Change in organizations and the management of resistence.

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

Executive Summary

In today’s’ economy, change is all-pervasive in organizations. It happens continuously and often at an alarming and rapid speed. Because change has become such an everyday part of organizational dynamics, it is becoming increasingly important to manage as any resistance to change by an organizations employees can actually cripple the organization. Resistance is, though, an inevitable response to any major change. People will by their nature rush to defend the status quo if they feel their security or status is threatened (Kotter J.P. 1996). If management does not understand, accept and make an effort to work with resistance, it can undermine even the most well intentioned and well conceived change effort (Coetsee L. 1999). Any attempt by management to change without creating and maintaining a climate that minimizes resistance and encourages acceptance and support will be rendered fruitless.

The purpose of this paper is to assist in minimizing or alleviating the prevalence of resistance that is being experienced at DCDM due to the structural and cultural changes that are currently taking place. The change process is centered on a significant de-layering and decentralization of the organization. The paper contends that though change is an inevitable feature in an organizational setting, so too is resistance to change. When organizations react too strongly to resistance they only stiffen it and increase the likelihood of problems with the change. Not to say resistance should be ignored – organizations in the midst of change should remain clearly focused and calm, and take the time to understand the reasons behind the resistance as well as the positions of those resisting (Harigopal K. 2001). This will enable organizations to gain considerable knowledge and support in removing resistance positively.

Introduction

The world economy is experiencing extraordinary change and transformation in all sectors. Change has therefore become a way of life the world over. Factors such as globalization, reduced technology cycles, shifting demographics, changing customer demands and worker expectations, international economic trends and competition are just some of the forces driving change in organizations (Strebel P. 1998). One major barrier for change is resistance of people in organizations. Resistance has become a natural and expected part of change. It is describe as an almost inevitable psychological and organizational response that seems to apply to any kind of change, ranging from the rather modest improvements to far-reaching change and organization transformation (Levy A. & Merry U. 1986). De Jager (2001) argues, “Most People are reluctant to leave the familiar behind. We are all suspicious about the unfamiliar; we are all concerned about how we will get from the old to the new, especially if it involves learning something new and risking failure’ (p.24). One of the major tasks facing top managers and change managers is therefore to overcome the resistance to change of both their line managers and their employees. Because change has become an everyday part of organizational dynamics, employees who resist change can actually cripple the organization. Coetsee (1999:205) states that ‘any management’s ability to achieve maximum benefits from change depends in part on how effectively they create and maintain a climate that minimizes resistant behaviour and encourages acceptance and support’.

The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of organizational change at DCDM and the resistance accompanying it and to formulate strategies that can better place the organization to deal with resistance. The structure of this paper as follows: Firstly the main causes of resistance to organizational change will be identified. This will be followed by an overview of how resistance to change manifests itself. The paper will then put forth strategies that the organizations can employ to deal with resistance. Finally advice will be given on the kind of issues and considerations that have to be made when managing resistance to change.

Main causes of resistance to Organizational Change

It is almost impossible for any change process to be implemented without some degree of resistance. But understanding the causes or reasons behind the resistance and working towards a commitment to your change will point the organization towards productive change management.

Resistance to change may stem from the individual, the organization or both. At the individual level we find psychological factors such as:

Failure to recognize the need for change

All employees need to recognize, understand and appreciate the need for change otherwise the vested interest they ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Main causes of resistance to Organizational Change

Resistance to change may stem from the individual, the organization or both. At the individual level we find psychological factors such as:

Failure to recognize the need for change

All employees need to recognize, understand and appreciate the need for change otherwise the vested interest they may have in keeping things the same may result in resistance (Swanepoel B et al 2000).

Fear of the unknown

Uncertainty is usually the biggest cause of employee resistance to change. In the face of impeding change, employees may become anxious and nervous. Employees may worry about the way it will affect their work and their lives and whether they’ll be able to meet the new demands of their jobs (Robbins S.P 1997). Even in situations where the employees are not necessarily content with the state of affairs, there will often loom a sense that things could get worse.

Habit

Human beings are creatures of habit. Any change process often demands that people unlearn old ways of working and develop and learn new ways of doing tasks. Individuals’ tendency to want to hold on to established work patterns that they are accustomed to may then become a source of resistance to change (Robbins S.P 1997).

Self Interest

A change may threaten the self-interests of some managers (as well as employees) within the organization potentially diminishing their power or influence. Managers so affected may fight the change. Management at Debswana recently proposed the move from individual offices to use of open-plan offices by all employees except the executive. When line managers in charge heard about the plan, they raised such strong objections that the entire idea was dropped. The objections raised mostly had nothing to do with the idea itself but with their own interests and the stature attached to having your own office.

