Managing Resistance to Change - Research Paper Example

Managing Resistance to Change Executive Summary Managing resistance to change is one of the most important aspects of controlling the potential growth within an organization. The phenomenon of change provides a balance for the natural consequence of resistance. Resistance can lower the performance level and expectations about a change, thus creating a lowered overall effectiveness of an organization. When an organizational work culture does not support flexibility, then change becomes a difficult and less successful environment for change. Using the systems thinking approach, an organization can be assessed for the way in which it functions as a single entity, all of its parts performing so that the performance of the whole achieves mutual goals. Identifying the way in which the system functions is vital in assessing the way in which change will be accomplished. The model of managerial approach that can best be used is through establishing a work culture that has enough flexibility to embrace change. The second step is in providing clear information and creating inclusion in the ways in which the change is created. These two aspects of management are the most important in defining the environment in which change can take place. Resistance is minimized when an organization becomes an organic entity with flexible, porous boundaries that are focused on the overall success of the goals of the company. Through information and inclusion, this environment will not only achieve the goals of transition and change, but keep on track for achieving overall goals for the company. Managing Resistance to Change Introduction Change is a phenomenon that requires swift adaptation, an uncomfortable situation for people to manage. Human behavior is approached with apprehension of an outcome and when change occurs, fear of the unknown can create resistance. As a manager, the professional leader must find a way to create smooth transitions when changes occur in a work environment. This can be difficult as the manager is not only trying to reassure his team members, but to alleviate his or her own concerns. Despite the perception that change will be an unwelcome addition to a routine, most changes are intended to increase productivity and provide benefit for a business. Therefore, it is vital that a manager find a way to successfully introduce and implement changes so that the benefit that is intended can be realized. In examining managing resistance to change, the systems thinking approach is the model that allows for the best possible outcome through the most organizational structures. All organizations have a basic number of ways in which they function. These elements of the organization exist in small and large entities, their purposes vital to the overall functioning of the system in order to provide an organic structure. Some organic structures are flexible, while others are rigid, and it is in the level of rigidity that management fails to create an organization that can more easily create transitions when needed. Without transitions, there is not growth, therefore in order to best manage resistance to change, an organic, flexible ideology will best serve reducing resistance to change. Literature Review The primary problem presented with an element of change within an organization is in dealing with the anxiety that team members feel when their space of comfort is disrupted. Work consists of creating known habits and behaviors that define the progression of the day. When change is implemented, anxiety is created as the individual must reconcile what is a known outcome with what is an unknown variable. Maltz (2008), discusses the balance that is created by the existence of transition having a natural correspondence with resistance. There is an element of ’data’ in regard to resistance which is critical in defining productivity, development, and the creation of a successful change within the organization (p. 3). The primary focus of the work that Maltz (2008) has done in regard to managing resistance to change is in developing a workshop in which employees can examine their position within their experience of change. The first step in the workshop is to discover the roles that the team members fulfill, both within the organization and within their personal lives. Through defining their roles, their motivations behind their resistance can be revealed. After this has been established, the team members are asked to verbalize their feelings of resistance and those feelings are written out and put on display so that the whole group can visualize the emotions that are being felt. Discussions about resistance is then conducted so that by revealing what seems hidden, it can be diminished and mineralized by relieving anxiety (p. 4). Baker (n.d.) lists a series of failures that management make in regard to minimizing resistance to change. If management fails to prove a need for a change, an employee may weight the outcome as too high a level of unknown result, creating a high level of resistance. If management expects a particular change, but does not provide the resources required to fulfill that change, this will also promote a high level of resistance. It is common that resources are limited or withdrawn just as employees are experiencing the highest level of anxiety over the expectations of the change. When the values of the organization are not tied to the expectations of the change, this can create a high level of resistance. Knowing why the change is important to the overall goals of the company will promote a lowered level of resistance. Lastly, one of the highest problems in creating easy transitions is in having a rigid company culture that does not allow for higher levels of flexibility. Despite the fact that some resistance should be expected, high levels of resistance can reflect poor management within an organization. Some of the ways in which poor management can be corrected in order to minimize the resistance to change are to provide good information about the coming change, providing reasons that make sense to employees about the change, and to encourage a work culture that