Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story by Ford, J., L. Ford, and A. DAmelio - Article Example

HERE YOUR HERE HERE HERE Précis of Journal Article ARTICLE PREMISE The article “Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story” attempts to give the reader a definition of change resistance and the role of the change agent in promoting and ensuring that change principles meet with adoption and minimal resistance. The change agent is described as “undeserving victims of the irrational and dysfunctional responses of change recipients” (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 362). This suggests that change in an organization is dynamic and involves considerable stress stemming from illogical or absurd attitudes from employees or managers who are defiant against adopting a proposed change principle. From the onset, this article is setting the tone for change as a challenging form of opposition related to achieving corporate goals so that the ready fully understands the nature of change in a dynamic organization. The authors refute the pre-existing notion that change can be classified under logical characterization perceptions and even indicate that resistance may be caused by the change agents themselves through their own actions or misguided principles in use for change practices. Change is proposed to be a reaction to the relationship between the change recipients and the agent based on the quality of the relationship dynamics between the two (or lack thereof). The authors are suggesting that when change agents automatically believe that all resistance to change objectives are negative, they miss out on opportunities to halt resistance in a more positive method. The article is challenging the notion that change is a predictable situation occurring of phenomena that is removed from the presence of the change agent, with the agent taking a role as that of a metaphorical umpire that simply dictates compliance using structured methods to combat change. Rather, the article imposes on the reader that change resistance is invariably linked to the attitudes or behavior of the change agent and cannot be separated in all instances where resistance is present. This is an interesting notion considering that most researchers define change resistance from a sort of orderly and predictable pattern of behavior, usually psychologically-based, that has defined and structured methods of combating it. Instead, this article takes a more realistic viewpoint about resistance by defining it as being ambiguous and somewhat unique to the organizational culture that resides at the business or organization. ANALYSIS RELATED TO CHANGE RESISTANCE The article describes the phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophecy which is essentially when beliefs or attitudes about a situation or employee population have a direct form of bias on behavior or method in management or in reducing resistance to change. A self-fulfilling prophecy is one where an individual believes that a certain outcome is going to occur and, through their own actions, bring this consequence to reality. When someone carries these attitudes, expecting automatically to find resistance in a new change effort, resistance will likely be the outcome (Ford, et al.). There is a danger in this type of thinking as pre-set, biased, and false beliefs that resistance will absolutely be a product of change agent efforts will lead the change agent to act somewhat deceptively in the process of creating new change policies. The article indicates they might hide concepts or build irrational systems to combat change, based solely on their perceptions, thus leading to resistance through these efforts. This is an interesting point of view and it makes sense considering that such attitudes can have a direct impact on behavioral approaches. Pre-established and false notions related to resistance expectations would have a broader impact on psychology and the social dynamics associated with new change principles, and thus the notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy would seem to be supported by most psychologically-based literature on human behavior. Further, the article points out that change agents are often concerned about what the outcome will be to the agent himself, such as receiving chastisement for not accomplishing a corporate change goal, that has an impact on behavioral responses to the change recipients. This is a self-serving view of the role of the change agent, yet it fits with most recognized research studies on management action associated with rewards versus punishment beliefs that dictate behavior as it relates to scapegoating. There is a concept of the psychological contract that is recognized in most management literature dealing with the spoken promises and contracts that are made with employees during their tenure at the organization. These psychological contracts are usually strong motivators and there are expectations that managers will keep their verbal promises and there are consequences at the psychological level if they are broken. The article reinforces the integrity of these concepts related to psychological contracts and describes the outcomes (usually negative) when a change agent breaks such agreements before, during and after the change efforts have been launched. In relation to organizational justice, the perception of fairness regarding certain organizational activities, the authors identify that the role of the change agent is to ensure that such contracts are not breached to gain support for a change effort. People in the organization, as identified by the article, tend to seek revenge when trust has been violated and will believe that such negative behaviors are justified for breaching their confidence in the change agent’s promises. These situations that might occur, including theft, sabotage or other aggressive behaviors should be classified as a form of resistance