Abstract: This article intricately defines the relationship between organization change and Employees’ Growth. The correlation is implicated by Change Management, which highlights on, the human work force that finally propels the organization. According to a research conducted by Prosci (Best Practices in Change Management report, 2007), there is a clear demonstration of a direct correlation between effectively managing the people side of that change and attaining the business objectives of change and development.
In research with about 400 organizations, Prosci showed that an organization had five times the probability of meeting the expectations and the business goal if they implemented and established “very good” or “excellent” change management practices. (Best Practices in Change Management report, 2007) This article would recommend measures as to cope to the resistance and opposition posed by the workforce in the face of organizational change and development. By employing managerial techniques the human work force are motivated and informed about the change. Strategies are formulated to bring them in parity to the Organizational to ensure a smooth transition.
Overview: Over the past years the structure of business formulation, strategies and philosophies has changed, to meet the ever increasing dynamism of the modern scenario. There has been a massive transformation of procedures, processes and evolution to facilitate the change. Moreover, in today’s turbulent business environment, the only thing that appears to remain constant is change. The organizational Change and Development will be evaluated on the aspects correlated to the strategy involving the welfare of the employees. The question is why should organizations care about Organization Change and development? There may be many reasons like: (1) the stagnation in the organizational development (2) pressure of competition from the market (3) technical advancement or may be in the process of evaluation to foster more development in the years to come.
“Social, economic, competitive and technical pressures are forcing organizations to rethink and reengineer the way they provide their service. These pressures can originate from internal and external sources; pressure from competitors and customers to provide more for less and pressure from management to improve their efficiency, reduce cost and improve quality” (Collerette et. al, 2002, p.48). The implementation of new technology is often central to achieving these goals. Legacy systems can become inefficient and too costly to maintain as compared with modern technological solutions (Bergey et al, 1999, p.4)
The advent of new technology requires both new technological skills and knowledge (Heiss and Jankowsky, 2001, p.37-43). The typical reaction to new technology is fear, anxiety and uncertainty in the form of resistance to change. (As cited in Prosci, 2002) Resistance to change is accepted as a natural reaction. It is, however, is cited as one of the major obstacles facing organizations when trying to implement change (as cited in PROSCI, 2002) Employees fear and resist change for a variety of reasons, fear of redundancy, fear of extra work and others (Trader-Leigh, 2002, 3.2). It was found that management who rationalize such concerns generates protective reaction (Born. G, 1995, p.7)
Change management helps to guard against over simplification of employee concerns. In the process of evaluation, manual work processes has slowly been replaced by machines, but the machines alone cannot determine the organizational growth of an institution. The over dependency on infrastructural development and ignoring the organization’s role in human development of the organization, often lead to the failure of the organizational
strategies. Thus, development is still in the womb of human intervention and potential. So the knowledge of employee welfare being reinvented has been potent radar to emphasize on the growth potential of an organization.
The role of employee commitment is the most central aspect of the organizational change and potent cause of initiating the change and maintaining any future or ongoing change programs (Bennett, 2000). However, the employees must envisage the clear benefits of the outcome of the change or else their commitment is likely to diminish. And if top management fails to present a full commitment to the process of change then the transformation is surely doomed (Gill, 2003) In top level companies innovation often falters change efforts are undertaken without gaining commitment from employees. Employees at high tech companies may resist change by taking the attitude that if it [was not invented here] then we will not use it (Zell, 2001). The committed work force exhibits greater motivation, job satisfaction, attendance and positivity which help in the process of organizational change.
Breadth Objective:
“Organizational change was the understanding transformations within organizations at the broadest level among groups, individuals and collective level change across the entire organization.” (Burnes, B. 1996, p.85) Theorists mainly explored the change through a social or cultural perspective would examine the values of organizational participants’ mental maps and not dimensions (typically, organizational structural characteristics such as size).
Forces and sources examine the why of change. First and second/second order, scale, foci, timing, and degree all refer to the of change. Adaptive/generative, proactive/reactive, active/static, and planned/unplanned refer to the how of change. Last, the target of change refers to the outcomes. As a campus begins to engage in a change process, members of the organization need to first examine why they are about to embark on the process, the degree of change needed, and what is the best approach to adopt. (As cited in Ericdigests.com)
Change and the necessities for change has been a matter of intense discussion over a period of time. The need for change and the philosophy governing it has changed from time to time according to the philosophy and traits of the period. The following diagram tells us how the change management had taken place over the years. (See Figure 1)
Classical Approaches Contemporary Approaches
EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT
What do we currently know about the process of constructive organizational change and development? Although theoretical models overlap, there are also distinct differences. These similarities and differences can be the basis for your critical analysis, comparison, contrast, or synthesis of the models of three or four leading theorists.
