Understanding of Change and Peoples Varying Responses to It - Literature review Example

Different Responses to Change 1. Introduction Resistance to change seems to dominate the majority of literature regarding people’s reactions to change. However, people are naturally adaptable thus there is a strong possibility that there are different responses to change. Change is necessary and it can have various consequences including intense emotions and painful transitions. People react to change and our responses vary significantly depending on our individual capacity to cope. Some of us may welcome change immediately while others needs more time to adjust. Similarly, some of us would quickly resist while others would think about it and positively accept the changes in a later time. 2. Aim There are a number of literatures dealing with organizational change but they often discuss resistance as the only response to change. For this reason, this report aims to gain a better understanding of change and people’s varying responses to it. A review of different literature will be conducted to find, discuss, and analyze different theories about the subject. 3. Outline The main contribution of this report is the understanding of people’s different responses to change. Section 1 introduces the topic, the aims and the purpose of this study. Section 4 is a literature review which will discuss relevant theories concerning change and people’s responses. These include some works about human adaptation, transition, predictability, and emotional pathways. Moreover, it will also present an analysis of the reviewed literature in Section 5, a summary of the report and concluding statement in Section 6. 4. Literature Review There are various internal and external forces that make change necessary and change itself can have both positive and negative effects. Whether arising from economic, political, technological, cultural, or society sources, the pace and complexity of change contribute to the intense emotions that play out in organizations (Bunker 2008, p.7). People do change and they change regularly (Bellman 2001, p.135). However, people often change reluctantly or only with the conviction that we are moving to something better or perhaps not changing would be too painful. Organization change is even more complex as there evidently many people involved, each one of them dealing with their own issues about change. “Change is a process” (Marx & Micelli 2008, p.101) and thus individual goes to the process differently. Some people may lack the requisite skills or experience needed to change and therefore remain entrenched in old behavior, while others may charge ahead with reckless abandon, seemingly oblivious to the changing demands. Still others would be upset and resistant in a moment, but primed to recover and to learn in the long run. However, generally, the capacity of humans to adapt to the changing environment or circumstances is limited but can be enormous (Chambers & Craft 1997 p.57). While other authors say that some individual would readily welcome change there are certainly others that would resist as they find it difficult to adapt. Other literature are more detailed and accentuates that people have predictable responses to change thus those who are experiencing major changes are merely exhibiting various patterns of responses (Jacobs & Logigian 1999, p.2) such as being entrenched and besieged (Bunker 2008, p.6). On the other hand, various models of human’s reaction to change also indicates that the human response to change follows a predictable emotional pathway (Russell 2006, p.60) and these responses can be generally either neutral, positive, or negative (Chambers & Craft 1997, p.57). Depending on the emotional pathways, different reactions such fear, insecurity, uncertainty, frustration, resentment, anger, sadness, depression, guilt , distrust, and a sense of unfairness and betrayal may be observed (Bunker 2008, p.7). An ‘entrenched’ response is similar to being ‘negative’ or more simply riding out the change. Bunker (2008, p.7) explains that these people think that the familiar and well-known would go away and because of that, they feel restless and irritated and blame the organization for taking away what was fine. Consequently, they hang around and oftentimes avoid taking any risks in the hope that the old familiar routine would return soon. In contrast, people that are overwhelmed by changes feel depressed and powerless and tend to withdraw from what is going on around them. As a result, these people spend most of their time and energy contemplating about what is happening thus losing the opportunity to learn and survive in the new environment. A ‘neutral’ response to change is probably the most common among employees of any organization. Although changes are occurring persistently in an active organization, some employees appear not affected by a particular change. Normally, the first reaction of such employee is ignorance of the currently occurring changes. This behavioral response according to Chambers & Craft (1997, p.57) is normal because some people, regardless of the many changes occurring around us, tend to ignore these things as if it has nothing to do with them. A ‘positive’ response to changes is indicative of cooperation, adaptation, progress, and capacity to cope with change (Chambers & Craft 1997, p.57). Some managers view this quality as loyalty and helpful to the organization. According to Eitington (1997, p.565), this people are ‘navigators’ who face change courageously and take a proactive role rather a reactive stance. This type of people creates a vision of desired future, collect positive data relevant to it, and pursue it assertively. There are four positive responses to change and according to Huber (2006, p.184), they can be uniformed optimism, informed pessimism, hopeful realism, and informed optimism. A ‘negative’ response, as opposed to a person’s strong capacity to cope with change, is commonly viewed by some organizational leaders as ‘dysfunctional’ (Chambers & Craft 1997, p.57) and an obstacle to goal achievement. This type of behavior can be very active and detrimental as it involves hesitation to support or take the necessary action. These types of people see themselves as victims and threatened by overwhelming, hostile situations with which they simply cannot cope. They often respond with fight-or-flight mechanism, typically fatalistic, regard management’s intentions in a cynical vein (Eitington 1997, p.565). The relation between these behavioral patterns and patterns of adaptation is like the relation between inside and outside forces for change (Poole & Van de Ven 2004, p.65). Adaptation requires sensitivity to environmental change and flexibility in response to change. Sensitivity according to Walters (2000, p. 151) includes an understanding of what is going on both the internal and external environments, and weak sensitivity is consequential to isolation when people distance themselves from their internal environments or close-mindedness as a result of psychologically disassociation from one’s external environments. However, sensitivity alone is not an assurance that people can easily adapt as a person also requires