Introduction
Change is an inevitable part of the organizational life which is driven by internal and external factors. Every change can be seen as a threat to the organization mainly because it changes habit, present new materials and thus creating uncertainties. It threatens the existing schemas and the manner in which members makes sense of their organization. These kinds of reactions may lead to a degree of resistance.
The reaction to a change can be attributed to an individual’s attitude that involves emotions and cognitive processes. Because of this, change can generate different reactions from different people. Employees can confront such change with hostility and fear depending on their conditions and the nature of change. Failures to organization change have been largely attributed to the resistance to change. Resistance to change by organizations is brought about by the expenditure of energy that could be devoted in attaining the existing goal. It introduces costs and delays to the process of change.
While it has been widely accepted that people resist change, some studies argued the opposite. In fact, some studies show that it is not change itself that is resisted but the consequences associated to it. Thus, it becomes important for the management to diagnose the causes of the resistance by understanding the individual. For one, organizational change can be achieved through the individual’s readiness to accept change. A participative management style can also be use to manage the resistance to change and encourage employees’ commitment to the change efforts.
Lastly, it must also be recognized that not all resistance is negative. It facilitates strategic thinking that identifies the necessary steps to be undertaken by the organization. It also serves a source of information which is useful in learning how to develop a successful change process.
Resistance to Change
“People resist change.” This belief has been deeply ingrained within the organizational life. A number of organization theories has focused on the process of change and suggest that in most cases, organizations resist change. Resistance to change occurs because organizations are embedded in the institutional and technical structures of their environment. Structural resistance to change lengthens the time that is necessary to implement a change (Amburgey et al, 1993, p. 51).
Harrison (1999) has emphasized the resistance to change as the barrier to organizational change attempts (as cited in Jansen, 2000, p. 53). It encompasses a variety of behaviors from passive resistance to active resistance or even aggressive resistance. Resistance to change is an outcome and a natural product of change. Because of this, resistance to change or to the consequences of change (e.g. loss of status, alteration of work, discomfort, perceived disadvantages to work alteration) has been considered to be managerial pariah. Much of the change literature and management on the subject is devoted on forestalling or reversing resistance.
However, the universal axiom that people resist change has been challenged. For example Kotter (1995) argued that individual resistance to change is quite rare. Instead, the obstacles to change are often found in the organization structure, in its performance appraisal or compensation system which is yet to be aligned to the desired changes (as cited in Jansen, 2000, p. 53). Moreover, Dent and Goldberg (1999) argued that the phrase “resistance to change” be dispensed altogether.
According to Lewin’s model, change is both a freezing and unfreezing process. Like living systems, organizations have a tendency of maintaining a steady state. Change allows the movement of the organization from one state to another (Amburgey et al, 1993). Gold & Dent emphasized that people do not necessarily resist change but instead resist the lost of status, pay or discomfort associated with change. Additionally, Dent and Goldberg pointed out that Lewin’s original concept of resistance to change as a dynamic system force rather than an individual predisposition and that recent research are turning to a system wide level of analysis.
Resistance is often ascribed to negative notations. However, such notation is a misconception since there are instances when it is the most effective response. In fact, resistance can play a major role in facilitating organizational change. It influences the organization towards stability. While the internal and external pressures continue to encourage change, resistance is a factor that can balance these demands against the need for stability.
Resistance to change is not the fundamental problem that organizations must address. Rather it is usually an indication of more basic problems that underlie a particular situation. Thus, it can serve as a warning signal that may direct the timing of the proposed change. As such, resistance draws the attention to the aspects of the change that may be inappropriate, not well analyzed or plainly wrong. When individuals demonstrate symptoms of resistance, it is important to distinguish between the symptoms of resistance and the causes behind it (Bovey & Hede, 2001, p. 534). Specifically, the management can use the nature of resistance as an indicator of the cause of resistance. It will be helpful if the management assess the causes when it occurs instead of inhibiting initially.
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) emphasized the importance of diagnosing human resistance prior to the implementation of change (as cited in Bovey & Hede, 2001, p. 534). In order to diagnose the true cause, it is necessary to understand the individual. It is also widely acknowledged that organizational change can be effected by going through the individual’s behavior and addresses the unconscious motivations to achieve the change of attitude
Another advantage of resistance is the influx of energy. Resistance generates energy and motivation to take serious consideration of the present problem. When there is lack of energy, it is likely that the change becomes uncreative and ineffective. Conversely, when resistance is present there is the need to examine the existing problems and the proposed changes. In addition to this, it also encourages the search for alternative methods to mitigate the conflicting options that exists (in Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 547)
Sources of Resistance
The most fundamental concern in change is the process of change itself. It is associated with the notion of routine disruption, undermining relationships and requiring learning. With this premise, it becomes extremely difficult to introduce change especially to individuals who have become accustomed to their work. Thus, resistance is any conduct that tries to keep the status quo which makes it equivalent to inertia as the persistence to avoid change (Pardo & Martinez, 2003, p.5).
Rumelt (1995) divided the sources of resistance into five groups (as cited in Pardo & Martinez, 2003, p.6). The first three groups are the sources of resistance that occur during the formulation stage because they deal with the factors that complicate the situation analysis and evaluation of alternatives. The last two groups deals with the implementation stage since they are the barriers during the formulation of the change strategy.
The first group is called as the ‘distorted perception, interpretation barriers and vague strategic priorities’. Change is started with the perception of a need, thus wrong initial perception is the first barrier tot change. The second group is concerned with the low motivation for change. Among the causes of low motivation are the directs costs of change, pessimistic image of change due to past failures and the varying interest of employees and management (Pardo & Martinez, 2003, p.6).
