Managing People at Work - Case Study Example

Managing People at work Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Executive Summary 3 Factors that lead to resistance to management change 4 Change resistance management 5 Organizational Change Stressors 7 Organizational Culture 9 National Culture 9 Conclusion 9 References 10 Executive Summary People management at the workplace is one of key drivers of successful implementation of managerial change in any company. Resistance to change is a natural reaction among employees across different organizations. This resistance is mainly influenced by factors like parochial interests, misunderstanding, low tolerance to change, habit, economic implications and the fear of the unknown. In order to ensure successful implementation of change in any company, the top management must come up with different strategies to curb resistance from their personnel. There are three main change management techniques including resistance prevention, proactive resistance management, and reactive resistance management. Using Housing Industry Association case study, this paper discusses different factors that lead to resistance to change while also providing an extensive discussion with regard to how change can be managed. In essence, the paper excellently provides different techniques for managing people in the work place. Factors that lead to resistance to management change In many occasions, change comes with tremendous benefits to the organization if it is properly planned and implemented (Tehrani, 2010). However, for employees, the normal and natural reaction to change is resistance. From the case study, Deborah’s resistance to the newly implemented change at Housing Industry Association can be attributed to the following four key factors: Parochial interests; misunderstanding, low tolerance to change; habit; economic implications; and fear of the unknown. Parochial self-interest in this regard is explained as individuals or employees only being concerned by the implications for themselves and in most cases, their views or perceptions are often biased of a particular situational condition (Berman & Berman, 2011). Deborah’s situation as exhibited in the case, she regarded herself as the best option to be given the promotion to the position of executive support manager since she had been working with HIA for the last fifteen years. In the same line of argument, she saw Melinda as a junior employee of the company and hence was not qualified to be her new manager (Runion, 2011). Accordingly, Deborah had a habit that always gave her a comfort zone where she could not be closely monitored to do what was in the best interest of the company but rather for her personal accomplishments (Yarberry, 2010). The habit in this essence provides a sense of comfort and security and it is always well established and very hard or extremely difficult to change. Deborah was used to reporting late to her workplace and leaving early; when Melinda was promoted to be Deborah’s new manager, Deborah was threatened that the comfort and security she was enjoying was going to be abolished (Lyons & Wilker, 2012). Misunderstanding is another key factor that leads to change resistance; from the case, we can wholly establish that Deborah never comprehended why Melinda was promoted instead of her (Collins, 2008). For example, because of Melinda hard work and consistency in her accomplishments together with educational achievements as well as the new energy she would provide were the key elements that merited her to the new position. However, Deborah was adamant and incompetent to understand this (Furnham, 2011). Furthermore, Deborah feared the unknown; it is natural that changes which confront people tend to exemplify fear and anxiety; for instance the introduction of new technology or new work practices always create uncertainty (Robbins, 2012). The new working procedures that were introduced by the top management proved threatening to Deborah, and given the fact that her activities were going to be overseen by her former co-worker she never felt comfortable with this idea and hence her profound resistance (Agarwal, 2009). Change resistance management Change management is the vital and critical measure to ensure the intended organizational change succeeds successfully. It is mainly the application of structured process and set of tools for managing the people side of change to make sure that the desired results are achieved. For this matter, change management comprises of different change management tools, strategies and techniques for people management as part of change (Korponai, 2012). Three main change management techniques can be effectively employed to ensure the success of change in any organization. Following this understanding, Melinda could have used the bellow techniques in order to appropriately deal with Deborah’s issues. Resistance prevention: this involves the application of effective change management tools in the first place to ensure that when the real change occurs, all employees are aware of it and hence comply respectively. This demand for the organization to communicate effectively, build coalitions and actively engage in the intended change (Korponai, 2012). The establishment of clear and tailored communications plans that will target specific individuals or audiences is a significant step that Melinda and the lager HIA organization could have done in order to minimize resistance. Similarly, the organization should have empowered Melinda to be the advocate and leader for change (Agarwal, 2009). In the same line of argument, the management should have trained the groups that were going to be directly impacted by the intended change at the appropriate time. By using these procedures, Melinda could have supported all employees including Deborah through change. It is important to note that change management is not only about resistance prevention; rather resistance prevention involves effective and efficient application of change management. Proactive resistance management: this addresses the identified or anticipated resistance. Prior to the implementation of change management plans, various activities must be undertaken including conducting the assessment to ensure that, the plans are tailored to the organizational situation. This activity is used to identify the anticipated points of resistance. Proactive resistance management focuses on acting on project team’s foresight instead of acting on the project post mortem (Agarwal, 2009). The management of anticipated change resistance should always be incorporated in the change management plans and/or addressed in advance. With regard to these facts, Melinda and the