Change Management - Coursework Example

Introduction Change is an aspect that cannot be ignored in any given organisation yet the human instinct naturally opposes change. Change usually occurs frequently and at a rapid pace. Consequently, those who tend to resist it may slow down an organisation or even destroy it altogether. Resistance to change usually occurs as a result of the natural tendency to maintain status quo. Human beings generally have an inclination towards stability and this means that organizational change may be regarded as something that will cause instability. Usually, employees may begin depicting some signs of resistance through scepticism. This kind of behaviour creates a barrier that may make it extremely hard to implement organisational change. In light of these, management must go out of their way to deal with organizational resistance to change because even the most carefully laid out or well intentioned changes can still meet resistance. Subsequently, an organisation’s ability to gain benefits from their change efforts is largely affected by their ability to create environments that encourage support and acceptance from other members of the organization. (Coetsee, 2003) Definition and application of resistance to change Some authors assert that resistance to change my be defined as behaviour that human beings depict when they are attempting to protect themselves from the effects of change; these effects may be real or they may be imagined depending on the situation under consideration. Others believe that resistance to change is the act of behaving in a certain manner so as to maintain status when there is a possibility of its alteration or when there is pressure within the organization. Additionally, some authors believe that resistance to change is any form of employee behaviour which has been designed to do any of the following Disrupt Challenge Discourse Invert Interchange Prevailing assumptions or power relations within an organisation However, the latter definitions may be rather narrow. Other writers believe that resistance to change needs to cover a larger array of issues than the ones discussed above. For instance, resistance may be seen as something that encompasses a series of states that start from the cognitive domain, thereafter, they also cover the emotional and behavioural aspects of the employee. (Bridges, 2001) Many people have assumed that resistance to organisational change is largely cognitive. However, this is not necessarily the case; while most behaviour may involve negative thoughts, one cannot undermine the fact that some behavioural and emotional aspects are also involved. The cognitive aspects are usually depicted as reluctance to change. On the other hand, emotional factors are usually seen in the form of frustration and aggression. Usually, most of them depict these signs as defence mechanisms for trying to cope with the anxiety and frustrations that have been brought about by the change. In response to the latter assertions; that organisational resistance to change has three aspects, it is necessary for one to understand some of the elements that make up these aspects. For instance, behavioural resistance to change is usually depicted as the state of inaction or action towards certain things. Sometimes, this may be seen as intentional omission or commission of certain acts. In other situations, it may be regarded as the willingness to lie to authorities. (Hultman, 2005) In other writings, some authors claim that employees may not actually be resisting change as such; in fact most of them may be resisting the effects of that change. For instance, if the change will lead to lower pay, then resistance to change may actually be resistance to lower pay. If the change will diminish an employee’s status then it is likely that those individuals may be resisting that fact. Also, if the change may cause immense discomfort for the employee, then he or she may be looking for ways in which he/she can decrease that too. In this regard, managers must understand that employees do not necessarily oppose change as a phenomenon; instead, they oppose some effects that will arise out of those changes. Why people oppose change within organisations It is essential to realise that sometime what may be considered as resistance to change my actually be a symptom to change. Consequently, aspects such as hostility or minimal effort at work may be merely symptoms of resistance to change rather than the actual phenomenon. In this case, it is important for managers to familiarise themselves with what actually constitutes resistance to change so that they can address the underlying causes and how to reduce them. There are a number of reasons why persons may resist change within any one given organisation. First of all, some people may resist change because they do not understand the effects that may arise out those changes. This is usually the case when managers have not gone out of their way to explain these effects to the important stakeholders. Consequently, in order to avoid the risk that may arise out of that change, employees would rather resist it first. Managers can deal with this problem by clarifying out issues before hand. (Kirkman, 2000) Another reason that causes resistance to change within any organisation is when the nature of the change is not clearly laid out. In other words, when the change is open to different interpretations, then this can cause resistance. Usually, employees feel comfortable when their actions are synchronised with those of others within the organisation. When this is not the case, then it is likely to create tension between employees about how to perform certain tasks or which responsibilities will be assigned to each individual. Sometimes, people resist change within organisations because there may forces (either internal or external) that could deter the success of those endeavours. Sometimes, managers or change initiators may not pay attention to the institutional barriers that may deter the implementation of their change