Employees Resistance to Change Is the Major Cause of Change Failure - Literature review Example

Running Head: EMPLOYEE RESISTANCE TO CHANGE “Employees’ resistance to change is the major cause of change failure” Name Institution Date Employees’ resistance to change is the major cause of change failure According to Smith (2005) change involves moving from a known state to an unknown or new state and thus is prone to resistance from the members of the organization and most importantly the employees. The most difficult stage is managing change successfully to affect the climate and culture which proves more difficult than operations or technology change (Smith, 2005). Change resistance as postulated by Folger and Skarlicki is any behavior by employees intended to invert, disrupt or challenge power relations, disclosure and prevailing assumptions (Bolognese, 2008).Though change is very vital and inevitable in any organizations, employees unconsciously respond to threats that are perceived to result from the change. According to Bovey (2001), resistance to change is a natural part of the process as individuals opt for stimulation and arousal of comfortable levels. Since the experience of change is unique to each individual, their willingness and ability to adopt or accept change differs. In his view, employee resistance is by far the major cause of organizational failure in the change implementation process. This paper evaluates the statement that “employees’ resistance to change is the major cause of change failure” though an exploration of past literature. The views of different researchers were evaluated to come to a relevant conclusion including examples of organizations that have succeeded or failed in the process of change implementation Bovey (2001) argues that the failure of managers to understand and recognize the influence that the human factor has on organizational change results to its assumption and focus being drawn to technical and such like issues which are more predictable. Instead of managing this resistance, they resist it. To achieve success, they result to questionable techniques such as coercion and manipulation so as to overcome the resistance and as a result, employees develop resentment and mistrust toward the management team making the process of change implementation even more difficult. Egan and Fjemestad (2005) also perceive employee resistance as the major cause of failure in the process of change implementation. However, he explains that employee contribution to success of change implementation is equally important as their contribution to its failure. Hughes, (2006) identifies behavioral and attitudinal resistance to change as the two types of resistance likely to affect the process of organizational change. Employee resistance to change was found to be the major cause of failure at all levels in a study of 288 companies. Bryant (2006) explains employee resistance as a major cause of change failure by exploring the consequences of the resistance. To begin with, employee resistance results to increased cost of production that results from a slowdown in the implementation process. As this worsens, organizational productivity fall as trouble and disturbance is experienced in the process, employee’s turnover increases and high levels of employee corruption are experienced. In the worst case scenario, organizational breakdown or destabilization is experienced. Boostra (2004) argues on the contribution of employee resistance from a different point of view. The author argues that sometimes, organizational goals such as cost maximization are contradictory to employee personal goal. Commitment towards the organizational goals and failure to recognize the personal goals of the firms employees may result to a conflict between the individuals (employees) and the owner (firm). However, in some cases the resistance is as a result of changes in procedures. Generally, individuals are afraid of adopting new systems for the fear of the unknown and the perceived impact of this at their individual working levels. This happens because the employees feel that the organizational goals are contradictory to their need and own goals. Pre-programmed conflicts are as a result of differing priorities between the employees and the organization they serve (Boostra, 2004). The diagrammatical representation of the causes of conflict as a cause of employee resistance to change is as follows. Hughes (2006) postulates a different point of view with regard change implementation failure. In his view, it is not employee resistance that results to organizational failure but the failure of managers to involve groups in the process of change implementation. His ideas are evidence based in that a research done on a pajama factory whereby one group of workers were ignore during the change process and the other was involved though change initiative group meetings done by King and Anderson. The results indicated that the group involved in the decision making process were less resistant to the change as compared the group that was not involved through change initiative meeting (Hughes, 2006). I agree with him that in this regard, the failure of managers to address employee resistance rather than the resistance itself was the cause of change failure. Cable, (2008) is in agreement with the argument postulated by Hughes as he indicates that employee resistance to organizational change is not the major cause to failure but rather poor managerial influence techniques. Managers face a unique challenge in that they are responsible for motivating employees to accept organizational change, which can be challenging. Exchanges between managers and employees affect the positive outcome of using different types of managerial influence to low level employee resistance to change. How successful or not a particular technique is at decreasing employee resistance is dependent on whether the employees and managers have high‐ or low‐quality relationships. Some employees have relationships with management that are characterized by loyalty and trust, while other employee‐manager relationships involve more antagonistic exchanges between those involved in these relationships. Individuals can align change with their self-interest and belief system but the uncertainty of success and fear of the unknown can be a block to change (Lawson, 2003). Employee resistance to the change process originates from their lack of awareness. According to Johnston, 2000 in most cases, employees may not quite understand the business goals and usually think of themselves asking questions such as “What could be in for me?” They fear of losing their jobs too. “Could this change cost me my job?” Other reasons why employee resists are comfort with the status quo and fear of the unknown, organizational history and culture, and opposition to the new technologies, requirements and processes introduced by change. Employees are the main users of the new system on a daily basis and in their view, have little or no say about the particular change itself (Daly, 2003). In regard to this, failure of