Now WHY ARE MODELS of organizational change important to understand?
“For example, can people easily change, or do they have fairly rigid identities? Most models address the question of determinism: Is change beyond the capacity of people to manage and shape? Choosing a model is not an arbitrary choice—it is an ideological one. The assumptions we make about change are also assumptions about the nature of reality and people…. The Six main categories of theories of Organizational change that assist in understanding, describing, and developing insights about the change process and would help to compare the models are:
(1) Evolutionary, (2) Teleological, (3) Life cycle, (4) Dialectical, (5) Social cognition, and (6) Cultural.”( Adrianna J. Kesar, 2001, p.iv)
The finds its genesis in typology crafted by Van de Venn & Poole (1995). They induced four basic process theories of change, each characterized by a different event sequence and generative mechanism:
1. Developmental: Life cycle theories have an event order of start-up, harvest, grow, harvest, and terminate and start-up. They have a generative mechanism of an imminent program or regulation.
2. Rational: Teleological theories have an event sequence of envision/set goals with a mechanism of social construction.
3. Political: Dialectical theory has an event sequence of thesis/antithesis, conflict, synthesis of the thesis/antithesis.
4. Evolutionary: Evolutionary theory has an event sequence of variation, selection, retention, and variation.
These four motors are classified along two dimensions:
(a) The unit of change, reflects the focus of the process on the development of a single organizational entity (life cycle, teleological) or is evolution/ dialectic based and (b) The mode of change, to evaluate whether it produces first-order change (life cycle, evolution) or whether the events unfolds with time and generates second-order change (dialectic, teleology)
MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE (Four Schools of Thought)
RATIONAL– School (Teleological) DEVELOPMENTAL-School (Growth)
Organization-Oriented Social Construct Organization-Developing Social construct
Change- Need to adapt to new Change-Natural Progression
Environment
Strategy- Planned Change (Top-Down) OD- (Bottom-up)
Actors- Top Management Actors- Extensive Participation
Organization-Pluralistic Construct Organization-Unstable System
Change- Turbulence (Confrontation) Change- Disruption- Inevitable mutation
Strategy- Positioning-Legitimating – Strategy-Organizational capabilities Vs
Negotiation (Strategic) Inertia
Actors- Interest Groups Actors-Interactive-Sub-Systems POLITICAL school (Dialectic) EVOLUTIONARY school (Natural selection)
Within these motors, the change models can be assessed on different parameters such as:
- Organizational Context
- Factor necessitating Change
- Strategy for change
- Actors involvement
- Change Management
Let us now analyze different change models (H. Adhikari, 2007)
Based on these categories, theorists have different versions of change like the organizational theories of ADKAR Model, Transformation, Systems Approach Model, and Transformation Leadership Model- all of them sharing their share of the secret mantra that actually rules the business conditions of today. They highlight the areas of change and also points out the loopholes of business by organizational change and development models.
ADKAR MODEL:
Change Management is a set of processes, tools and techniques for managing the people side of change to move a person or group from a current state to a desired future state to achieve the specific objectives of an identified change. Change Management enables individuals and groups to support and participate in a change such that each person and group fully embraces the future state, and works toward the objectives of that change.(Hiatt, Jeffrey M, 2006, p.)
Definition and Background of the ADKAR model: The change management model which is strictly goal-oriented is known as ADKAR. It provides the arena for the organization that allows teams to focus their activities on specific business results. Prosci after research with 300 companies in the stage of ongoing multiple change projects published in 1998 the ADKAR model. The model helps to coach the employees when their organisations are in the transit of ongoing change processes. In the ADKAR model change occurs on two dimensions: the business dimension (vertical axis) and the people dimension (horizontal axis). An implication of successful change is reflected when both dimensions of change happen simultaneously.
Business Dimension of Change:
It involves the same standard practises that help in the business domain of organizational change like the need for the business opportunity is established; the scope and objectives of the projects are defined; new systems, organizational structure is formulated and a solution is evolved for the organization.