encourages new ideas, thus creating a sense within the teams that change is a positive force towards bettering the overall productivity of the business (Baker, n.d., p. 61). Organizational development research has shown that 90% of all attempts at culture change fail to achieve the goals that have been set. The success of merger and acquisition is also extremely low as the attempts to merge work cultures, ultimately, creates too much resentment and resistance which overwhelms productivity. Resistance is a passive emotion, conducted in ways that controvert, but do not directly come in conflict, with proposed actions of change. Therefore, it is hard to combat something that is best defined as an attitude. The best way to combat resistance, however, is to create high levels of information for those involved in the change. While it is time consuming to come up with ways to counter all the arguments that might be made against a change, not doing so can create higher costs in the long term. Therefore, the best resource against resistance is persuasive arguments for all of the reasons someone might come up with in order to resist moving in the same direction as the collective (Managing, 2005, p. 15). Resistance to change can be seen as a state of being whereby point A (the existing situation) is to transition into point B (the desired situation), which will eventually create point C (the end situation). It is the middle position that is often not fully explored before change is made towards that situation. When the transition begins to reflect possible loss of security, control, or autonomy, resistance is triggered (Randall, 2004, p. 60). It is often the interruption of the created work flow that will lead to the feeling of loss for the worker. It is often the case that workers are not taken into consideration when a change occurs within an organization. As an example, to managers it may seem to be a great advantage to change from a paper based system to a computerized system, the computer saving in time and resources. However, the worker has defined their position by the mechanics of working the paper based system. In creating their schedule, their processes, and their confidence about the way in which they do their job, the paper based system has been the knowledge that has promoted their efficiency. Once the system is changed, the employee has to learn a new set of rules about the structure of their job. The competency of their performance is challenged as how they accomplished their tasks is profoundly changed. The employee must learn a new set of skills which may or may not be within their range of well performed functions (Randall, 2004, p. 60). In order to further understand the process of undergoing a transition, it is valuable to look at Dunlap’s Input - Process - Output model. Input------------------------------------->Process--------------------------------->Output Market factors Hierarchies of actors A body of rule Political factors and their ideologies which regulates the Technical factors system (Table 1) According to Randall (2004) “What is different here is the fact that the outcome is not the product or service, which the organization is committed to producing, but a continuous devolving of necessary regulation sufficient to enable the actors to generate what they need in order to succeed” (p. 60). Nadler (1993) suggests that there are three problems that are relevant to change: resistance, power, and control. Each of these aspects of change inspire an implication for how to manage their difficulties. Resistance inspires motivation, control inspires management, and power inspires the need to shape the political dynamics of change. In regard to resistance, Randall (2004) states that Nadler suggests that the fear that comes with the losses that are perceived by change that come into conflict with “Mastery of functional complexity, dependant on the individual internalizing-working systems which are then reinforced over a long period of acceptance to commitment to performance“ (61). The way in which a worker has defined their position has given them a sense of power, thus to strip their competency is to strip part of their power. If the worker is included in the decisions and implementing of change, often this can contribute to lowering the worker’s resistance. When one is invested in the success of a change, resistance is greatly lowered. According to Stanley, Meyer, and Topolnytsky (2005), cynicism and skepticism are at the core of most employee reactions to change. Cynicism is defined by an attitude towards one’s organization that is tilted towards the negative. The concept is a complexity of emotions that are expressed through the belief that what can go wrong, will go wrong, therefore, change threatens what has been established to work most of the time. Change-specific cynicism is “a disbelief of management’s stated or implied motives for a specific organizational change” (p. 436). This type of tense dynamic between management and workers develops when communication has been closed and employees have not been informed properly of the goals that are intended by certain actions. In designing a team in order to create a desired work culture, the manager must select those members who have an attitude that reflects the belief system that is desired within the organization. A team will be less likely to resist change if it has been designed in such a way to support a work culture that is forward thinking towards the goals of a company. Designed teams will exhibit self-management skills which requires a higher level of flexibility. Thus, change can be attained at a much higher performance level than within teams that have not be specifically designed to meet an organizational challenge (Wageman, 2001, p. 561). Agocs (1997) defines resistance as institutionalized when it is embedded and expressed through organizational structures, and processes of legitimization, decision making, and resource allocation (p. 918). This occurs when resources and power are located in positions to thwart efforts to create positive change. An example of this would be if ownership decides to change a manufacturing method, but those