the change implementation process would result from miscommunication or lack of relevant skills. The announcement in any organization that change is being implemented can result to stress as employees develop fear and insecurity especially for the employees directly impacted by the change (Richardson, 2002). This is enough to cause change failure if not keenly addressed as employees misunderstand implications of change for their individual commit­ments. For instance, Philips Electronics, a company based in Nether­lands, employee’s failure to understand changing times resulting to employee resistance drove the organization close to bankruptcy. There was failure to redirect the company in time because employee support was missing. Per­sonal compacts in place at the time blocked change because there was little alignment between senior managers' statements, the practice, atti­tude of lower-cadre managers and the subordinates. It is not until the employees at all levels were involved though workshops and training programs that their support was achieved as they felt included. At the top, the culture of patronage, so­cial networking, and lifetime employment in exchange for loyalty became past tense (Farhi, 1999). An organizational survey in 1994 confirmed that staff had responded favorably to the changes and the new atmosphere. Feelings and morale of empow­erment had gone up Philips's financial performance recovered significantly after fluctuating during early nineties. It is worth noting that employees do not resist change per se, but they resist loss they perceive they will suffer from change. For example in 1999, there was an alliance between Renault and Nissan Companies to boost business which was making huge losses mostly from Nissan company part. However, this did not work out successfully for Renault which was rescuing Nissan company started registering losses and down fall of its share prices (Treece & Farhi, 1999). To make the alliance work, Carlos Ghosn was brought in the scene for he was the main driving force behind Renault cost cutting program (Miller, 2001). Carlos Ghosn started at a higher note with the premonition that change was highly needed in the company and it did not require lots of people but the right catalyst in the right place (Farhi, 1999). First when he was appointed the chief executive officer, every employee starting from the secretary to the top level management had to learn spoken and written English language. It was implemented as a language policy which required all meetings and reports be conducted in English (Carlos Ghosn, 1999). All employees had to undergo an intensive language course. He also believed that for a successful revival of the Nissan Company, then employees must be put in the front line and so he would surprise workers by talking to any employee regardless of his or her level. This enhanced communication and by so doing employee’s resistance to change was curbed. Carlos Ghosn in this case explains employee resistance as just a path to change failure but one that can be corrected if the human aspect can be addressed. To fight against resistance, he included performance oriented compensation plan for bonuses to act as incentives offered to boost profitability and growth in the company. Performance based career advancements was also used to but insisted that some changes will be implemented after ensuring that people in charge have changed their attitude and there are indications that they are accountable in all their performances (Carlos Ghosn, 2002). In this regard, employee resistance can be addressed such that it becomes the least threat to organizational change success. In conclusion, it is evident from the above explanation that employee resistance is by far the major cause of change failure in any organization. Since change management involves directing organizations via change from one state to a newer state, every human being involved in the change must be well informed to reduce this resistance. This means that change is best carried out through team effort and organizations do not have to learn from making mistakes of not addressing this. Frequent communications about the change should be carried out with all organization members put in to consideration as changes can be unsettling, uncomfortable, intimidating, and frightening. People may feel threatened by the upcoming change, unsafe, unable to take risks and could be in denial of the existence of change. As a result, they often react to change with anger and could try to hold onto old lifestyles. However, addressing this in time not only reduces employee resistance but also acts as a catalyst to speeding up change. As much as there are other causes of change failure, the most important aspect remains to be employee resistance. References Hughes, M. (2006). Change management. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel &Development. Boonstra, J. (2004). Dynamics of organizational change and learning. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, p 127. Bryant, M. (2006). Talking about change: Understanding employee responses through qualitative research. Management Decision, 44(2), 246-258. Egan, W. & Fjermestad, J. (2005). Change and Resistance Help for the Practitioner of Change. System Sciences, 2005. HICSS '05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 219c-219c. Bovey, W. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of defense mechanisms. Journal of managerial psychology 16, 7. Ghosn, C. (1999) “We don’t have a choice’” (speech transcript) Automotive news, November 8: 36 -44. Carlos Ghosn (2002) Global Leader series, Speech at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France September 24. Farhi, S. (1999) “Ghosn sees fast start at Nissan,” Automotive news, April 5: 1-2 Treece, J.B., Farhi, S. (1999) “Renault goes for broke with Nissan Bid,” Automotive News, March 22: 43. Miller, S. (2001) Renault steers forward,” Wall Street Journal Europe, February :5. Smith, I (2005). Continuing professional development and workplace learning 11: managing the “people” side of organizational change, Library Management, 26(March), 152-155. Lawson, (2003) The Psychology of Change Management. The McKinsey Quarterly, Retrieved September 8, 2004, from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/WF/ELAN/TR/Knowledge Categories/OrgCulture/CultureResource.htm Johnston, J. (2000). Surviving the Twilight Zone: the psychology of organizational change. Work Relationships.com. Retrieved October 12, 2004, from http://www.workrelationships.com/site/articles/organizational_change.htm Furst. A. & Cable, M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence techniques and leader‐member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 453‐462. Bolognese, A. F. (2008, December 12). Winthrop University, Retrieved may 14th, 2009, from New Foundation: www.newfoundations.com/orgTheroy/Bolognese721.html Richardson, J. (2002). Frugal marketing, Inc. Retrieved June 24, 2011, from FrugalMarketing.com: www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/organizational-change.shtml Read More