The Ethical Implications of Resistance to Change - Coursework Example

Resistance to Change Name Name of Institution Resistance to Change It is an acceptable fact that the only predictable feature of the business environment is that it is dynamic and will keep changing. For this reason, business organisations have to adopt changes to remain competitive and relevant in a rapidly changing environment. In this case, organisational change encompasses changes to an organisation’s structure, culture, strategies, technologies, and means of operations owing to changes in the business environment (Dawson, 2003). Lewin (1947) noted that organisations go through three vital stages when it comes to changes; unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. It is worth noting that firms might face significant levels of resistance as they transition through each of the three enumerated changes. The purpose of this essay is to find reasons why change is demonised or resisted in organisations. The paper will also discuss the correlation between power and resistance and highlight the ethics of management and resistant positions. Finally, the essay will assess how managerial and resistance positions affect an organisation’s ability to implement an effective change management programme. In as much as change is critical to the well-being of organisations, individuals across the different managerial levels often resist change. Bodell (2014) examined the issue of resistance and noted that there were three factors that lead to the resisting of change. One of the factors was change fatigue, a scenario that occurs when individuals get tired of previous change initiatives that did not work. The fatigue creates resistance in the segments of the organisation that will work with proposed changes on a day to day basis. Bodell (2014) proposes the simplification of change programmes and a focus on the middle levels of the organisation as the way to mitigate change fatigue. The second factor that causes the resistance to change is the mindset of individuals. This factor encompasses elements such as the fear that individuals will not cope with change. Individuals and teams develop habits and become overly reliant on current practices (Singh 2009). This leads to a decision to resist change with a view to mitigating the risks associated with different technologies, cultures, organisational structures, and business strategies. Bodell (2014) notes that this mindset creates leaders who focus on any negative aspects of proposed changes instead of looking at the many benefits that will come from change. Assumptions at the organisational and individual levels are also responsible for change resistance. It is an acceptable fact that organisations develop distinct hierarchies, practices, rules, and power structures over time. This creates the assumption that the firm can only meet its objectives by following existing processes and maintaining the same relationships between teams. These assumptions prevent the organisation from recognising that it can achieve better performance by adopting change. However, this resistance should not be ignored by change agents since the same groups will play a key role in the implementation of change. As stated, the changing business environment forces businesses to implement changes to remain relevant. In such a scenario, change agents develop the view that any form of resistance is problematic due to the view that resistance will harm the prospects of the organisation. Thomas & Hardy (2011) acknowledge that this view has persisted in organisational change literature for a long time. Jabri (2012) offers a different perspective on resistance by noting that those who resist change often have positive intentions. In the case of the assumptions, individuals in an organisation might truly believe that organisational change will impact the competitiveness of the business. Anderson (2011) supports this view by noting that resistance is a healthy and natural part of the process of organisational change. Furthermore, Anderson notes that those who resist change can end up being the individuals who advance change efforts and strengthen the overall transformation of organisations. This leads to the conclusion that resistance should not be viewed as a problematic issue but as an opportunity to identify weaknesses in proposed changes. As stated, there exists two views on resistance with one demonising resistance and the other celebrating resistance. However, each of these views comes with practical, theoretical, and ethical challenges that prevents the development of a complete understanding of organisational change (Thomas & Hardy 2011). Thomas & Hardy suggest that the study of power and resistance is a strategy that should lead to a better understanding of organisational change. It is an acceptable fact that mapping power is one of the steps that should be taken before instituting changes. This allows a change agent to identify the potential sources of resistance. This highlights the importance of considering power and change when studying organisational change. According to Thomas & Hardy (2011), power can be characterised as something that operates at a given time and place in coordinated clusters of relations. Those in power typically consider resistance as a threat to their power as the resistance questions the legitimacy of their power. However, it is evident that this resistance is needed as it prevents the occurrence of repression. Therefore, it can be concluded that there cannot be power without resistance and that resistance is essential to power. This relationship between power and resistance can be applied to organisational change. As in the case of individuals in power, change agents might consider themselves to have complete legitimacy and the right to institute changes. However, the ability of resistance to prevent repression in the case of power also allows individuals and groups in organisations to prevent the implementation of unnecessary changes. This view allows change agents to shift the focus away from identifying and dealing with sources of resistance to focusing on how power and resistance work together to create change. In such a case, an organisation will be able to source input from a greater section of organisational members leading to the acceptance of change by groups that might be marginalised (Thomas & Hardy, 2011). Erkama (2010) offers a different perspective on the relationship between power and resistance by focussing on communication. In this case, Erkama argues that discourse creates, transmits, and reinforces power relations. Additionally, discourses can also threaten and minimise power relations. It is evident that in these circumstances, the discourse can be considered as both power and resistance. This facilitates the conclusion that resistance and power reproduce each other. In the context of organisational change, it can also be argued that resistance is something that will always be inherent. When it comes to the business context, ethics focuses on the study of what is morally wrong or right (Burnes, 2012). However, it is worth noticing that there is no dominant or universal ethical standard