to be flexible in his strategies. He needs to have the ability to apply these strategies in tune with his circumstances. Transition is an internal, psychological process that people go through to come to terms with a new situation. Normally, transition begins with ‘endings’, a time of loss as well as opportunity (Martin & Rogers 2004, p.145). For this reason, no matter how welcome a change might be, it will be crucial to let go of important aspects of the past so transition can move through the ‘neutral zone’, the place in the midst of the moment of confusion and disorientation. Thus, members of an organization’s adaptation to change can be divided into three phases, the first being ending, and there is a sense of loss due to a break with what has been considered safe or accepted practice (Jacobs & Logigian 1999, p.2). This phase can begin with denial that oftentimes includes anger, bargaining, and a sense of loss (Marx & Micelli 2008, p.101). The second phase is ambiguity or resistance where an individual feels adrift, confused, and hopeless that would later turn into exploration and acknowledgment that there has been a loss that brings about grief and opportunity. During this phase, individuals are open to a level of acceptance and adjustment (Marx & Micelli 2008, p.101). These individuals can viewed as ‘survivors’ of the victim stage and according to Eitington (1997, p.565), these people at first think they are in the mercy of unchangeable circumstances, events, and forces but they do believe they can live through it all if they can manage to hold on or get competitive with others. The third and final phase is accepting where individual find it good to start a new beginning where he can renew learning within a new paradigm (Jacobs & Logigian 1999, p.2). An individual at this phase will have a renewed sense of commitment (Marx & Micelli 2008, p.101) and becomes more optimistic (Huber 2006, p.814). A different form of the emotional stages people go through during adaptation was identified by Manion in his work in 1995 in Huber (2006, p.813). These include losing focus, minimizing the impact, the pit, let go of the past, test the limits, searching for meaning, and integration. ‘Losing focus’ happens when confusion and disorientation proliferates while ‘minimizing impact’ occurs when a person denies or pretend that the change is not significant. ‘The pit’ is where the resistance arises because of anger, discouragement, and resentment and would continue until the end of the change process is seen and energy returns to ‘let go of the past’. There is more optimism after this stage and a person would try to ‘test the limit’ and try out new skills or seeks new experience. The individual would then reflect on the change process and ‘search for meaning’ and soon, changes would be ‘integrated’ into daily life. 5. Analysis Taking into account all the various theories reviewed, it appears that most people inherently distrust change and responses are usually changing in the passing of time. However, the negative responses cannot be immediately classified as resistance to change since it may be just a momentary response by a confused person or an immediate emotional impact of change. As mentioned earlier, change itself can bring both positive and negative effects thus change contributes greatly to the reaction of those people that would be affected. If change is indeed a process, we could assume that reactions of individual would vary since each individual possesses different coping skills. Some of them may be lacking the required skills or experience and would remain entrenched in that stage until they finally recover. Humans according to various literatures are generally adaptive by nature and they have the capacity to adapt to the changing environment or situation. Although others seem to ‘resist’, their behavior is more likely a reaction of someone who do not have the necessary skills to cope or temporarily overwhelmed by the sudden turn of events. The theory of human’s natural capacity to adapt to change is strongly supported by various theories on the predictability of human responses and the presence of emotional pathways that can explain why there are neutral, positive, and negative reactions to change. Being neutral is normal but can be very unproductive since people with such attitude to change do not react and adapt. A more favorable response to change is being ‘positive’ as it is an indication of adaptability and willingness to cooperate. These people are positive in the sense that they do face change courageously and are not troubled by the uncertainties of change. A negative response although appears as a resistance, is rather a momentary hesitation to take part because suspicion and fear. These people are usually incapable and lack the flexibility required to cope and adapt to their changing circumstances. People therefore do not necessarily resist change but rather merely experiencing a normal transition towards the neutral zone. The adaptation process takes time and although there are always confusions and disorientations in the beginning, it always ends with integration. 6. Conclusion Change undeniably contributes to the intense emotions of individuals particularly those that are not outfitted with coping skills and experience. However, humans are adaptable and these emotions are just temporary responses. In fact, various literatures clearly supported the notion that people are predictable and showing various patterns of responses to change. A person’s immediate reaction to change is therefore not an outright resistance as there are undoubtedly different responses to change. A neutral response is definitely not a resistance but the opposite. Similarly, a positive response is indicative of cooperation and willingness to adapt. Although negative responses may be somewhere between resistance and acceptance, these responses are momentary and usually end in a more positive outlook to change. 7. Bibliography BELLMAN G.M. 2001. Getting things done when you are not in charge. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, US BUNKER K. A. 2008. Responses to Change: Helping People Make Transitions, Center for Creative Leadership, US CHAMBERS H. E. & CRAFT R. 1997. No fear management : rebuilding trust, performance, and commitment in the new American workplace, CRC Press, US EITINGTON J. E. 1997, The winning manager: leadership skills for greater innovation, quality, and employee commitment, Gulf Professional Publishing, US HUBER D. 2006. Leadership and nursing care management, Elsevier Health Sciences, US JACOBS K. & LOGIGIAN M. K. 1999. Functions of a manager in occupational therapy. SLACK Incorporated, US MARTIN V. & ROGERS A.M. 2004. Leading interprofessional teams in health and social care, Routledge, UK MARX E. &, MICELLI D. 2008. Leadership and Management Skills for Long-Term Care, Springer Publishing Company, US POOLE M.S. & Van de VEN, 2004. Handbook of organizational change and innovation, Oxford University Press, US RUSSEL L. 2006. Change Basics, American Society for Training and Development, US WALTERS G.D. 2000, Beyond behavior: construction of an overarching psychological theory of lifestyles, Greenwood Publishing Group, US Read More