Change Management- People Dimension of change
In a study conducted with 248 companies, an effective change in management policies in the sphere related to the employees has been listed as one among the top three predominant success factors of organizations. Guiding and mentoring managers, making them aware of the development goals and strategies of the organization and keeping them in sync with the employee welfare opportunities was considered to be the critical factors for sustenance and development.
The model was initially used to determine whether the change management activities like proper training and communication sessions were working – whether there were signs of transition. The model has its root in traditional change management theories to a given goal. .
Example: Consider a situation where the organization plans to implement new software in the system. The immediate human responses are:
Was it necessary? How will it help? It is a waste of time. The company never shares their plans or projects.
However, if according to the model, the employees are informed that the new software would make the work much faster, save effort and reduce paperwork then the reaction of the employee would be different. Then he would try to know more about the software and how he could learn and adapt to the new environment. If he still resists, then his behaviour could be labelled as difficult and stern.
The power of ADKAR model focuses on the root cause of failure. If change is adopted following this model, then there is an increased probability of success in the organizational change. The ADKAR model is focused on employees, and there is success in the organizational change plan as the employees feel involved and takes active interest in the process. The results from the model can be easily measured and evaluated as it is task specific. It is difficult for the larger companies to adapt this model as it may not have enough time and resources to collaborate such closely with the employees collaborate as closely with their employees.
Organization: ADKAR is followed in organizations of the type “Pluralistic Social Construct” “Oriented Social Construct”, “Developing Social Construct”.
Strategy for Change: Strategy for change is determined by the demand of the external environment and the competition from the market. The key elements of strategy include:
-
To diagnose the resistance by the employee in face of change.
-
Help the employees to go through a smooth transition process
-
Create strategies for professional and personal development during change
-
Plan and develop change management features for employees.
Actors Involvement
The change can be implemented by different levels in the organization. The actor involvement is largely dependent on the level and nature of the change process. So the actors can range from the top level executives to supervisors in the organization.
Transformation Model:
Over the past decade, I have watched more than 100 companies try to remake themselves into significantly better competitors. They have included large organizations (Ford) and small ones (Landmark Communications), companies based in the United States (General Motors) and elsewhere (British Airways), corporations that were on their knees (Eastern Airlines), and companies that were earning good money (Bristol-Myers Squibb).
These efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, right sizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turnaround. But, in almost every case, the basic goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market environment. A few of these corporate change efforts have been very successful. A few have been utter failures.
Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. The lessons that can be drawn are interesting and will probably be relevant to even more organizations in the increasingly competitive business environment of the coming decade.
The most general lesson to be learned from the more successful cases is that the change process goes through a series of phases that, in total, usually require a considerable length of time. Skipping steps creates only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result. A second very general lesson is that critical mistakes in any of the phases can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating hard-won gains. Perhaps because we have relatively little experience in renewing organizations, even very capable people often make at least one big error.(Kotter, 2008, pg.1)
Kotter imbibes a series of practical experiences in his book from the 100 companies in which he was involved in consulting that had gone through transformation initiatives. Kotter says that the change process is time consuming has to pass through several stages in an attempt to implement a successful change effort. Moreover, a mistake made during the transitional phase in any stage of the change process leads to long term negative results in the organization. His model is useful for CPI and ERP programs and necessarily advocates that change does not happen overnight.
Organization: It is applicable to organizations which are of the “Developing Social Construct”, “Oriented Social Construct”, and “Pluralistic Social Construct” type. This model may not be suitable for organizations that are in pursuit of prompt change since Kotter believes that change needs time. It is a meticulous process and any lacuna or failure at any stage will be detrimental to the organization.
Strategy for Change Management: Kotter adopted an 8-step process for avoiding the errors those results in failure during the transformation process as is described in his book, Leading Change.
1. Establish a Sense of Urgency – Examine market forces facing the organization and the impact of these forces. Identify and discuss the impending crises.
2. Create a Guiding Coalition – Establish a team of leaders that are credible, have authority and expertise in the area of focus.
3. Develop a Vision and Strategy – Establish the target vision and strategies for reaching that vision.
4. Communicate the Change Vision – Develop a communication plan to present and re-enforce the change vision.
5. Empower Broad-based Action – Identify and remove barriers to change.
6. Generate Short Term Wins – Plan milestone achievements.
7. Consolidate Gains and Produce More Change – Build on past successes so that change becomes permeated throughout the organization.
8. Anchor New Approaches in the Culture – This must be done after the prior 7 steps are completed (Kotter, J.P., 1996)
Actors: The actors here are predominantly the Process managers or process owners of different change exercises and may come from various levels of management.
