So what kind of resistance did I expect to see as the new Chief Operations Officer taking on this new challenge for Harold Redd? Well anytime that some sort of change is proposed, someone or some group of people will resist, that is human nature. McShane and Von Glinow described that direct costs, saving face, fear of the unknown, breaking the routine of employees, and contrasting team dynamics are just a few reasons why resistance to change is undertaken in organizational development (p. 479). All of us at one time or another has been faced with change in the past, and thought that the directive or announcement of the upcoming change was not going to work be cause we have already tried that once before, that works fine for them, but it does not fit our model, or any other number of excuses. This is our resistance to change, and not knowing the whole idea or plan, most of us have already assumed it a failure. Naturally direct costs of the changes are going to be a resisting force to some, but the payoff, or rate of return for in the initial investment is what top management is really concerned about. Saving face works for both parties involved, the one initiating the changes and the ones having to change. If the changing process is not going as planned, many implementers are resistant to change or modify their strategy even when failure of the strategy is near. They may try to justify their initial plan as a good one, and thus blame other parties for the failures. It also works by the resisting parties not implementing the changes to prove that their initial thoughts of the changes were wrong, and now they want to exploit the wrong to make themselves look better. The strategies an organization can employ to minimize the resistance range from education and communication, participation and improvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and also explicate and implicit coercion as describe by Kreitner and Kinicki (p.690). Each of these strategies has its advantages and disadvantages and can be used interchangeably in unique situations leaders face.
Probably the single largest factor why most people resist change is the fear of the unknown. This is more an emotional feeling and therefore harder to conquer. Fear of the unknown is the comfort zone being taken away and you are now in uncharted territory, or breaking a routine that the employees feel most comfortable with. Team dynamics of the group within the corporation can certainly be an element of resistance. Team dynamics is how teams interact with one another. So if there is a lot of uncertainty, stress will become an issue. According to Berstene, Kurt Lewin asserted that the group was a powerful shaper of individual behavior (p.5). Let us think about that, peer pressure could be defined as a team dynamic, and recall from your past experiences, how many times have we been influenced by outside forces? If you are like me, external pressures have assisted in convincing me in other thoughts or actions.
Clearly changing organizational cultures is difficult to do. Alan Cooper discussed how a health care provider incorporated six-sigma into its management philosophy and adopted the eight steps of John Kotter (p. 71). After a lot of thought and discussions, the health care provider chose to use John Kotter’s eight-step process for creating major change. Cooper describes the process of Kotter’s steps by establishing a real sense of urgency to the organization and its members for the need for change. The second step is to create a coalition or group to lead the change, while the third and fourth steps are about communicating the vision. Once you have established your vision, you must empower the coalition to act on the vision. This simply means delegating the authority to carry out the process for achieving the desired change. Changing the culture is a long process; therefore the sixth step is to create short term wins with the vision in mind. Reward the group for their achievements during the process, this is positive reinforcement and will inspire the team to continue. As these milestones are being met and accomplished, the next step is to consolidate the gains and produce more change while keeping the vision in full view. And finally, the final and eighth step is when you have achieved your goal and vision; you must recognize that you have met them (pp. 75-76). These eight steps are also discussed and backed up by McShane and Von Glinow (p.682). John Kotter’s model is only one of many models used in implementing change in corporations and organizations today. Another great model and widely used is Lewin’s change model.
Robert Lavasseur describes Kurt Lewin’s process as three basic elements; unfreeze, change or movement, and finally refreeze (p.71). Schein goes into great detail of Lewin’s force field model of change, and how it ties in with human behavior (p.28-29). Lewin focuses on the natural tendency for humans to resists change and how one can go about creating change with the support of the team once everyone is informed on why and how the change is necessary and how it will be accomplished. Lewin’s theory focuses deeply on how change happens and what roles change agents can and must play if the desired change or changes are to be successful.
