Arguments For And Against Resistance To Change - Essay Example

? Arguments for and against resistance to change inserts his/her s Department’s Date Often, most transformational changes are met with the need to have experienced change managers coach senior management on how to manage resistance to change. It is usually presumed that resistance is an inherent by-product of change. With evidence of companies failing to change owing to resistance by employees, it is no wonder that organizations invest great time and resources to conduct training and coaching in order to reduce resistance to change. While there are strong arguments that support this view, there are various reasons to prove that managing resistance to change may, in fact, may not be a good idea always. One reason why resistance to change may be productive is that it prevents bad/wrong ideas from being assimilated in the organization. Employee resistance to change allows firms to rethink “why” they are changing. In other words, it allows leadership to reconsider the business case for change with a critical perspective. If all employees agreed and there was no resistance, clearly management could oversee the ‘downside’ of changing making it unprofitable for the firm in the long run. Furthermore, because resistance to change often comprises of the fear factor (including loss of status, power or even job for employees), it encourages the top management to discover the impact that change would have on the ‘people’. Therefore, resistance to change is essential in the sense that it allows management to develop an open-ended view of change and consider the drawbacks of change. By doing so, managers can then come up with policies and procedures to counter the drawbacks and make change more workable and feasible for employees. Furthermore, the fact that resistance is seen as a “problem” to change leads management to derive strategies to overcome rather than engage it. Managers may often go at length to reduce the ‘threat’ of resistance and, in doing so, may adopt tactics that may be harmful to the organization. As a result, it is common to find management taking on an overly defensive role in trying to push the change too hard as well as become overly protective of their status in trying to win the argument against disgruntled employees (Watson, 1982). This occurs because management views resistance to change as a reactive process in which agents possessing power oppose the reactions of other agents (Jermier et al., 1994). This leads them into an evitable trap whereby the management becomes overly concerned with protecting their position and argument rather than listening to what the disgruntled employees have to say. As a result, communication is reduced and the situation evolves into a manager-employee conflict. This stems from the fact that managers may alienate employees who are seen as obstacles rather than resources for change. Consequently, this conflict results in loss of reputation and poor relationships with employees, thereby reducing the morale of employees. Additionally, managing resistance to change often brings with the incorrect assumption that resistance is a one-sided phenomenon. Managers may become overly simplistic to assume that resistance is caused only by the attitudes and behaviors of employees. In fact, many models, such as three dimensional model of change, are based on the inherent assumption that resistance is solely the product of the behavior, emotions and attitudes of the employees (Hayes, 2010). Under this view, managers attempt to see the resistors as irrational and self-centered and consequently, try to block their interference in the change process. Although this true, resistance to change can be attributed partially to the way in which the organization is bringing about change and the behavior of managers in this respect. Therefore, managers who hold this view often ignore the fact that resistance to change is, in fact, feedback and that it must not be blocked or reduced but dealt with appropriately. Other studies have also warned management to stop viewing resistance to change a necessarily negative outcome. For one thing, it is argued that, managers can often overlook fundamentally correct criticisms of change in an effort to reduce employee resistance to change. Managers may be so overwhelmed with the process of change and managing any possible resistance that they may overlook flaws or shortcomings of the change initiative. Treating negative comments regarding the change process as resistance can cause managers to conveniently dismiss them without considering the hidden truth behind them (Piderit, 2000). These managers focus instead on treating the resistors rather than the flawed change process. In some cases, the failure to change is often conveniently attributed to employees’ resistance to change or failure to manage such resistance when, in fact, it is caused by the faulty change process itself (Krantz, 1999). On the other end of the spectrum, it is argued that managing resistance to change is quintessential. This is because resistance to change often transcends the realm of positivity when employees deliberately avoid tasks, resign, become hostile or reduce their productivity (Feldman, 1972). This is often accompanied by other tactics such as increased absenteeism, frustration and sabotage (Plate & Stone, 1974). This is where the strongest argument in favor of managing resistance to change sets in- employee resistance to change can reduce the productivity, goodwill as well as profits of the organization, therefore, this resistance must be reduced. Employees may use resistance to change as a tool for getting the attention of top management towards addressing issues that need to be addressed to guarantee superior performance of the business. In this case, it becomes necessary to manage the resistance because it is in the best interests of the organization and, as stakeholders, managers are bound to advance the interests of the organization. It is important to resolve issues arising out of resistance (such as strikes etc.) since they can culminate in a virtual failure of the company. Since employees are a valuable asset for any firm, managing their concerns, and resistance to change, is quintessential to ensure smooth sailing of the business. Furthermore, resistance may be subtle or covert; in other words, change may not elicit any prominent and obvious resistance. Employees may comply with change initiatives on the face of it but may be inertly resistant to change. In other words, they may be forcibly embracing the change which they really do not want. In such cases, a forced change cannot bring about lasting benefits for the organization. Unless employees do not identify with the objectives and values of the organization as well as the reason for change, the change initiative will not be successful. In such cases, it becomes important for the management to step in and reduce the communication barrier in order to elicit the trust and loyalty of employees. Communication also serves the purpose of reminding leadership that they need to reconcile their views with employees regarding change (Lewis, 2006). Therefore, managing resistance to change becomes inevitable in this context. To conclude, over emphasis on managing to resistance to change in recent years has led management to become short-sighted and fix the perpetrators of such resistance rather than the change process itself. Furthermore, such an aggressive perspective against the perpetrators of resistance can result in management overlooking the criticisms of the change process. In short, rather than viewing resistance as a natural phenomenon whose purpose is to provide feedback, management often ends up viewing resistance as a negative force to be managed or curbed. This reduces the scope for opportunities for improvement in the change process. Although resistance may warrant immediate action in the case of strikes, resignations or reduced productivity, it must be managed tactfully and open-mindedly. Communication may be the key to ensuring that resistance is ‘effectively’ managed as temporarily forcing employees to accept change half-heartedly will only harm the business in the long run. References Feldman, N.G., 1972. Pride in heritage-or resentment?: A sociologist analyzes library staff reaction. Wilson Library Bulletin, 46(January), pp.436-40. Hayes, J., 2010. The Theory and Practice of Change Management. 3rd ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Jermier, J.M., Knights, D. & Nord, W.R., 1994. Resistance and power in organizations. London: Routledge. Krantz, J., 1999. Comment on "challenging 'resistance to change'". Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), pp.42-44. Lewis, L.K., 2006. Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 70(1), pp.23-46. Piderit, S.K., 2000. RETHINKING RESISTANCE AND RECOGNIZING AMBIVALENCE: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEW OF ATTITUDES TOWARD AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE. Academy of Management Beview, 25(4), pp.783-94. Plate, K.H. & Stone, E.W., 1974. Factors affecting librarians' job satisfaction: a report of two studies. The Library Quarterly, 44(April), pp.97-110. Watson, T.J., 1982. Group ideologies and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 19, p.259–275. Read More