Systems Approach Model:
The Systems approach model in its crude form was first proposed by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy as General System theory. It amalgamated both the analytic and the synthetic method and encompassed both reductionism and holism.
Bertalanffy thought that it was inappropriate on part of the physicists to consider that all systems are closed. Moreover he disagreed to the fact that the physicists assumed that the organisms do not intervene or interact with the external world. Like for example, when a physicist creates a model of an atom, solar system or a pendulum- he assumes that all the perennial forces that affect the system are included in the model. They hypothetically imagine that the rest of the universe does not exist; as a consequence we get bias and inconclusive results. Bertalanffy knew that such assumptions were impractical and that any living organism would perish if it is separated from its surroundings.
“The present author, in the early [19]20s, became puzzled about obvious lacunae in the research and theory of biology. The then prevalent mechanistic approach (…) appeared to neglect or actively denies just what is essential in the phenomena of life. He advocated an ‘organismic’ conception in biology, which emphasizes consideration of the organism as a whole or system, and sees the main objective of biological sciences in the discovery of the principles of organization at its various levels.” (Bertalanffy, 1969, p. 12).
Hence he considered organisms to be open systems that constantly needed an inflow and outflow with their environment. He formulated the theory of open systems which were peculiar in the sense that they interacted with other systems in the environment. The interaction had two sides- input, which enters into the system from outside, and output, which exits from the system. This interaction has been separated by the boundary – just like the skin which serves as a boundary between what goes inside and outside of the body. His new vision of reality was based on awareness. He evaded the theoretical system to a more logical and practical one and necessarily evolved the theory of interrelatedness and interdependence of phenomena- exposing the intertwining nature of social, cultural, physical, psychological and biological concepts. In his definition of what a system is he only later included the environment: “A system may be defined as a set of elements standing in interrelation among them and with [the] environment.” (Bertalanffy, 1969, 252).
It was a transition from the orthodox methodology to a conceptually formulated theory. The system viewed the world in the form of integration and relationships. Systems were characterized as integrated wholes that properties of which could not be diminished or broken. So the system approach provides importance to the principles of the organization rather than on assembling on separate building blocks or substances. So from the smallest bacteria to the animals, plants and humans – including the society, family and planet is an integrated living system that needs interaction to survive.
Another aspect of the system approach is its dynamic nature with flexible and stable expositions that are mature enough to interrelate, integrate and oscillate opposite forces. Bertalanffy poignant point of system model was the cause of human survival. He observed that our society is plagued with ethological, ecological and ethical issues in the affairs of human affairs. A section or groups of individuals were only concerned to amass large profits for a minority group neglecting the basic needs of other people. This was a major concern for Bertalanffy and he thought there was to be a general system that needs to be developed to protect the interests of future generations. So he advocated a model, which had its priority in global morality, a criteria that does no focus on individual values alone but tries to adapt to the welfare of humans in a global system in its own environment. Bertalanffy says, “We are dealing with emergent realities; no longer with isolated groups of men, but with a systemically interdependent global community” (Bertalanffy, 1969, 252).
Bertalanffy’s model thus formulated concepts like wholeness, organization, teleology and differentiation which were not prevalent in the conventional models. It is capable of giving exact definitions of organizations and helps prepare the quantitative analysis of the organizations. This led to the system thinking. [19]
Organization: This model for change management is best adapted in static organizations. Here the organizations consider businesses to be a system, which regulates the inputs to deliver outputs. So it is applicable to “Oriented social constructs.”
Factors necessitating change
The effect of external environment
The Substantial interdependence between sub-systems
Actors Involvement:
The actors involved are mostly from the top management. However, in sub-system levels there is interdependence in interactive levels with the support of the top management.
Transformation leadership model:
According to Albert Einstein, “Setting an example is not the main means of influencing another, it is the only means…”Much true to the fact of the proverb, a Leadership model was evolved as one of the important strategies for organizational change and development. The transformational leader seeks to provide an optimum balance between the individual and organizational interest. In reality, the leader tries to acknowledge mutual interests but after the final decision is taken- the consequences may not please everyone simultaneously. The decision is considered to be the best under the circumstance even if it might mean sacrificing individual member’s interest.
