Ways an Employee May Effectively Resist Change - Literature review Example

Ways an Employee May Effectively Resist Change Table of Contents I. 3 II. Introduction 3 III. Discussion 5 IV. Conclusion/Summary 7 References 10 I. Abstract The paper is an investigation of the ways in which employees in organizations are able to resist change effectively, from a study of the available relevant academic and trade literature on organizational change. The paper briefly situates the investigation in the larger context of change in general, and the literature on change management and the important stakeholders of change processes in organizations. The paper also touches on the psychological dynamic of change processes, and the dynamics of the creation of organizational and employee inertia and how that inertia in turn becomes an obstacle to inevitable changes that have to be made. Because both of these forces, inertia and change forces, are necessary and inevitable, both forces are intrinsic to change management equations and need to be managed well. The paper examines the roles that collective resistance, the resistance of key employees in influential positions, and disparate resistance, apathy and cynicism among employees play in successful efforts to thwart and resist organizational change. The paper examines the literature and finds that those factors or forces do make up the very ways that employees are able to resist external pressures to change with much success (Hodgkinson 1999; Singh and Dixit 2011; Visser 2011; Brown and Cregan 2008; Godin 2001; Hannan and Freeman 1984; March 1981; Judge 2001; Taylor 2013; March 1981). II. Introduction The paper aims to discuss the ways that employees may effectively resist change in modern organizations, as detailed in the academic literature. The paper looks at the academic literature to gain a broad perspective of the nature of change in general, and of the way change is inherent in the very nature of organizations of all kinds and of the environments in which those organizations operate. In essence because change is an inherent aspect of life, it is true too that change is an inherent aspect of organizations and the environments that organizations move in. The same holds for the various stakeholders of those organizations, with employees being one of the most vital stakeholder groups in organizations. The paper also looks at the psychology of organizational change and of inertia on the part of organizations and its employees, and why that inertia leads to employees resisting change. Along the way the paper traces the roots of that inertia to natural processes that enshrine established ways of doing, via processes, groups, and practices that become embedded in the standard way of doing things in organizations, because those very processes and established ways have worked to catapult organizations to success in the past. Employee inertia too can be seen as part of that calcification process where employees become very adept and comfortable with established ways of doing things, and therefore become resistant to change. The paper then examines the literature in support of the intense focus on employees in change processes, evidenced by the focus on employee involvement and similar paradigms for garnering employee support and ownership of change efforts. On the other hand, there are several exclusions to this. Among the things that are not included in the investigation are a survey of the change management models and protocols that are present in the literature, and the focus is on the specific ways that employees are able to successfully thwart and resist change, rather than on the many interventions that are made to engender employee trust and support for change efforts. Employee involvement is discussed superficially, as this is not the core subject of the paper, and is included only to demonstrate the importance that academic literature places on employees as vital stakeholders in the change process. The paradigms to break through and to negate employee resistance to change are likewise not included in the discussion, as the focus is on the ways that employees resist change, not the solutions to the resistance and ways to overcome that resistance (Hodgkinson 1999; Singh and Dixit 2011; Visser 2011; Brown and Cregan 2008; Godin 2001; Hannan and Freeman 1984; March 1981; Judge 2001; Taylor 2013; March 1981). III. Discussion The academic and practitioner consensus is that businesses and organizations in general are ruled by change as a primary maxim, and that change in general is inevitable from a confluence of many factors, among them changes in technology, in the nature of the markets in which organizations and businesses exist, innovation, changes in the competitive landscape, and many others. Moreover, even in the best of times and in the most ideal circumstances, organizations of all sizes experience resistance to change from within, even as it is necessary for these organizations to change or to ride the changes in order to continue being relevant In many instances, being able to change means being able to survive, and the inverse of that is that an inability to change often means the death of organizations in the long term A problem therefore is this resistance to change, and how leaders can best effect change and best deal with resistance to change among members of the organizations. These endeavors are difficult even with the guidance of tools distilled from experience by experts such as Kotter and others, who prescribe organizational change models and processes precisely to deal with the problematic aspects of organizational change On the other hand, the proliferation of detailed academic studies on the subject matter also give an indication of the importance of being able to manage organizational change in its various aspects effectively, including the management of employees, who may thwart change efforts successfully through their resistance (Mind Tools 2014; Taylor 2013; March 1981; Markus and Robey 1988; Hannan and Freeman 1984; Weick and Quinn 1999; Godin 2001). There are many complications relating for instance to effecting change in modern organizations that are successful, who start out as being innovators, but who then become very successful in their fields for a time. The problem relates to the way the success of the organization hinges on the past excellent performance of some core employees, who in any change endeavor may be the ones most resistant to the change. This is a problem wherein those who are the gatekeepers of change so to speak are the ones who are also standing in the way of successful efforts to effect change in those organizations. Success, in the academic literature, breeds a kind of inertia, and the employees themselves are the ones who perpetuate the current order of things and resist all attempts by outsiders or by top management to bring about change. This inertia then on the organizational level reflects the inertia that exists within the key employees of the firm. If the employees are powerful enough, have enough clout by virtue of their position in the organization or by virtue of