that is in direct relationship to the role of the change agent. What is relevant is that the authors propose through supporting research that victims of these breaches of integrity can reconcile with the change agent if formal and legitimate apologies are offered. This shows that when such breaches occur, change objectives are not necessarily going to be brought to ruin and can still meet their intended objectives. Communications problems during and before the change practices can also lead to damaged relationships between employee groups and the change agent that are the catalyst for change resistance. Agents need to legitimize change by describing its importance and relevance to achieving goals and never be ambivalent or vague about the meaning of change and the role of others in supporting it. Such ambivalence or lack of clarity, as provided by the article, will likely lead to more resistant attitudes. Change agents also make the mistake of misrepresenting change practices and their meaning and failing to call others to take action appropriately. Change agents tend to believe that by simply clarifying the change principles and its relevancy, it will be enough to gain support and immediate employee action toward working on the change efforts. However, the article suggests this is a misconception that is likely to lead to change resistance (Ford et al.). ANALYSIS RELATED TO OVERCOMING RESISTANCE The article offers that change agents will sometimes carry the false belief that it is best to ignore resistance when it occurs, believing that to acknowledge a situation is to give it power and relevance and by denying it they have lessened its power. This is detrimental to avoiding change and the article implies that change agents should label it accordingly, give it truth, and then use persuasive tactics to attempt to combat it when resistance occurs. A more thoughtful change agent recognizes that there should be ongoing discussion throughout the entire change effort and the authors reinforce that resistance can actually open dialogue. By acknowledging concerns carried by the change recipients, it keeps the dialogue open to facilitate more positive discussion and idea generation to make the process of change become more streamlined and effective. Understanding this would be more effective in a culture where people have considerable loyalty towards the business and would be willing to accept change so long as it is perceived as fair and not restricting of their freedoms or beliefs about the integrity of the organization. The authors indicate that emotional responses as a form of resistance are generally contagious to others in the organization, thus rational responses are not always the most appropriate in combating change resistance. Change agents should not, therefore, always consider resistance to be dysfunctional as this judging type of methodology to combat resistance only leads to more conflict generation. Conflict should be seen as a positive occurrence even though it might be created by previous change efforts that have been unsuccessful or otherwise frustrating for the recipients. By acknowledging these past failures and avoiding judgments that label resistance as maladjusted, a form of housekeeping is accomplished to strengthen the relationship between agent and recipient. Overall, accommodation as a practice to negotiate the conflict borne of resistance is a quality method of achieving a reduction to resistance by making counteroffers to an employee complaint. This should be done, according to the article, when the employees are willing to accept change but have a specific problem with the methodology or concept. All-in-all, however, the goal is to establish a sense of relationship while still promoting the necessary urgency for others that the change is vital and relevant to the organizational needs. THE STUDY’S VIABILITY AND RELEVANCE Largely, this was an intuitive study based on experience from the authors with additional support from previous researchers. Based on the findings, the conclusions drawn make sense as it is related to tested theory on management behavior, employee behavior and their psychological dimensions, and the nature of change in a dynamic organizational environment. The authors are attempting to redefine the parameters of resistance by applying it in a relationship-oriented viewpoint and then building potential solutions to irrational or even legitimate concerns and conflicts that arise to help change agents achieve their ultimate goals. Though a desk-based study with no primary data gathered, the results were reasonable based on the supporting research provided to back up the authors’ claims. The goal was to indicate not the dynamics of what is actually causing resistance to occur, rather to focus on the role of the change agent in relation to the needs of the change recipients. By categorizing the types of attitudes commonly found in change policies or procedures, the authors are able to create new solutions so long as the change agent is willing to take an active role in facilitating communication and actually recognizing the truth of resistance rather than seeking avoidance-based tactics. The idea that change resistance can be positive was an interesting dynamic to the study, especially since most change resistance literature describes it as an absolutely defiant and unrealistic situation with strong psychologically-based rationale from those who resist the change. The article showed that the change agent can lessen the impact of resistance and still meet goals if they take a realistic view of the situation and work on more positive relationship aspects. It is of interest as it helps future change agents to understand their unique roles in facilitating change to develop more appropriate behaviors. Works Cited Ford, J., L. Ford & A. D’Amelio. “Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story”, Academy of Management Review, vol.33, no.2 (2008). Read More