It seems that every business course in schools mention General Electric and how this corporation has developed or modified a tool to accomplish a certain goal. Research in this paper has certainly enlightened me on yet another tool used and made popular by General Electric. Mento, Jones, and Dirndorfer introduced me to a seven-step change acceleration process. This process seems to be a hybrid of different theories, but focuses primarily on what the leader’s role is in creating urgency, communicating the vision, how leaders must lead the change process, and measuring the changes. The final step is institutionalizing the change, which in essence is the refreezing of Lewin’s model (p.46). So with so many tools available for implementing change and the numerous studies that have been conducted in finding the perfect model, why have most attempts in organizational development failed? McShane and Von Glinow also explain how without effective communication, the resistance will be greater (p.496).
Resistance to change is clearly influenced by how the leadership approaches the task on how to implement the desired changes. In order to minimize resistance, it is usually a good idea to communicate issues as soon as they arrive or become apparent. Effective communication is the key in turning around a corporate culture. In addition to effective communication, training is often overlooked because of the cost and no tangible assets are immediately apparent. However, in the three change models discussed thus far, training is an important key ingredient in implementing change and keeping the moral up by showing that the company cares and is willing take the time and invest in your future while gaining from the investment in training provided by the corporation. A good leader recognizes the need to train and give the employees additional skills. McShane and Von Glinow mention that the training of employees for future growth is a key step in getting employees to buy into the changes that are being implemented (p. 496). Effective communication and training played an important step in the process of change in the simulation for Synergetic Solutions. These key steps were stressed in the simulation, for if they were not incorporated, you failed the simulation. A leader that fails to include or incorporate these key concepts in developing change management in addition to using the local experts as allies is destined to fail. These allies, as discussed in the test by McShane and Von Glinow are called change agents (p. 496). They go on to say that change agents rely on transformational leadership in order to pass on the vision set forth by the leader, develop group coercion for enforcing and implementing the desired changes.
What I have taken away from completing the simulation about Synergetic Solutions Incorporated is that changing the corporate culture of a corporation requires in-depth knowledge and research prior to implementing such changes. There are many models to reference during your change, but the key to remember is to communicate effectively and obtain the assistance of the local experts that can influence the group into accepting the change. Communicate the vision and mission clearly, for without the map to get to the destination, the team will get lost. How will this affect me in my organization? It made me realize that change is a difficult process, and knowing how to get the whole group to buy into the plan or vision requires a great deal of preparation, thought, and organization prior to implementation.
In summary, this simulation required a total rebuilding of the core competencies of Synergetic Solutions Incorporated, in addition to changing the organizational behavior that has fostered for some time. In order to successfully alter the corporation and its culture, a lot of planning, creating buy-in through the change agents, and implementing the change process, effective communication, training and other programs are required. To convince and change an individual’s mind by convincing them of what is the right way to approach the vision is easier than changing a whole group of three hundred or more, as is the case with Synergetic Solutions. It was no doubt a difficult challenge to obtain the desired results in this simulation and made me realize the difficulty associated with organizational development and change.
References
Bernstene, T. (2004, Summer). The inexorable link between conflict and change: Conflict can
be managed to create a positive force for change. The Journal for Quality and
Participation. 27(2), 4-10. Retrieved November 8, 2004 from EBSCOhost database.
Cooper, A. (2002). Six-sigma development in a large integrated health system. Quality
Congress. ASQ’s…Annual Quality Congress Proceedings. 71-78. Retrieved
November 7, 2004 from EBSCOhost database.
Kreitner, & Kinicki. (2003). Organizational Behavior (6th Ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Levasseur, R. (2001, July/August). People skills: Change management tools-Lewin’s change
model. Interfaces. 35(4), 71-74. Retrieved November 5, 2004 from EBSCOhost database.
McShane, & Von Glinow. (2002). Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). New York: The McGraw-
Hill Companies.
Mento, A., Jones, R., Dirndorfer, W. (2002, May). A change management process: Grounded in
both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management. 3(1), 45-59. Retrieved
November 8, 2004 from the ProQuest database.
Schein, E. H. (1999, August). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom:
Notes toward a model of managed learning. Reflections. 1(1), 59-75. Retrieved
November 5, 2004 from EBSCOhost database.