efforts. If these forces are not eliminated prior to the change, then it is likely to cause mixed reactions from employees. Most them may end up rejecting that change altogether even when they feel that the change could cause certain positive benefits to their life. Managers usually make the mistake of laying out all the steps involved in a change process without incorporating the members who will implement it. What this kind of approach does is that it undermines the influence of the other members of the organisation. Most people would feel obliged to implement certain changes when they had a part to play in its directional strategy. Usually, such employees feel like they own the change and may remain committed to it whole heartedly. However, when managers impose their rules upon members of the organisation, then change efforts are likely to be resisted as most of them may assume that this is merely an effort by the underlying administrators to engage in self serving endeavours. (Dent & Goldberg, 2003) Sometimes some managers or administrators may choose to institute change for personal reasons. This is unethical and may cause immense levels of resistance from the affected employees. Such employees may feel as though they would be engaging in donkey work for the manager who instituted those changes. In other words, they may feel that all their efforts will not be rewarded as they would all be directed towards the benefits of the managers or the person who was associated with the change. When change initiators create processes that tend to go against the grain of a certain institution, then they are likely to meet stiff resistance. This means that effective change processes are those ones that usually consider some of the institutional issues that pre-exist within the organisation or those ones that exist among the members of the organisation who will be affected by the change. Consequently, for effective change, managers must either try to merge these changes with institutional frameworks or they must have reliable mechanisms that could assist in the process of eliminating existing institutional frameworks. It should be noted that resistance to change can either be manifested in an active form or passive one. Active resistance is usually depicted by the following Manipulation Ridiculing others Finding fault in others Appealing to fear On the other hand, passive resistance may occur when the affected persons agree with what change initiators have to say but show very little commitment in implementing those changes. In other scenarios, employees my pretend they are actually ignorant about certain aspects of the change. Additionally, information is an important aspect in change management. When employees choose to hide this from other members, then they may be depicting signs of passive resistance. (Piderit, 2002) Sometimes some employees may choose to resist change because they are actually afraid of something new. Even when the impending change is likely to cause positive changes, employees may not embrace it positively because they are not usually sure about their fate in the organisation. Also, new things entail a lot of hard work that may even embrace the process of learning and this may not go down well with many members of the organisation. Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that many people are fond of familiar things. Most of them may think that they could fail in their endeavour. Additionally, others may be faced with difficult cases of making this kind of arrangement work. Some experts assert that resistance to change is normally driven by the fear that the change will require investment in the new skills or new behaviour within the workplace. Consequently, most of the persons within the organisation may feel anxious about these changes and so many of them may have problems instituting these changes. It should be noted that some employees may resist change more than others because of the nature of their personalities. Such individuals usually have very low tolerance for change and may be apprehensive about changing the way their job performances are at that moment. Usually, such employees may be aware of the benefits that arise from those changes but may choose to resist them any way. They usually depict resistance due to subconscious factors that they may not even be aware of. (Kegan & Lahey, 2001) In certain circumstances, employees may perceive change as a form of injustice. In other words, they may depict signs of active resistance so as to get even with their employees. Such employees may choose not to cooperate with their superiors during the implementation process. In other circumstances, they may take this case to the extreme by creating joint and organised resistance across the whole company through industrial sabotage. All these actions are likely to occur when the impeding change seems to be an act of injustice. In this case, employees may simply be trying to restore this justice. Employees usually have certain relationships with their employers known as personal compacts. These compacts are usually established after the latter parties have worked together for considerable periods of time. However, when something new rises such as organisational change, then employees assume that managers are violating the terms of their personal compacts. The relationship created between managers and employees usually has certain underlying terms and obligations. Sometimes, these obligations may be clearly laid out or they may implied. Organisational change instituted by those managers is seen as something that could violate the obligations in those compacts. Personal compacts normally have a series of dimensions. They fall in the following categories Social dimensions Psychological dimensions Formal dimensions Formal aspects are usually applied to the job related areas. For example, the task that managers and employees are supposed to do and the performance requirements expected from the employee. Usually, definitions of the formal dimension can be found in employee