who requisition the equipment, who manage the employees, and who would allocate resources fail to meet their obligations in creating the change. If the person who needs to buy the equipment fails to purchase the equipment, then they have participated in institutionalized resistance. Management can be a part of this if they refuse to properly implement and enforce new policies that are designed to support change. Most often, resistance to change is considered centralized within middle management, although other levels of workers can create resistance through differing methods of power usage. According to Agocs (1997), resistance to change is most often experienced within “the behavior of individuals, small groups or categories of employees such as middle manager, supervisors, shop floor, or unionized workers who are opposed to or unsupportive of changes that top management wishes to implement” (p. 919). It is often in the challenge of one’s power that resistance is developed. Therefore, those who do not have the power of top management can be considered susceptible to resistance behaviors. This can be a real problem if top management is removed from middle management, thus information becoming the most powerful tool that upper management can have in implementing changes when they are not within the hands-on position within the company. When it comes from the top, but the top is not there to create the change, information and cooperation must be made available to those who are responsible for creating change. One of the prime areas where resistance is developed is when new technology is brought into a workplace. New technology has the highest possible threat capacity in creating an unknown outcome for an employee and creating anxiety over learning and using new skills that were not needed before the new technology was implemented. LaPointe and Renard (2005) identified five different possible components to resistance to change: behaviors, object, subject, threats and initial conditions (p. 461). These components will vary in regard to the way in which change is approached. Users will be introduced to a change and the way in which they components interplay will create the level of resistance that is experienced. The team will assess the change, make projections about the consequences, then react depending on what types of triggers are pulled by the projected outcomes. This can result in a positive, supportive reaction, but will more often create resistance as problems are perceived within the proposed change. The most often trigger for resistance to new technology is through the fear that the skills that are needed to implement the change will be above the level of the worker. Prior experience with technologies will help to lower resistance to learning new skills to support technological change within an organization. If the change is lateral, or an elevation of an existing type of technology, the change will have less resistance. However, if the change means that technology is brought into a work environment that did not use anything similar, a high level of threat will be perceived. According to LaPointe and Renard (2005) resistance that is perceived at this level can range from passive uncooperative behavior to self-destructive behaviors where frustration is expressed inappropriately (p. 464). The best way to combat this type of resistance is through thorough release of information, high quality and time intensive training, and in having a slowed expected transition in order to allow for everyone who needs to update their skills to have the time to fully learn what must be learned. Change Management Model The systems thinking approach has the best possibility of promoting the adaptation to change within an organizational environment. This approach begins with a series of basic assumptions about the way in which an organization functions. The foundational definition of an organization within this approach is that an organization is a functioning organism that depends on all of the actors to perform in order to create productivity. Within this assumption, there are several aspects of the organization that are assumed: interdependency, synergy, boundary, and a binding ideology. Within this minimized group of defining characteristics, any organization can find their defining position as an organization (Randall, 2004, p. 59). Interdependency is essential in any organization in order to create the intended function. Even the at home internet worker requires a support system that must function in order to facilitate the productivity of the work that is done. Synergy describes that way in which those independent components work together to create the productivity. Boundaries are the lines that define one functioning contributor from another. However, this term is essential in creating a work culture that allows for ease of transition when change must take place. In the systems thinking approach boundaries must be porous, the lines meshed so that when one team member must cross into another team members’ area, there is no conflict, but rather an attitude of team positivist attitudes towards the assigned goals. The core of creating a flexible, porous boundary style organization is in creating a binding ideology. This type of ideology allows for a working consensus, rather than a total commitment to a set of beliefs or values (Randall, 2004, p. 59). This working consensus allows for all members of a team to agree on the set of goals and the ways in which to achieve those goals, without becoming a part of a cult type atmosphere where ideologies are all consuming within the work place. It must be understood that a strong work culture is behind the most successful businesses in the world. However, not all businesses are able to achieve that level of team social construction. Therefore, having a binding ideology creates a desire by all members to work towards the same objectives. In understanding the concept of the organization in these terms, the concept of change is then promoted. The organization is seen as an organic entity in which adaptation is required in order to continue growth and function. In this model, it is assumed that