Among the many pioneers of this theory, Burke observes that leaders are the main pillars in the path of organizational change. “It is the leader who articulates and brings together the external environment with the organizational mission, strategy and culture and then provides a vision for the future: the destination, the change goal(s)…Without leadership, planned organizational change will never be realized. This is a strong declaration. I am not the only one to make such a statement.” (W.W.Burke, 2007, Pg 225- 226) According to him, Kotter and Heskett (1992) made as a result of extensive study of organization change with many corporations, particularly with ones in culture change, was “The single most visible factor that distinguishes major cultural changes that succeed from those that fail is competent leadership (John P. Kotter, James L. Helsett , 1992, p.84)
Organization: Organizations of the future gives more emphasis on the “mass customization” (as a reflex action in face of shifting unique market demand) rather than “mass production” (meaning utilization of economies of scale). This necessitates more association with vendor, customer and employee collaboration – a synthesis that is more essential in the present market scenario than the stiff competitive framework. It is applicable to any organizations of the type “Oriented Social Construct”, “Pluralistic Social Construct”, “Developing Social Construct”, and even “Unstable Systems” A pertinent example of this model was seen when the Department of community services of North Coast for developing a smoke free policy.
According to Johnson (2004), companies pursuing certification to quality standards must apply change methodologies to institutionalize the requirements into the business. Existing change models, such as Burke-Litwin, can serve as the foundation for identifying underlying, predictive variables impacting response variables of a quality management system including quality and delivery performance. The models were selected based on their applicability and similarity in integration of organizational variables with great similarities to those of a typical quality management system. Adaptation of change models specifically to quality management standards provides the conceptual framework in which businesses can operate. Burke-Litwin’s model (Figure 4) proved to be very useful in the development of the quality standard performance outcome model. The Burke-Litwin model focuses on two aspects of change: transformational and transactional factors. External environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and individual and organizational performance are considered the transformational factors (Burke, 1994). The other variables are transactional factors. This model contributed significantly to the research model by focusing on the transformational factors of external environment – mandated conformance to quality standards, leadership for quality, quality strategy, quality culture, and key organizational performance measures – quality and delivery ratings. As a part of the transformational organizational change model developed for this study, additional components classified as transactional factors by Burke-Litwin relating to structure and systems have been defined as transformational in nature. Systems has been restated and referred to as quality techniques and tools. (Burke 1994, p.25)
There are several conditions that need to be present when pursuing a major transformational change: Clear vision, driven from the top; leaders must omit to systemic, organization-wide change; employee involvement; and external coaches or change agents to facilitate process (Juechter 1998)
Factors Necessitating Change: The important situations which requires a change management in the form of transformational leadership are “need for incremental improvement”, “crisis management”, and “need for creating new organizational capabilities”.
Strategy for change Management:
Strategy for change involves the following measures:
Bernard M Bass, the founding director of the Centre for Leadership Studies at Binghamton and founding editor of The Leadership Quarterly suggested four interrelated components( as cited in Falling Blossoms Leadership, [nd] )
-
Idealized influence – “If the leadership is truly transformational, its charisma or idealized influence is characterized by high moral and ethical standards.” Trust for both leader and follower is built on a solid moral and ethical foundation.”
-
Inspirational motivation – “…provides followers with challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals and undertakings.” The leader’s appeal to what is right and needs to be done provides the impetus for all to move forward.”
-
Intellectual stimulation – “…helps followers to question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems.” The leader’s vision provides the framework for followers to see how they connect to the leader, the organization, each other, and the goal. Once they have this big picture view and are allowed freedom from convention they can creatively overcome any obstacles in the way of their endeavor.”
-
Individual consideration – “…treats each follower as an individual and provides coaching, mentoring and opportunities for personal growth.” This approach not only educates the next generation of leaders, but also fulfills the individual’s need for self-actualization, self-fulfillment, and self-worth. It also naturally propels followers to further achievement and learning.”
Actors Involvement: Mostly the drive starts with the top management and continues to the process heads and then involves extensive participation.
Process of the human factors that can either facilitate or prevent organizational transformation:
Organizational change is almost inevitable. However, research has showed in the past years that only one third of the initiatives receive any success. The organizational change may be due to various reasons like reengineering (Bashein, Marcus, & Riley 1994), downsizing (Applebaum and Pat, 1993) , implementation of total quality management ( McNabb, Davis and Thomas 1995) or change of corporate culture (Beer 1993) . The failed change efforts results in increase of employee grievance, loss of motivation and cynicism.