The third group is the lack of creative response with regards to change. The lack of creativeness towards the appropriate change strategies is brought by three main reasons. First, the fast and complex environmental changes hinder the proper analysis of the situation. Managers and employees also tend to exhibit a reactive mind set, resignation and the tendency to believe that difficulties are inevitable during the change process. Lastly, the top management lacks the adequate strategic vision and commitment to introduce and implement changes (Pardo & Martinez, 2003, p.6).
The fourth group deals with the political and cultural deadlocks to change. This concerns the personal and organizational values in relation to change and the departmental politics that is likely to affect the implementation of change. Lastly, the fifth group is characterized by the leadership inaction, embedded routines, problems on collective action and the lack of capabilities to implement change (Pardo & Martinez, 2003, p. 8)
Readiness to change
The notion of readiness to change has been emerging in the change literature. The perceptions of readiness to change have been defined as the cognitive precursor to the behaviors that either resist or support a change effort. In assessing the readiness for change, the organization considers its capacity to make change and the extent to which individuals perceive the need for change. The distinction between resistance and readiness is argued to be a more dynamic and proactive view of change (Jansen, 2000, p. 53).
The individual readiness to change is defined as the extent to which an individual is prepared to participate in various organizational activities. Researches support the notion that the individual’s readiness to undertake change is a major precursor to successful implementation of change and a prerequisite to meet the objectives in a dynamic environment. Readiness to change, being an attitude, deals with the field of forces that support and resist change. These forces need to be modified to facilitate change.
Individual readiness reflects the belief, attitudes and behavioral intentions of an individual towards change efforts. Readiness to change as an attitudinal construct involves three dimensions: cognitive, affective and intentional. These dimensions make up the tripartite view of attitudes (Desplaces, 2005, p. 26). The cognitive dimension refers to the individual’s beliefs about the attitude object. The idea that change can be overcome cognitively suggests that it may include negative components about change.
Watson (1982) suggests that what is often labeled as resistance is in fact reluctance. Resistance has been defined in behavioral terms but another state precedes it: a cognitive state that is called (un)readiness. The emotional dimension refers to the individual’s feelings in response to the attitude object. The most complex is the third dimension because studies have found out that only two dimensions (Piderit, 2000, p. 4).
The understanding of individuals’ attitudes about change is linked on the individual’s readiness to accept change. This is because organizational changes can take place through individual behavior changes. Individual behavioral changes are critical in linking the organization’s intention to change and the outcome of any change effort. It is an intermediate factor that links the change agent intervention in the work setting ant organizational outcomes. Also, change in the individual behavior of organizational members is a prerequisite to a meaningful and lasting organizational change (Desplaces, 2005, p. 29).Creating readiness encompasses the proactive attempts to influence beliefs, attitudes and behavior of the change participants.
Management of Resistance
Leading the organization through change involves the constructive balancing of human needs with those of the organization. Since the organization consists mainly of people, organizational change essentially involves personal change. From this perspective, change requires the participation of people who must change first before the organizational change succeeds (Bovey & Hede, 2001, p. 534). This argument is supported by management literature suggesting the participative techniques as the best method to handle resistance.
Classic Studies by Lewin (1991) and Coch and French (1948) both concluded that individuals’ involvement in the learning, planning and implementing the stage of the change process influences the commitment to change and lowers resistance (as cited in Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 547). The argument behind the participative management techniques is that a two way communicative process of information sharing and consulting leads the employees to become more committed to the change effort instead of simply exhibiting compliance.
Employee participation has been viewed in the literature in terms of the obligation of the members to work in the best interest of the group; as ego involvement; as a managerial style or as mandated approach that allows the employees to influence decisions. Much of the literature posited the argument that employee participation in organizational decisions facilitates an increased acceptance of change and commitment to the organization’s future (Bastien et al, 1991, p. 275). Without entering the debate regarding the pros and cons of participative management styles, it becomes apparent that the goal to reduce high levels of resistance is to reduce the level of resistance encountered.
Conclusion
Organization change is a strategy used to accomplish the overall goals and objectives. However, organizations are unable to effectively implement change. Few corporate changes have become successful while a few have become failures. One of the reasons for this difficulty is the resistance to change.
This reaction to change can be attributed to the individual’s perception of change itself.
The management of organization change is basically directed to a transitional state from the present to a desired state of individuals or an organization. Effective change can take place by incorporating organizational and individual management of change. This is because a change can take effect and result to desired outcomes only if the actors within the organization share the same vision.
Contrary to the universal notion that people resist change, research argued that individual resistance to change is quite rare. It is the consequences of change that people resist. Thus, it is necessary that the management diagnose the causes of the resistance on the individual level. For one, organizational change can be achieved through the individual’s readiness to accept change. This is so required because a change is deemed effective if it is acceptable to the members.
While resistance to change is an evitable factor, the manager will have to handle such situation through participative management styles. The manager is compelled to motivate its employees to positive responsiveness to a proposed change and work collectively towards achieving the desired outcomes. This is achieved by getting the employees to be involved in establishing a shared strategy. This encourages the increased commitment of the employees towards the change effort and less resistance.
Lastly, resistance must also be viewed as a positively. Most of the time, managers dismiss the resistance as negative and disrupts the implementation of change. However, resistance signals the basic problems that underlie a particular problem. It encourages careful evaluation of the changes and search for alternatives that may otherwise become more effective than the proposed change. Resistance helps the management to assess the cause of resistance itself. Ultimately, it generates motivation to take serious steps as regards to the situation. It also serves a source of information which can be used to develop successful change strategies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment