Employees Resistance to Organizational Change - Research Paper Example

Employees Resistance to Organizational Change The following is a work of research on the concept of Organizational Change, with specific interest in employees’ resistance to such change, and some of the models that were developed to implement such a change. For its discussion on change and resistance to change, this paper uses Mullins as the main author, with supplementary assistance from other authors like Robbins and Brooks. The paper also extensively uses information published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development of Britain to provide added support to the discussion. The models of change studied in the paper are Lewin’s model, the Action Research Plan model and Kotter’s eight stages of organizational change.The paper will attempt to integrate the models with the concept of resistance and come up with meaningful conclusions. Change is a pervasive influence. We are all subject to continual change of one form or another. Change is an inescapable part of both social and organizational life. (Mullins 821) The above statement effectively summarises the context of this research interest, which deals with the concept of organizational change, with specific focus on employee resistance towards such a change in a given organization. A typical organization, according to research, goes through different forms of change, of which the most common are cost reduction, redundancies, culture change and performance improvement (Mullins 822; also see Brooks 98). The CIPD, Britain’s Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, in their own research, have given a more detailed set of circumstances which impose organizational change: challenges of growth; challenge of economic downturns and tougher trading conditions; changes in strategy; technological changes; competitive pressures including mergers and acquisitions; customer pressure; and government legislations (CIPD Change Management). Research suggests that previously, change was a planned phenomenon, and it was implemented on periodic bases by the organization as part of a strategic plan. In other words, an organization may strategically plan to implement changes every few years. But the volatile environments where modern businesses operate have changed the way this process is carried out, due to more rapid developments either inside or outside the organizations, which eventually force the organizations to implement changes (Hussey 9). Such developments have been referred to as ‘trigger events’, and Hussey argues that these events occur too fast for comfort in modern organizations (10). The author also explains that these events may be either opportunities or threats, and that the subsequent changes are the organizations’ way of reacting to these events, in order to improve their positions. In some cases, change is initiated in order for the organization to meet with future problems or opportunities obtained from their forecast system (Mullins 822; Robbins 174). External Factors: Effectiveness in an organization comes only through proper interaction with its external environment (Mullins 822; Robbins 174). Robbins also explains that the functioning of the organization must reflect the nature of the environment that it is operating in (175). The environment is made volatile by factors like economic conditions, changes in technology, globalization and world competition, scarcity of natural resources, level of government intervention etc and it is imperative for the organization to be able to adapt to changes in these factors for its very survival(Mullins 822; Robbins 172-176; Poole et al 6-7; CIPD Change Management). Internal Factors: Apart from the above external factors, research also shows that there are internal elements within organizations that provide initiatives for change. Mullins outlines such change is mostly due to an ageing process within the operations of the organization in terms of material resources like equipment; outdated human resources(retirements); and outdated skills and abilities (822). This calls for regular maintenance, effective human resource planning, introduction of new technologies and ways of working etc. In most cases, research suggests that change is mainly initiated by external factors (CIPD Change Management; Mullins 822). In order to implement change effectively, it is imperative for organizations to have a change management system. CIPD research shows that even though change happens at a fast pace in modern businesses, a large percentage of change initiatives have failed, thus bringing in the need for effective change management (Change Management). The basic underlying objectives of change management as identified by Mullins (822) are a modification of the ‘behavioral patters’ of the members of the organization (culture change); and improving the organization’s ability to cope with its external environment (Environmental fit). To achieve these objectives, several change models have been introduced over the years. Organizational Change Models: This paper will delve into three popular change models, one proposed by Lewin and later modified by the Action Research Plan, and another proposed by Kotter. Lewin’s model proposes three stages for change to be effectively implemented, namely, unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. Unfreezing involves the process of reducing the forces that keep behavioral patterns in their present form. This stage also initiates need for change. Movement is the stage where the change is actually implemented and new behavioral patterns are developed. Refreezing is when the new behaviors and the changes made are reinforced and stabilized through policies, structure or norms (Mullins 823; Cummins and Worley 24). Later research has attempted to narrow the broad nature of Lewin’s model, and the Action Research Plan was formulated, which divides the three stages of change into eight further sub-stages (see Cummins and Worley 24-28): Problem Identification: This stage is where individuals with power in the organization identify a problem or problems that need consultancy to be solved. Consultation: This is where the organization, as a client, collaborates with an organizational development consultant and addresses the issues at hand. Data Collection and Problem Diagnosis: This stage is primarily carried out by the consultant through various data gathering techniques like observation, interviews, questionnaires and organizational performance data. This information is used to make an initial diagnosis on existing problems within the organization. Feedback: This is where the consultant relays their findings from the above diagnoses to the client or organization in question, so the client has a chance to determine their position of strength or weakness with regard to the problem(s). Joint Diagnosis: The above stage provides the platform for the organization and the consultant to assist each other in formulating a joint diagnosis of the problem(s) at hand through dialogue and input of ideas. Joint Action Planning: This stage involves the consultant and the organization’s members to jointly agree on further actions to be taken. This may signify the beginning of the movement stage of Lewin’s model. Action: This is the actual implementation of the action of change from ‘one organizational state to another’. It may involve re-structuring, new technologies or working methods etc, and would normally need a transition period for complete change to be achieved. Data Gathering after Action: After the change has been implemented as above, it is now important to collect information regarding the original problem(s) addressed in relation to the new system, and this may lead to further changes. The more recently proposed change model by Kotter also involves eight stages. Kotter suggests that change is implemented as a reaction to complacency within organizations (Kotter 40), which can be due to the absence of a major or visible crisis, too many visible resources, low overall performance standards, a lack of sufficient performance feedback, too much happy talk from senior management etc (Kotter, 40). To counter these factors, Kotter proposes the following stages for change (see Kotter 40-117): Create urgency: Kotter suggests that for change to happen, it would be helpful if the most of the company members are in approval of it. This may require developing a sense of urgency amongst members for such a change through open dialogue about the company’s position in the marketplace, competition etc, with convincing evidence through effective environmental analyses. The more aware the organization’s members are to this initiative, the more motivation there is to implement and accept change. Form a Coalition: This stage involves identifying potential leaders with power from various sources of expertise to form a coalition in order to impress the urgency for change. Change can be more effectively achieved with the help of a team of influential people. In Kotter’s words, ‘managing change is not enough, it has to be led’ (53). Create a Vision for Change: A clear vision that can be easily understood and accepted is important to create change, as members will then have a clear direction to work towards. This process helps in the acceptance of the need for change. Communicate the Vision: Once the vision is created, it has to be communicated effectively to the organization’s members, in the midst of all other organizational communication. The more the vision is communicated in terms of daily operations, the better the chances of the change to be implemented successfully. Remove Obstacles: Once the vision for change has been communicated, there is bound to be resistance to this change, which can come in terms of structure, culture etc. It is now important to remove such obstacles for change to be enforced. Create Short-term Wins: It is now important for the visionary to let the organization’s members see the result of the change, as early as possible, in its implementation. Good results may motivate members, and may also convert earlier critics into believers. Build on the Change: Declaring early wins, according to Kotter, is only part of the change process. To be successful in the complete implementation of change, the new model has to be consistent in its successes and needs to be continually scrutinized for improvisation. Integrate the Changes in Corporate Culture: Finally, it is most important that the change(s) implemented are culminated into the organization’s core culture, by making the changes visible in the company’s day-to-day operations. As advantageous as change is for organizations, research has shown that time and again there has been resistance to change at both individual and organizational levels (Hussey 26; Mullins 825). Mullins suggests