A key element to these types of change is the openness of employees towards the change. Although organizational change is often about change in structures, hierarchy, reward systems and technology, it is mediated through individual change (Schein E.H. 1980) It has been observed that many of the change attempts fail as they tend to minimise the individual importance, the cognitive- affective nature of organizational change.
Human factors that prevent organizational change:
Successful change management depends on team work and communication with the employees involved in the change process and leadership with a vision that will enable the process rather than dictate the process (As cited in Students Uta – Change Management: Communication. Employee Commitment and Leadership, 2004) Employees have deep attachments to their work group, organization, and their method of working. The potential of the employee to understand and cope with the ability to adapt to changing work conditions is important for organizational and individual survival. Change is constant and it would be wise to learn to manage change – it would mean not only an impetus to understand human factors but also the ability to lead and manage effectively. However, the major human factor that prevents organizational change is the Resistance to Organizational change by the employees.
Resistance to change:
Dr Dawn-Marie Turner of Turner Change Management says, “The current view of resistance as an inevitable outcome or phase of change has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in many organisations. It is estimated that between 60% and 80% of people in an organisation are neither resistant nor ready. Whether they become resistant or ready depends on how the transition is facilitated. Unfortunately, most organisations fail to adequately address the human dynamics of the change, which results in resistance. Simply put, resistance is a response to an unresolved issue or problem that manifests in attitudes, feelings or behaviour. In this context it is not the change that is being resisted but the uncertainty and apprehension that comes when individuals lack the readiness needed to move through the continuum of change. With many organisations undergoing three or more simultaneous changes and given the intensity of the resources and energy organisational change requires, the current focus on managing resistance is not sustainable.”
Resistance to change can be broken down into three groups: organization-level resistance, group-level resistance, and individual-level resistance (as cited in Associated Content, 2007 p.1-4)
Organization-Level-Resistance:
Organization-level resistance includes the following conditions:
Power and Conflict – Resistance to change due to power and conflict is usually seen when a change has diverse effects on different departments. It may be beneficial to one department while harming the other within the organization.
Functional Orientation – Resistance to change may occur due to differences in functional orientation. This happens when employees with different functions evaluate and see problems differently. Thus it is difficult to bring them to a joint consortium regarding change.
Mechanistic Structure – Resistance to change due to mechanistic structure occurs because employees working “within a mechanistic structure are expected to act in certain ways and do not develop the initiative to adjust their behaviour to changing conditions” (George et al.).
Organizational Culture – Resistance due to organizational culture occurs when organizational change hampers the norms and ethics followed by the employees in the original structure.
Group-Level-Resistance
Group Norms – Resistance due to group norms occurs when there is change related to altered interaction between group members due to changes in assignment and role relationship within.
Group Cohesiveness – Resistance due to group cohesiveness occurs because members of a cohesive group wish to keep things, such as members or tasks, the same within the group.
Groupthink and Escalation of Commitment – Resistance due to groupthink and escalation of commitment occurs because members ignore negative information, even when they realize that their decisions are wrong, in order to agree with each other, thus making a change in group behavior incredibly difficult.
Individual-Level-Resistance
Uncertainty and Insecurity – Resistance due to uncertainty and insecurity occurs because employees do not know what the outcome of the change will be.
Selective Perception and Retention – Resistance due to selective perception and retention occurs when employees assume and try to interpret how the change will affect their department and them personally.
Habit – Resistance due to habit occurs when employees are comfortable in their daily habits and do not want to change it.
Exhibiting Resistance to Change:
Passive Resistance – Passive resistance refers to negative feelings and opinions regarding the change. Signs of passive resistance may include “agreeing verbally but not following through, feigning ignorance and withholding information” (George.J.).
Active Resistance – Active resistance refers to actively opposing the change. Signs of active resistance may include strikes or increased absenteeism.
Aggressive Resistance – Aggressive resistance refers to behaviour that actually blocks the change. Signs of aggressive resistance may include subversion or sabotage. Aggressive resistance is rare and can become dangerous. Therefore, aggressive resistance should never be allowed (Bolognese, A. F.)