contracts, performance agreements and job descriptions. The latter usually clarify the obligations that employees are supposed to meet. On the other hand, there must also be obligations on the part of the employer who must then agree to provide adequate resources needed to complete the job. (Strebel, 2006) Psychological dimensions may encompass different aspects of the employee-manager relations that employ certain virtues. The latter relationship is governed by the need to be loyal to each other. It is also governed by the need to stay committed to agreements made initially. Also, there should be certain levels of trust between managers and the respective employees. Usually, this is the most common case for employee dissatisfaction with organisational change. Most of them may assume that by the institution of certain changes within the organisation, and then the employee can no longer trust that other individual. Sometimes resistance to change associated with personal compacts may be related to social dimensions. Here, aspects revolving around the organisational culture may be perceived to be violated by the change. Also, the social dimensions cover the ethics and values governing the manager employee relationship. If these are presumed to be at risk, then it is likely that they may create greater forms of resistance from them. There may be certain business practices or mission statements that are also encompassed in the social dimensions of this relationship. By instituting change, then certain aspects of these issues may have to be changed and this can create lot of resistance from the affected employees. (Folger & Skarlicki, 2004) All in all, it may be assumed that in order for change to be managed effectively, then managers have to look for ways in which they can meet these personal compacts. In other words, they have to establish new personal compacts by persuading employees to discard the former ones. Such an endeavour will require adequate preparation from the side of the employer. This is because they would have to define different terms or they would have to encompass other ways of doing things. There is a psychological dimension involved in the process of understanding resistance to organisational change. This is called the competing commitment dynamic. Here, an employer institutes certain organisational changes and the latter are usually challenged (but not resisted) by employees. Usually, the resistance occurs as a result of having to do additional work directly related to the change besides their normal work. An employee therefore has two commitments that he or she has to address; the first is his commitment to the change and his commitment to doing what he was supposed to do. When managers are able to understand these two commitments, then they can place their employees’ resistance behaviour in context. However, these conflicting commitments usually work against the project because they normally impede achievement of those goals. The most important thing for managers to do is to look for ways in which they can address these conflicting commitments. This is because the latter need not be regarded as weaknesses. Instead, they should be seen as mechanisms that assist employees in protecting themselves. The next question that managers need to ask themselves is what those issues are that employees are trying to protecting themselves from. Usually, these are big assumptions that every human being has. These huge assumptions are important in creating order in the world by clarifying how things work. Most of the time, these assumptions may not necessarily be true and they are the leading causes of conflicting commitments. Managers must clarify that the assumptions are actually invalid and they must look for ways that can promote them. (De Jager, 2001) Managers should also realise that sometimes resistance can be positive. This is contrary to what many may assume. Usually, such leaders may assume that employees who depict these signs must be overcome in order to achieve organisational goals yet such an assumption is not true. If managers embrace positive criticism or insightful debates from their respective employees, then chances are that the process of change management will be smoothened thus promoting higher chances of achieving those underlying gaols. Change should not be something that is indiscriminate regardless of the affected parties; it should be viewed as something that can be improved by the very people who are implementing it. This is usually the case when those workers have been with the organisation for a long time. Conclusion Resistance to change is natural part within an organisation. Consequently, managers need to look of ways in which they can smoothen this process by addressing the underlying causative factors. The latter can be categories under the social, psychological and the cognitive dimensions Reference Bridges, W. (2001): Managing transitions: making the most of change’ Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts Coetsee, L. (2003): From resistance to commitment; A report by Public Administration; 12, 204-222 De Jager, P. (2001): Resistance to change - a new view of an old problem; The Futurist, p 45, 24-27 Dent, E. & Goldberg, S. (2003): Challenging resistance to change; Applied Behavioural Science Journal, 3, 14, 25-41 Folger, R. & Skarlicki, D. (2004): Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment; Organizational Change Management Journal, 15, 8, 35-50 Hultman, K. (2005): Scaling the wall of resistance; Training & Development Journal, 12, 3, 15-22. Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. (2001): The real reason people wont change; Harvard Business Review, 5, 85-92 Kirkman, B. (2000): Why do employees resist teams? Examining the resistance barrier to work team effectiveness; Journal of Conflict Management, 3, 5, 12, 74-93 Piderit, S. (2002): Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence; Academy of Management, 12, 3, 783 Strebel, P. (2006): Why do employees resist change; Harvard Business Review, 13, 86-92 Read More