their numbers, then their power can block any change efforts successfully and lead to organizational stagnation. Moreover, even with the most powerful leaders, the lack of buy-in from employees relating to change efforts is cited as a common reason for the failure of change efforts due to the resistance of employees to the change (Godin 2001; Hannan and Freeman 1984; March 1981; Judge 2001). A focus on the role that employees play in successful or unsuccessful organizational change efforts in the literature likewise points to the importance of employees in the change process, precisely because employees can derail, block, and ultimately make change efforts fail. The concept of employee involvement revolves around this basic premise that because employees are one of the most vital stakeholders in an organization, they need to be involved in major decision making processes that have massive impact on their lives and on their organizations, and this is most evident in change efforts. Unions who derail company strategic plans by non-cooperation, and employees who fail to cooperate in various small and big ways because they do not have a sense of ownership over change processes, are just examples of the key role that employees and employee involvement play in the whole equation. The literature posits that change efforts need buy-in, and that decisions on change have to involve employees from the get-go in order for change efforts to gain traction (Hodgkinson 1999; Singh and Dixit 2011; Visser 2011). The above discussion points to the many ways that employees can effectively thwart and resist change. They can resist change from the top, as when key employees who have made the company successful in the past stand in the way of change processes at the decision-making level. They can resist change collectively too, as when unions for instance insist on keeping the status quo and refusing to cooperate. Individual employees too can in their own efforts thwart change efforts through apathy and through cynicism, and through deliberate efforts to stall and to generally make sure that their individual efforts are not supportive of the success of the change initiatives (Hodgkinson 1999; Singh and Dixit 2011; Visser 2011; Brown and Cregan 2008). IV. Conclusion/Summary This paper found a wealth of academic and trade literature pointing to the many ways that employees can effectively resist organizational change efforts, necessitating the need to focus on such key organizational change areas as employee involvement, change management with employees as important stakeholder groups in change projects, and the need to better understand change and change management in organizations as a whole. The literature helps ferret out the many ways that employees are able to resist change, in line with the objective of this paper, and those ways include resisting change collectively, through individual apathy and cynicism, and through key employees blocking change with their substantial organizational influence and clout as top managers and movers who initially made the organization successful. All these efforts are aspects of organizational and employee inertia or resistance, which in turn stem from the way successful organizations tend to solidify around processes and systems that work and that were institutionalized by past successes. The idea is that change is something that cannot be averted and is in the DNA of all organizations and of the environments in which they operate. Taking a step back too, it is in the nature of successful organizations to calcify and to set in motion inertial forces that reinforce the status quo, because those forces were in the past the very forces that led to company success. In a way therefore one can view resistance to change and the forces of change as in themselves an essential dynamic, and employees represent both the forces that make companies successful and the forces that resist the changes necessary for organizations to continue to thrive and succeed moving forward. The successful change management effort factors in employee participation and the dynamics of employee inertia and resistance to change, as discussed above (Hodgkinson 1999; Singh and Dixit 2011; Visser 2011; Brown and Cregan 2008; Godin 2001; Hannan and Freeman 1984; March 1981; Judge 2001; Taylor 2013; March 1981). References Brown, M. and Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational Change Cynicism: The Role of Employee Involvement. Human Resource Management 47 (4). [Online] Available from: http://cmapspublic.ihmc.us/rid%3D1227459657205_731589955_14686/Organizational%2520Change%2520Cynicism.pdf [Accessed 16 February 2014] Godin, S. (2001). Survival Is Not Enough. Fast Company. [Online] Available from: http://www.fastcompany.com/44216/survival-not-enough [Accessed 16 February 2014] Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 49 (2). [Online] Available from: http://glenn.osu.edu/faculty/brown/home/Org%20Theory/Readings/Hannan1984.pdf [Accessed 16 February 2014] Hodgkinson, A. (1999). Employee Involvement and Participation n the Organizational Change Decision: Illawara and Australian Patterns. University of Wollongong Research Online. [Online] Available from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=commwkpapers [Accessed 16 February 2014] Judge, P. (2001). How Will Your Company Adapt? Fast Company. [Online] Available from: http://www.fastcompany.com/44192/how-will-your-company-adapt [Accessed 16 February 2014] March, J. (1981). Footnotes to Organizational Change. Administrative Science Quarterly. [Online] Available from: http://www.sasse.se/akademiska/Old%20Documents/March.pdf [Accessed 16 February 2014] Markus, M L and Robey, D. (1988). Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science 34 (5). [Online] Available from: http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/Markus.pdf [Accessed 16 February 2014] Mind Tools (2014). Kotters 8-Step Change Model. Mind Tools. [Online] Available from: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm [Accessed 16 February 2014] Singh, S. and Dixit, P K. (2011). Employee Involvement: An Approach to Organizational Development & Change. VSRD International Journal of Business & Management Research. [Online] Available from: http://www.vsrdjournals.com/MBA/Issue/2011_10_Oct/Web/7_Shivangee_Singh_428_Research_Communication_Oct_2011.pdf [Accessed 16 February 2014] Taylor, A. (2013). Leading the Way: Organizational change can be managed. Mind Tools. [Online] Available from: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm [Accessed 16 February 2014] Visser, C. (2011). Facilitating employee involvement and participation in solution-focused organizational change. The Progress-Focused Approach. [Online] Available from: http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/2011/11/facilitating-employee-involvement-and.html [Accessed 16 February 2014] Weick, K. and Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational Change and Development. Annu. Rev. Psychol 50. [Online] Available from: https://www.uzh.ch/iou/orga/ssl-dir/wiki/uploads/Main/Weick_Quinn.pdf [Accessed 16 February 2014] Read More