Lack of commitment by the employee: Commitment by employees to a new process can be described in terms of individual psychological processes. A company is a conglomeration of hundreds and thousands of individual mind sets which at some level share common values (Lawson & Price, 2003). Organizational commitment can be defined as intimate emotional exchange between the employee and organization. Bennett, 2000, performed an exploratory study of employees at a retail bank undergoing cultural and structural change. He found that organizational change can detach an employee from the organization. While large scale transformation can reduce the commitment of the employee to the company. It usually happens when an organization mainly focuses on the structural aspects of change and ignoring the guidance and support aspect of its personnel. Lack of commitment is major obstacle in the process of organizational growth. (as cited in Students Utah Org, 2004)
Three psychological bases for organizational attachment discussed by Bennett (2000) were compliance commitment, identification commitment and internalization commitment. Compliance commitment means the employee is committed to the organization because there are high monetary and social costs to leave the organization. Identification commitment is commitment based on an emotional bond with the organization and the person’s desire to be affiliated with the organization. Internalization commitment is internalized norms shared with the organizations goals, values and mission. When the change affects the organization’s core values employee’s internalized organizational commitment erodes. Since internalized commitment can be associated with other behaviours key to the change process this can have serious implications to an organization (as cited in Students Utah Org, 2004)
Decrease productivity:
Reduction in Productivity: Uncertainty, anxiety and stress leads to less work being done gets done by employees who come to work. In an environment of ambiguity and confusion, individuals may withdraw support and become self-protective. Superiors may blur and inconsistent information. Working relationships suffer and so do the overall tempo of the workforce. Thus in the change process productivity suffers and so do hinder the organizational change process.
Absenteeism: Uncertainty in the work and being over protective about their jobs stresses the employee. It results in burnout and many work days are missed. Employees start looking for other personal and professional diversions as the transition tries to take place. The employee is thus a distracted individual and it is very difficult for him to concentrate on change effort. He is either mentally or physically absent while his potential and critical input is required. Such a waste of resource not only discourages the team members but also instills permanent damage to the organizational change process.
However, the negativity and the resistance can be mitigated and resolved as professed in the different models mentioned above. Burke thinks that “the prudent leader will be well aware of the nature of resistance to change and the forms that resistance behavior can take at each organizational level. …Also the change leader needs to differentiate among the various type of resistance- blind, ideological and political – so as to respond to and interact with the people in the organization appropriately” (W. Burke, 2007, p.259)
The leader may also think of involving people in key decision making…For example a highly influential group early in the merger process of Smithkline Beecham was the ‘merger management committee’. Selected by the CEO, this group had the responsibility of selecting who the executives would be for the top key positions in the corporations, and unique was the rule incorporated by Buaman, CEO, that no member of the committee could be named for the any of these executive jobs. Objectivity was therefore more assured in the decisions as who was selected. Even though none of the committee members could have any of the plum positions they were working with, they were highly motivated and committed to the task. After all, they were involved in an activity that would have far reaching effects on the corporation. A delayed reward for these members was Bauman’s making certain that they were eventually placed in important roles and positions for the corporation. The purpose of this brief case was to provide an example as how to involve people in the change process. (Burke, 2007, p.260)
Assuming that some degree of change is required, how ready our organization for what is will be required? Should the change be evolutionary or continuous (transactional in nature) or revolutionary discontinuous (transformational in nature) or should the change be both: that is slower and continuous for certain areas in the organization and revolutionary in other areas? With respect to readiness on part of the organizational members, it will depend in part on how much change has been occurring already and how many initiatives have been thrust on the organization. With the announcement of yet another change, people in the organization have been known to say, [We’ve been there, done that-even have a T-shirt to prove it!] Under such circumstances change leaders will have to stress the difference and uniqueness of the current initiative to help organizational members, especially the jaded ones, to get beyond their fatigue and perhaps cynicism (Burke, 2007, p.261)
Thus the leader has to imbibe positive spirit, environment; share open and frequent communications with the employees; has to be a good listener; be patient; understand their ordeal or problems; be knowledgeable; help them cope with the change and their fear.