that governs the manner in which businesses operate. Dominant forces in society shape what is considered to be ethical at any given point in time (Winstanley & Woodall, 2000). This raises significant issues when it comes to the introduction of changes in organisations. As stated, resistance will always exist in these scenarios. This leads to the conclusion that different groups within the organisation might have completely opposite opinions on what is wrong and right leading to the emergence of ethical conflicts. The case of Qantas can assist in the identification of the ethics of management and resistant positions. The firm had secured its position as the leading airline in Australia and had achieved significant international success. However, the changing business environment and stiff competition is forcing the business to implement changes as and when needed to retain its competitive advantage. These changes have applied to the firm’s organisational culture and structure, technology, and logistical operations (Broadbridge & Education, 2015). In the given example, the forces of change at Qantas will seek to present it in a favourable manner. Those in power might identify those that resist the changes and place them in weaker positions when it comes to altering the organisational structure. Additionally, change agents might feel the need to lie to alter the discourse and facilitate the adoption of change. In essence, the efforts of those who initiate change might end up amounting to manipulation and coercion. On the other hand, the groups that resist the change might resort to sabotaging the business before and after the changes are implemented. In the case of Qantas, the resistant positions will believe that the past and current successes of the business can be attributed to the current culture, technology, and logistical operations. The ethical conflict will arise from both the proponents of change and the resistant positions believing that their actions will lead to the minimisation of bad outcomes and the maximisation of good outcomes. Douglas (2011) also notes that personal and professional values can raise ethical issues for management and resistant positions. For instance, individuals in an organisation will examine the proposed changes to the organisational culture and compare them with their professional and personal values. In cases where the organisational values will match personal and professional values, an individual will support the implementation of changes. Contrariwise, some of the individuals might consider their values to be better and more ethical than those of the organisation (Douglas 2011). These ethical disparities will prompt segments of the organisation to take up resistant positions. It is apparent that an organisation will only achieve effective changes if the proposed changes are supported across the organisation. Bodell (2014) also notes that it would be impossible to force organisational change on especially the middle levels of the management that will implement the changes on a day to day basis. In many cases, the managers will take the view of demonising any form of resistance. This managerial position will have a negative impact on the business as a whole. First, the management and change agents will fail to identify weaknesses in the proposed organisational change and force the organisation to adopt ineffective technologies, cultures, structures, and operations. This scenario will breed change fatigue, a factor that will create further resistance and prevent the firm from adopting effective change management programs. The second implication of the management and resistant positions is that they will lead to unethical practices that are aimed at weakening and even eliminating those who resist change. Resistors who quit, either by force or choice, will represent a loss to the overall knowledge and skills of the organisation. On the other hand, sabotage and other unethical practices from the resistant positions will also compromise the success of the organisation. In summary, such management and resistant positions will negate the objective of organisational change which is to allow a business to improve its competitive position in a dynamic business environment. This essay has examined the reasons why change is resisted and why the resistance is often view as a problematic issue that needs to be managed. Change fatigue, mindset, and assumptions have been identified as the key factors that result in resistance. On the other hand, the essay has acknowledged that long-held traditions are responsible for the demonization of resistance. Importantly, the paper discusses an emergent view that resistance is a healthy and natural part of organisational change. The essay also examines the relationship between power and resistance notes that resistance will always be present in organisational change in the same way that it is also apparent in power. Furthermore, there is a discussion on the ethics of management and resistant positions and the implication of such positions on effective management programs. In summary, the demonization of resistance to change arises from long-held traditions. The ethical implication of the demonization is that different groups will adopt strategies such as lying, sabotage, abusing human rights, and dehumanizing colleagues. This will be based on the assumption that implementing the change will maximise good outcomes and minimise bad outcomes. However, there is an emergent view that resistance is a natural part of change. The adoption of this view should allow managers and change agents to adopt strategies that will lead to successful and effective organisational change. References Anderson, A. (2011). Engaging resistance: How ordinary people successfully champion change. Stanford University Press. Bodell, L. (2014). Why Organizations Resist Change. Big Think. Retrieved 15 October 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZFiN00QALE Broadbridge, D., & Education, G. S. (2015). Qantas: HSC business Case study, volume 15. New York, NY: Get Smart Education Pty. Limited. Burnes, B. (2012). Leadership and Change: The Case for Greater Ethical Clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 239-252. Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience of People at Work. Sage Douglas, F. (2011). Between a rock and a hard place: Resistance and the formation of professional identity. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 11 (3), 163-173 Erkama, N. (2010). Power and resistance in a multinational organisation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 151-165 Jabri, M. (2012). Managing organizational change: Process, social construction and dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method, and Reality in Social Science. Human Relation, 1, 5-41. Singh, K. (2009). Organisation Change and Development. New Delhi: Excel Books India Thomas, R. & Hardy, C. (2011). Reframing resistance to organisational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27, 322-331 Winstanley, D., & Woodall, J. (2000). The ethical dimension of human resource management. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(2), 5-20. Read More