HIA management as a whole could have anticipated Deborah’s resistance and address it in advance. Reactive resistance management: it is true that a company can have excellent change management plans and anticipate potential problems; however, it still experiences the resistance during the change process (Korponai, 2012). Reactive resistance management works to address how the company reacts when resistance to change occurs. This involves the identification of the root cause of the resistance being experienced. After the root cause has been established, the company comes up with appropriate measures to manage resistance particularly when it becomes enduring and persistent. These measures include listening, removing barriers to change, and focusing on the ‘what’ rather than ‘how’ while also offering clear choices and consequences. Similarly, the management explained the real tangible benefits to the employees and converting the strongest dissenters or even removing the extremely resistant individuals. Lastly, enabling and empowering the appropriate resistance managers. Organizational Change Stressors From the case study, it is evident that a substantial number of individuals were stressed particularly due to the new management changes that had been implemented. Following this establishment, this section will discuss how various personnel were affected. Melinda: this case study exhibits various situations where Melinda was subjected to extreme stress. First, Deborah’s behaviour was unwelcoming and unethical; she could not respect Melinda in her new position as the executive support manager (Taylor, Doherty & McGraw, 2012). Melinda’s efforts to try to manage Deborah’s behaviour were ignored and in fact, it integrated Deborah’s resistance. Deborah could not respect Melinda as her manager; she despised her as being egoistical. Similarly, the new work procedures were extremely stressing to Melinda, for instance she had to learn new management skills for her new position as well as provide directions to her team members. They also had to work for more hours than usual. Deborah: She was used to doing things her own way; reporting late to work, spending more than two hours for lunch than the recommended one hour, and above all, she always left half an hour early from the job (Korponai, 2012). When the new changes were implemented, she was denied these loose ends while she was also forced to work under controlled working conditions (Berger, 2011). Accordingly, the fact that Melinda who had only worked with the company for two years and as her co-worker was promoted to the executive support manager position was the main stressing facts that Deborah could not cope up with (Agarwal, 2009). Melinda team members: the new working conditions that were implemented by HIA were extremely demanding for Melinda’s team members (Melling & Booth, 2008). The changes were incrementally implemented thus continuously and gradually adding more work to Melinda’s team members. They spend more hours on job than usually something that was stressful given the fact that they were not used to working for longer hours. Organizational Culture The company’s organizational culture dictates how things are done within the company’s working environment. For this matter, employees and the entire management are guided by the prevailing culture within the company (Armstrong, 2010). Given this understanding, it was a failure on HIA’s culture that highly contributed to the escalation of events that were depicted in the case study (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2009). For instance, due to poor working regulations, Deborah found her own way of doing things without being questioned and when this culture was changed, she found it hard to cope-up with the new working requirements. National Culture The national culture like the organizational culture dictates how the citizens of a country behave and undertake their daily lifestyle. In the same line of discussion, the case study displays a situation where the national culture encourages the laziness in the workplace. For instance, the Deborah’s actions of reporting late for work and leaving before time is a clear indicator that the national culture encourage citizens to do what they like and when they like to do it. Similar, national regulations with regard to organizational management are not up to standard. Conclusion Managing change in the work place is key to successful change implementation. The above discussion provides a clear exhibit as to how employees resist change; the main factors that cause employees to resist change. Similarly, change management techniques that the top management should employ in order to minimize if not abolish employee resistance to change. The Housing Industry Association case study displays different scenarios where change in management was highly resisted. Accordingly, various people were subjected to extreme stress when the new change was implemented at the company. This resistance can be attributed to poor organizational culture and the national culture at large. References Agarwal, K. (2009). Perception management: The management tactics. Jakarta: Global India Publications Armstrong, M. (2010). How to manage people. New York: Kogan Page Publishers Berger, A. (2011). Managing and leading people. London: GRIN Verlag Berman, E., & Berman, D. (2011). People skills at work. New York: CRC Press Collins, S. (2008). Module 3: Managing conflict and workplace relationships. London: Cengage Learning Furnham, A. (2011). Managing people in a downturn. London: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers Hunsaker, J., & Hunsaker, P. (2009). DK essential managers: Managing people. London: DK Publishing Korponai, D. (2012). Solving management's puzzle: The art of managing people and adapting in an overseas environment. London: Trafford Publishing Lyons, N., & Wilker, M. (2012). Interactive project management: Pixels, people, and process. London: New Riders Melling, J., & Booth, A. (2008). Managing the modern workplace: Productivity, politics and workplace culture in postwar Britain. New York: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Robbins, S. (2012). The truth about managing people, 3rd Ed. London: FT Press Runion, M. (2011). Perfect phrases for managing people (EBOOK). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Taylor, T., Doherty, A., & McGraw, P. (2012). Managing people in sport organizations. London: Routledge Publishers Tehrani, N. (2010). Managing trauma in the workplace: Supporting workers and organisations. London: Routledge Publishers Yarberry, G. (2010). The art of managing people is no secret: Working through people. London: Author House Read More