the parts all function together and that when one part is not working, it is shed from the collective. Therefore, the change begins to work as it is assessed, utilized, and made as a part of the entity, otherwise it is rejected. This type of rejection is only valid if the organization is fluid with a basic ideology of growth which naturally flows into change. The model for managing resistance to change that is presented within this research paper is based upon beginning with the systems thinking approach in order to provide a framework for successful change within an organization. Once the organic flexibility is established within a work culture, the organization will then work collaboratively with each component working toward the greater good, their proprietary territorialism about their work made more porous so that intermingling of positions creates a stronger foundation for growth. Having established this work culture, the manager can more easily introduce changes that will create new definitions of job positions. In this way, each job is defined by doing whatever is best for the overall corporate goals, thus creating a less resistant workforce. In creating high levels of information and inclusion concerning an impending change, the flexible entity is supported and managing or controlling the possible outcome would be significantly increased. Discussion and Conclusion In understanding the way in which change will have an effect in an organization, it is imperative to understand the structure of all organizations, then overlay this with the work culture of a specific organization. The model of change management that appears to have the best possibility for a quality result is the systems thinking approach. Through this approach, the designation of the most important features of an organization are understood, thus an organization can use this framework in which to assess its amenability to a change. If any of these aspects are especially weak, the management within the organization can change these aspects in order to prepare for a transition. In a search of the literature, it is clear that certain functions of change are inherent in human behavior and that the core of combating the resistance that is developed is through a two fold management approach. The first is having in place a work culture that is flexible and has a positive approach to the outcomes of change, and second is to have high levels of information about the changes and the expected outcomes of those changes. After an understanding of the organizational structure of a business has been reached and changes have been put into motion in which management creates a stronger, yet more flexible work culture, then changes and transitions that are focused on productivity can be introduced with a smoother move from point A to point C, with the expectation at point B being very close to the end situation at point C. One of the most important parts of implementing change is that the end result should reflect the intended result. If a plan is not well thought, then the end result can have a very different result than what is expected. Many times changes are put into place without considering all the actors in the evolution of the change. The unfortunate attitude that workers will do as told simply because they are employed to do so will backfire on any manager who tries to approach change without consulting and including those who will work the changes. The concept that a worker is paid to come to work, and the type of work is immaterial is naïve and inappropriate, leading to revolt that often is in the form of passive resistance, a state that is difficult to manage from an authoritative perspective of management. Passive resistance comes in a form that is very difficult to control as no willful act is present, rather than a cancer that eats away at the proposed change. The level of action that is put into a change can depend on the attitude with which the change is approached. Therefore, leaving workers out of the discourse about an impending change can create an outcome that is far less than is expected. Work brings natural respect and self-worth and when this is threatened by changes that will no longer leave the worker as an expert in his or her product, that threat will be met with resistance that can undermine the goals of the changes that are being put into place. Managing change must be done in consideration of what is best for the organization and the goals that are desired by the change. Therefore, management that becomes overly authoritative and without consideration for those most effected by a change will find that they do not achieve their goals. Information and inclusion in transitions is the best overall method of creating effective management for change. The methods for creating the best environment for change is through the systems thinking approach, providing for a framework in which to create the best possible circumstances in which to implement change. However, within the change information and inclusion are the best possible tools for a manager to use in order to facilitate the highest level of performance within a change. List of Tables Table 1. Dunlap’s Input-Process-Output Model. Found in J. Randall, (2004). Managing change, changing managers. London: Taylor and Francis, Inc. References Agocs, C. (June 1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and repression. Journal of Business Ethics. 16(9), 917-931. Baker, S. L. (n.d.) Managing resistance to change. University of Iowa. PDF. LaPointe, L. & S. Rivard. (Sept 2005). A multi-level model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly. 29(3), 461-491. Maltz, M. (9 October 2008). Managing resistance to change. Triad Consulting Group, p. 53-61. PDF. Managing resistance to change. (Spring 2005). Institute of Management Services. PDF. Randall, J. (2004). Managing change, changing managers. London: Taylor and Francis, Inc. Stanley, D. J., J. T. Meyer, & L. Topalnytysky. (Summer 2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology. 19(4), 429 -459. Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands on coaching. Organization Science. 12 (5), 559 - 577. Read More