General mistrust of the motives behind the change

Managers and employees view change differently: top management sees change as an opportunity – both business-wise and personally whereas for line employees, change is often perceived as disruptive and intrusive (Strebel P. 1998). Even in instances where the arguments for the change are clear, individuals may not trust the motives of those advocating the change (Robbins S.P 1997).

Social Disruptions

Many changes involve altering work arrangements in such a way that existing social networks are disrupted. The change process is then viewed as threatening the integrity of these friendships and is therefore resisted.

Selective Perceptions

Individuals in organizations have different perceptions and process information in line with these perceptions. Regardless of what may be communicated about a change process people interpret the information to suit their perceptions – even negatively (Robbins S.P 1997). This often leads to people not fully appreciating a change process and the need for it and simply resisting it.

Economic Insecurity

In most instances resistance to change at the individual level usually means there is one of two problems. Either the problem is the proposal for change itself or mistakes made in the presentation of the change (Maurer R. 1996).

According to Swanepoel, at the organizational level the primary causes of resistance can be factors such as:

Cultural Inertia – Organizational culture being so deeply entrenched that advocates for change seen as misguided
Structural Inertia – Organizations have built in mechanisms to produce stability. For example, in this specific case the selection process selected people on how well the fitted to the organizations previous culture. With this move to decentralization and team based work, the very structure previously encouraged acts as a counterbalance to sustain stability
Threats to existing power relationships – Any redistribution of decision-making authority can threaten existing relationships. This can lead to individuals resisting change as they fear the loss of power. This is evident in the case as here change is from an autocratic mgmt style to more participative management that is being resisted by middle managers who previously had more power and are unwilling to empower their subordinates.
Threats to expertise – People feeling that their specialties will be threatened in the new organizational setting. This is also an area management in this particular case needs to address as the move to a more de-layered and decentralized organization is causing a threat to the specialized skills held by employees in the previously centralized departments.
Threats to resource allocation – In this particular case management feels threatened as they had previously controlled sizable resources and feel that the change may affect future allocations. They may also feel that the move to teamwork may mean future staff cuts particularly for management, as the teams can be self-managed.

How Resistance to change manifests itself

Resistance to change manifests itself in many ways when the environment does not provide forums for discussing perceived problems and issues. Resistance to change doesn’t necessarily surface in standardized ways. It can be overt, implicit, immediate or deferred (Robbins S.P 1997). It is easiest for management to deal with overt and immediate resistance i.e. a change is introduced and met immediately with objections from employees, work slowdown or strike action (Robbins S. 1999). The greater challenge is managing implicit or deferred resistance. Implicit resistance is often subtle i.e. loss of loyalty to the organization, loss of motivation, increased absenteeism, increased error margin and therefore difficult to detect and manage (Robbins S. 1999). Similarly, deferred action is difficult to manage. A change may produce what is perceived as minimal reactions at the time of conception, only for things to start surfacing at a crucial point in its implementation.

Maurer defines nine primary forms of resistance:

Immediate criticism even prior to hearing or understanding the details. This often means they have faced a negative change in the past and have built a shield of resistance
Confusion - People begin to hear at different times and in different ways on what is going to happen
Denial – People refusing to accept that things are different
Malicious Compliance – People appearing to go along with the change but doing very little to support it
Sabotage – Deliberately taking actions to inhibit the change or that are specifically intended to stop you from proceeding
Easy Agreement without much resistance but not knowing wholly what is involved
Deflection – People without a deliberate plan to diffuse change, continuously lead people away from discussions and dialogue that supports the change
Silence – People not sharing their thoughts on the change.
In your face criticism – People confronting you head on and sometimes rudely, expressing their opinion on the change as they see it and often sharing what others are thinking but may be afraid to say

These expressions of resistance often alter during a change process with most criticism being seen in the first stages where almost everyone openly criticizes the change (Mullins 1999).

Strategies

Managers encountering resistance need to re-evaluate their strategies after determining the actual cause of the resistance. Although there are no certain solutions, several techniques at least have the potential of decreasing or even eliminating this resistance. Six tactics have been suggested for use by managers and change agents to deal with resistance to change:

Education and Communication

Resistance to change can be reduced by communication with employees to help them see the logic of the change (Robbins S. 1999) Employees can be educated through one on one discussions, memos, presentations and reports (Robbins S. 1999). This approach works if inadequate information is seen to be the source of resistance and if relations between management employees is one based on mutual trust and support. The tendency is also that people are more receptive to change when they understand why it is necessary (Chang R.Y. 1994).

Participation

It is difficult for people to resist a change decision in which they participated. Management can therefore call on all employees before a change is made to increase commitment to that change. If the participants are able to make a meaningful contribution and feel their contribution is valued, then resistance is reduced, commitment is increased and more informed decision are taken. The obvious shortfall of this is the length of time required, as participation can be time consuming and also has the potential for generating poor solutions (Robbins S. 1999).