that people are naturally wary of change, and will more often than not, tend to resist such change (823). On an individual level, Mullins identifies the following circumstances under which people may resist change (824): Selective Perception: When change or the need for change is introduced, a person’s individual perception of the ‘real world’ may result in a biased view of the proposed change situation. This may lead to resistance. For example, individuals may have their own ways of operating in certain situations and may not see the need to change these ways. Habits: “Habits may serve as a means of comfort and security, and as a guide for easy decision-making” (Mullins 824). To implement change may be seen as an unnecessary alteration to established and accustomed behavioral patterns, and hence may lead to resistance. Inconvenience or Loss of Freedom: If the change is perceived to prove inconvenient by reducing freedom of action or result in increased external control, there will be resistance. Economic Implications: People tend to resist change if they feel that it would affect their pay in a negative way, for example, more working hours for the same pay, or if they perceive the change to be a threat to job security. Security in the Past: When new or unfamiliar ideas are introduced, people tend to reflect upon older and comfortable methods. In such cases, people tend to put their faith in older and well-established procedures for security, and may resist change. Fear of the Unknown: People are normally comfortable with what they know, and if a change projects venturing into the unknown, people naturally resist it. This is also seen in promotions, where a person may resist being prompted for fear of change in responsibilities and added pressures. Having studied the individual level of resistance to change, it is also resisted on an organizational level. Mullins suggests that organizations tend to feel comfortable operating within the structure, policies and procedures that have been established to counter present situations, and may set up defenses against change. Some of the circumstances are (Mullins 825): Organization Culture: Culture takes time to evolve and develop within an organization, and is often not easy to change. Changing culture implies changing the very behavior of the organization’s members and how they do things. Hence a rigid culture will resist change due to lack of flexibility. Maintaining Stability: Organizations tend to rely on predictability in their daily operations. Resistance may come up due to the fact that organizations depend on formal structures, procedures and policies, narrow definitions of assigned duties and responsibilities, and established rules. Hence, the more mechanistic (Central Authority) the structure, the more the chances of resistance. Investment in Resources: Sometimes change may require disposal of certain resources which have already been committed to other activities or strategies. Since resource alteration is a complicated and expensive process, organizations may resist such changes. Past Contracts or Agreements: Signed contracts between organizations and other bodies like the government, trade unions etc may limit the extent to which change can be implemented. For example, contracts with trade unions may restrict organizations in carrying out necessary redundancies. Threats to Power or Influence: Change may be seen as a threat to certain groups in terms of their power to make decisions and dictate policies. For example, decentralization may be perceived as a threat by managers as it encourages more autonomy in the hands of lower staff. The above cases of resistance to change are common in organizations, and the change models discussed earlier, to an extent, help in the diffusion of such resistance. In conclusion, it may be safe to assume that models like that of Lewin, were designed more to effectively implement planned change in organizations, whilst Kotter’s model may be more universal in that it can be applied for both planned and unplanned (emergent) changes due to its more comprehensive outlook on the need for change. In terms of resistance to change, Kotter’s model again emphasizes on a specific stage to remove obstacles, making it a more favorable and complete model for change management. Change management as a function is now proved vital, from the above discussion, in modern organizations. In the words of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “change is the only constant” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Heraclitus/). Works Cited Brooks, I. Organisational Behaviour: Groups, Individuals and Organisation. 3rd ed. Pearson: Harlow, 2000. Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD). Change Management. CIPD: London, 2010. Cummings, Thomas. G and Christopher, G. Worley. Organization Development and Change. Carnegie: USA, 2008. Heraclitus. The Quotations Page. http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Heraclitus/ (accessed, 11/01/2010). Hussey, David. E. How to Manage Organizational Change. Kogan: London, 2000 Kotter, John. P. Leading Change. USA, 1996 Mullins, Laurie, J. Management and Organizational Behaviour 5th ed. FT: London, 1999. Poole, Marshall Scott et al. Organizational Change and Innovation Process. Oxford: New York, 2000. Robbins, Stephen. P. The Truth about Managing People. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 2002. Read More