony, which can be utilised to improve the support for the resistance. Moreover, readiness for the resistance effort can be increased through clear leadership that the LMX approach provides. If key leaders resist the change effort, employees can be more committed to the resistance. One of the potential causes of resistance is lack of commitment, including commitment to changes and the organisation itself (Meyer et al., 2007). The two-part study of Meyer et al. (2007) showed that affective commitment (AC) and normative commitment (NC) to a change initiative had a positive correlation with both non-discretionary (compliance) and discretionary (cooperation and championing) support behaviour, whereas continuance commitment (CC) demonstrated positive correlation with compliance and negative correlation with discretionary support (Meyer et al., 2007: 206). The LMX approach can improve commitment to resistance through affecting AC and NC. The disadvantages of LMX approach must also be understood so that they can be managed. Firstly, people who are not part of quality LMX relations may oppose resistance or act ambivalently. The feeling of being out-of-the-loop can result to strong ambivalence. Secondly, strong individualistic drives may lead to ambivalence or disagreement with resistance. They might think that they are not benefitting from the resistance, so they would no longer support it. They might also have other personal reasons for not resisting organisational changes. Thirdly, the limitations of access to quality information, which is present in LMX, may lead to lower buy in. People might not be fully educated about the problems with change efforts and what should be done to enhance them. This essay recommends the following: to improve resistance to changes, stakeholders must adopt LMX leadership, particularly in paternalistic or team-based organisations where LMX relations exist. This way people know who the leaders of the resistance are. These leaders can champion the resistance cause. They already have ethos, or integrity and credibility, which can improve buy in too. Nonetheless, LMX is suggested to follow the steps of resisting changes in Figure 1 in order to provide a compelling set of arguments (logos and pathos included) to their target stakeholders. They must have evidence of how employees feel about changes and what the change program’s possible negative consequences are. Moreover, resistance leaders should present openness to future changes that will respond to their core issues and concerns. The keys are collaboration and flexibility so that the resistance is not seen as resistance without a cause, but a resistance for a variety of meaningful stakeholder causes. To end this essay, it should be noted that the review showed that not all organisational changes are beneficial to stakeholders, and sometimes, they can lead to harm, whether ethically, physically, or socially, among others. Some of the causes of resistance in this case are lack of clear goals, policies, systems, processes and outcomes; absence of real benefits (tangible and intangible, monetary and non-monetary); and perceived negative effects. Based on these reasons, employees should learn to know the difference between positive and negative organisational changes and act according to their best interests too. The proposed strategy is LMX strategy because of the strengths of clear leadership and direction of resistance, high initial buy in among followers, and ability to drive resistance through a decisive communications strategy. The strategy involves establishing and expressing arguments that have objective basis, although emotional components can be added. These leaders, in turn, can influence important formal and informal organisational change leaders. They can explain the reasons behind the resistance more forcefully and persuasively. Lastly, these leaders must show openness to future changes that will be truly beneficial to affected parties. They must be able to clarify their support for organisational development, where ethical and social concerns are considered. Hence, in order to effectively resist changes, committed leaders and followers are critical, as well as the deployment of a convincing communications strategy that justifies and explains the resistance efforts to employees and management levels. Bibliography Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2009) Organization Development & Change, 9th edition, Ohio: South-Western Cengage. Graen, G.B. (2004) New Frontiers of Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series, Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Kirkman, B.L., Jones, R.G. and Shapiro, D.L. (2000) ‘Why Do Employees Resist Teams? Examining the ‘Resistance Barrier,’ To Work Team Effectiveness,’ International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 74-93. Kwahk, K. and Kim, H. (2008) ‘Managing Readiness in Enterprise Systems-Driven Organizational Change,’ Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 79-87. Meyer, J.P., Srinivas, E.S., Lal, J.B. and Topolnytsky, L. (2007) ‘Employee Commitment and Support for an Organizational Change: Test of the Three-Component Model in Two Cultures,’ Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 185-211. Piderit, S.K. (2000) ‘Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change,’ Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp.783-794. van Dam, K., Oreg, S. and Schyns, B. (2008) ‘Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange, Development Climate, and Change Process Characteristics,’ Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 57, no.2, pp. 313-334. Van Dijk, R. and Van Dick, R. (2009) ‘Navigating Organizational Change: Change Leaders, Employee Resistance and Work-based Identities,’ Journal of Change Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 143-163. Read More