Facilitation and Support

Management can offer a range of support efforts to reduce resistance. This can be in the form of counseling, therapy, and training or short paid leave of absence. Like participation, this too is time consuming and often expensive with the possibility that efforts may be fruitless.

Negotiation

This entails exchanging something of value for a lessening of resistance. This can be a specific reward package or certain concessions and is particularly worthwhile if only a few powerful individuals are resisting (Robbins S. 1999).

Manipulation and Cooptation

Manipulation refers to covert attempts to influence by distorting or fabricating facts to make them more attractive and withholding information to get support for the change (Robbins S. 1999). Cooptation on the other hand, is a combination of manipulation and participation (Robbins S. 1999). It entails an attempt by management to buy out leaders of a resistance group by giving them a key role in change decisions. In this particular case management could seek out the advice of their employees, not necessarily to get a better decision but to get their endorsement. Both of these approaches are relatively inexpensive and are easy ways to get support (Robbins S. 1999). It can often backfire though, when the employees realize they are being used.

Coercion

Coercion is the use of direct force or threats to get compliance (Robbins S.P 1997). If for instance the management decides to fire those unwilling to change, then coercion would be the label attached to their change tactic. Other examples of coercion include threats of transfer, loss of promotion, negative performance evaluation, or a poor recommendation letter (Robbins S. 1999).

By approaching these phases systematically and creating explicit linkages between employees’ commitment and the companies necessary change outcomes, managers can dramatically improve the probability of attaining the desired target.

Important issues and considerations when managing resistance

Change is often resisted because it means giving something up and its standard behaviour for people to be reluctant to let things go. Some employees may not even understand the causes of their resistance (Maurer R. 1996). Some may be unhappy because they feel anxious about altering familiar routines, fear of loss of status or giving up the prestige associated with their old autonomous management positions which they value. Each different reason should not be underestimated as all issues raised and the resistances they generate are valid.

Managing resistance to change requires a change in attitude about resistance. Rather than seeing resistance as something you need to overcome, DCDM will be more successful if they manage resistance by recognizing it as a potentially positive force.

Furthermore, the more people are involved and the sooner they are involved, the less resistance there will be. This also increases the likelihood of the change becoming a successful one (Kotter J.P. 1996). Top management should not be deceived into thinking they hold a monopoly on good ideas and the best interests of the organization. On the contrary, middle managers and line employees often have a better understanding of the issues at ground level that are important as well as possible solutions to those issues. If they are more involved, there is an increased likelihood of commitment to the change.

Honesty is crucial when introducing an organizational change as it increases the likelihood of commitment and also brings everybody on board so far as what is expected of him or her is concerned. All employees need to be clear on what the aims of the change process are, without clarity on the aims of the change employees will not be able to participate. Roles must also be clearly defined for unity to be maintained throughout the change process and the process must inspire and motivate people, if it does then it will be more readily accepted.

Management should also keep in mind that resistance often stems largely from a perception and not necessarily the change itself (Robbins S.P 1997). This means that promoting the need for the change is not always sufficient on its own for building support. Management has to address and acknowledge openly what each employee is loosing due to the change. And ensure that even though a change effort involving reorganization, like the one they are involved in, requires that you give some things up, there are many things that the employees deem to be of paramount importance in defining the organization and its core values and these should not be given up (Kotter J.P. 1996). People also tend to be more likely to adapt to a change if they are able to hold on to things that matter the most to them.

Employee resistance isn’t always a negative phenomenon; in certain instance employee resistance may play a positive and useful role in organizational change. Insightful and well intended debate, criticism or disagreement don’t necessarily equate to negative resistance, but rather may be intended to produce better understanding as well as additional options and solutions (de Jager 2001).

Another important consideration that needs to be taken by the organization is the fact that the source of an employee’s resistance may sometimes be a difference in values that can’t always be accommodated. In this case, it is important to recognize that everyone’s interests may be better serves if this employee moved to another organization more closely aligned to his or her values (Swanepoel B.2000).

Conclusion

Employee resistance to change is a complex issues facing management in the complex and ever changing organization of today. Change is everywhere and employee resistance to change has been identified as a critically important contributor to the failure of many well intended and well conceived change initiatives.

Whatever the change inside an organization might be, and whatever the reasons are behind it, a good way of implementing the change successfully is for managers to treat the participation and communication with their employees as an integral part of the change process (Kotter J.P. 1996). It is also important to remember that change involves to a great extent, an individuals psyche and each individual is different, his or her perceptions and reasons for resisting are also different (Robbins S.P 1997). As a result, we can only theorize on how to lessen or remove resistance, but in the final analysis the only way to do so effectively is by understanding the unique circumstances of each individual that is causing their particular resistance.