The best way to combat this frustration is to communicate with the employees the potential benefits of the new technologies and to develop an atmosphere of positive change. An atmosphere of openness, good communications, clear vision, leadership and training engenders good change management. Consultation, communications, transparency and informality minimize fear and suspicion; staff resent the sense that changes are imposed on them and that they are powerless – they need to be involved. They need to understand the rationale behind decisions which are being made, even if they do not agree with them.(As cited inChange Management Theories, Page 3 of 5 – Associated Content 2008)
Bibliography:
Best Practices in Change Management, 2007, http://www.change-management.com/2007-report-exec-overview.pdf
Change Management: Communication, Employee Commitment and … (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://students.uta.edu/ap/app4373/MGMT5312.doc
Understanding and Facilitating Change in Higher Education in … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/21st.htm
Amazon.com: Robert Morris’ review of The Heart of Change … (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.amazon.com/review/R1SM3KEGFMW8C3
Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail – Harvard … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-change/ar/1?referral=00269&cm_sp=endeca-_-spotlight-_-link
SS > NF reviews > Ludwig von Bertalanffy. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/b/ldwgvnbr.htm
Falling Blossoms: transformational leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fallingblossoms.com/leadership/
The meaning of content, context and process of organizational … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.vlerick.com/en/2758-VLK/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/vlgms-wp-2003-06.pdf
Change Management: Communication, Employee Commitment and … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://students.uta.edu/ap/app4373/MGMT5312.doc
Resistance to Organizational Change: Fact or Fiction? – Chief … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/features/feature51485/
Employee Resistance to Change – Associated Content … (n.d.).Retrieved from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121002/employee_resistance_to_change.html
Employee Resistance to Change, Page 2 of 3 – Associated … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121002/employee_resistance_to_change_pg2.html
H, B. The effects of organizational change on employee psychological attachment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15 pp. 126-148.
Collerette, P., Schneider R And Legris P. (2002), Managing Organizational Change, ISO Management Systems
Bergey, J., Smith, D., Tilley, S., Weiderman, N. And Woods, S. (1999), Why Reengineering Projects Fail, available at
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/99.reports/pdf/99tr010.pdf last accessed 21/03/2010
Heiss, M And Jankowsky, M. (2001), The Technology Tree Concept – An evolutionary approach to technology management in a rapidly changing market, IEMC 2001 Proceedings from Change Management and the New Industrial Revolution, 2001, 7-9 Oct. 2001 pp:37 – 43
Trader-Leigh, K. E (2003), Case Study: Identifying resistance in managing change Journal of Organizational Change Management; Volume 15 No.2; 2002
Prosci (2002), 2002 Best Practices in Business Process Reengineering Report, available at http://www.prosci.com/bprbestpractices.htm, last accessed 21/03/2010
Born, G (1995), Business Process Re-engineering – A Short Guide, Electronic Aids for Increased Profits, IEE Seminar on 29 Jun 1995 pp.7/1-7/5
Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., with Dunham, R.B (2002) – Managing Organizational Change and Development – p.628
Adrianna J. Kezar Executive summary, Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century- Recent Research and Conceptualizations, p.iv
Hargovind Adhikari, 2007, Organizational Change Models: A Comparison, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Last Retrieved on 21/03/2010 from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016981
Hiatt, Jeffrey M. ADKAR, 2006: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community. Prosci Research
Prosci, 2002, Last Retrieved on 21/03/2010 from
(http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-adkar-overview.htm)
John Kotter, 1995, The Article: “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail” by. Harvard Business Review, March-April
Kotter, J.P., (1996) Leading Change, ISBN 0-87584-747-1, Harvard Business School Press
Trans4Mind, Benefit from Powerful Tools for Transformation, Last Retrieved on 21/03/2010 fromhttp://www.trans4mind.com/mind-development/systems.html
PanArchy, A Gateway to Selected Documents and Websites, Last Retrieved on 21/03/2010 fromhttp://www.panarchy.org/vonbertalanffy/systems.1968.html
John P. Kotter, James L. Helsett – Corporate Culture and Performance – p.84
Schein E.H. 1980, Organizational Psyschology, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall
Levasseur, R., 2001, People Skills: Change Management Tools- Lewin’s Change Model, Interfaces, 71-73
George, J., & Jones, G. “Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour.” Custom ed. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing
Bolognese, A. F. “Employee Resistance to Organizational Change.” New Foundations, Last Retrieved fromhttp://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Bolognese721.html)
Bennett, H. (2000). The effects of organizational change on employee psychological attachment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 126-148
Gill R, 2003, Change Management-or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 307-318
Zell, D. (2001). Overcoming barriers to work innovations: lessons learned at Hewlett-Packard. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 77-87.
Burke, W.W. (2007). Organization change: Theory and practice. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burke, W.W. (1994), Diagnosis for Organizational Change, Guidford Press, New York, Johnson, DM 2004, “Adaptation of organizational change models to the implementation of quality standard requirements.”, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management-154-174.Juechter, W.M., Fisher, C. and Alford, RJ. (1998), “Five conditions for high-performance cultures”, Training & Development, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 63-71.
Social Blogger 