Resistance_to_Change

Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change Initiatives By: Aric Hall Completed in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of OM 5216 – Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution Capella University Winter, 2008 Address: City, State, & Zip: Phone: E-Mail: Instructor: Abstract Title Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change Initiatives Abstract Employees have many reasons to fear change initiatives, including the survival of their job or their ability to adapt to whatever is new. However, the failure for an organization and its members to continuously change and improve will spell the end of the organization as a whole. It is essential for managers to understand the problems of identifying organizational problems, identifying solutions, and implementing and refining organizational change. The crux of this report is the importance of engaging and involving employees, creating a democratic environment to involve all members in designing, modifying, and implementing organizational change. Hall, p. i Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction Why Companies Fail to Overcome Resistance to Organizational Change Organizational Impact in Failing to Overcome Resistance to Organizational Change Overcoming Resistance to Change is Important to HR Personnel Best Practices to Address Resistance to Change Skills and Competencies to Address Resistance to Change Summary and Conclusion References i 1 1 2 3 3 7 9 10 Hall, p. 1 Introduction There is much written about organizational change and the reasons that people resist change. It has been said that people do not resist change but resist being changed. Individuals are content with the status quo. Few people really want to go through the trouble of learning new things. It is easiest to stick with what is known. In order to overcome the resistance to change, the workforce must be convinced that the change is needed, the problem is real, and the change will solve the problem. The change process must be presented in a way that incremental steps could be taken and incremental steps recognized. There has to be constant support, so that workers can overcome the fear associated with the change. Why Companies Fail to Overcome Resistance to Organizational Change Organizations may suffer from an ignorance of how to properly design and implement change initiatives. Another problem is management’s reluctance to cede power or otherwise involve the collective workforce in planning change. Many traditional managers may still live in the past, in the era of scientific management, believing that workers have no skills or intelligence that would allow them to contribute substantively to improving their organization. Ultimately, the organization needs a new vision and culture in how to effectively implement change. Resistance to change begins as a personal resistance or unwillingness to change, followed by the collective organizational resistance (Quinn, 1996). Individuals are comfortable with what is, living in a comfort zone (Agocs, 1997). There is a fear of the unknown, fear of failure, or a general lack of desire to learn a new system or procedure. Neck (1996) recommends individuals to teach themselves how to be comfortable with change. This is a personal development of tolerance for the unknown. Individual resistance may stem from a fear of losing a job, Hall, p. 2 insecurity, past failures, mistrust, or lack of influence in the decision-making process (Oreg, 2006). Often times, managers fail to see the value in resistance to change. Individuals resist change because of some reason, such as a personal experience, observation, or knowledge of fact that eludes management (Oreg, 2006). Managers fail to see the value in those personal experiences. How much expense, waste, or grief would it save the organization, if managers sought to learn from the experiences of its employees and managers' Barriers to change can come from managers, organizational culture, embedded conflict, or pressures of conformity (Quinn, 1996). Particularly in large and old organizations, there is a cultural and systemic resistance to all change. The organization is expected to make the same widgets, in the same manner, for years to come. Employees who have been there for a generation would easily say “we’ve always done it this way”. Managers who see themselves as the savior, without which the organization could not survive, ensure that change never succeeds. Their change paradigm is still limited to the single-leader, hero model of leadership (Axelrod, 2002). Managers may see a democratic or collaborative leadership process as surrendering productivity to the self-interest of employees (Axelrod, 2002), as if managers would never act out of self-interest. Organizational Impact in Failing to Overcome Resistance to Change Failing to overcome resistance to change may result in the change not being attempted, or failing in the attempt. There is a lack of commitment, competition, and animosity between sects of the organization. Morale falls and ultimately many employees may quit. Many archaic organizations died or suffered tremendous downsizing because of their inability to change with times and technology. Management and labor unions alike strive to keep Hall, p. 3 everyone doing the same old things the same old way. As a result, the competitors who are smaller, limber, technologically savvy, and quick to adjust and change were the ones that would prevail. Those entrepreneurial visionaries are the ones to create new and improved products, improved services, and a new way of doing business. They are the ones who increase sales and reduce costs. Large and burdensome organizations are the ones with the greatest difficulty in changing. An organization’s will to change is often fluid, variable, and lacking in lasting commitment (Agocs, 1997). As such, managers must build a lasting commitment to change. Overcoming Resistance to Change is Important to HR Personnel If an organization fails to involve the whole organization in planning for and implementing change initiatives, it will be the human resources personnel who will feel the fallout. Invariably, there would be more complaints, more conflicts, and more resignations. Morale could be crushed and the joy-filled corporate culture could become a thing of the past. The HR department may take an active role in involving personnel in the change process, rather than just existing as an instrumentality of management. Strebel (1996) recommends commitment contracts for personnel to establish personal commitments to a change process and role. Human resources personnel could play an active role in linking the desires of management to the interests, skills, and abilities of employees by facilitating the design of these contracts. Each one would be adjusted based on personal needs. Best Practices to Address Resistance to Change Resistance to change should not be seen as rebellious or truculent. Rather, resistance to change should be seen as a challenge or a force of energy that can be redirected to overcome any risk or negative aspect of the change that is identified by its detractors (Waddell and Sohal, 1998; Piderit, 2000). Managers should encourage those who have doubts to become active in the Hall, p. 4 process, challenging and refining the problem areas or potential risk. Those who are skeptical may be the best people to identify and correct problems that the change advocates failed to see. Stanley, Meyer, and Topolnytsky (2005) recommend a teaching and learning approach to confronting individual resistance to organizational change. Of course teaching of sorts could be useful to generate support and convince an employee of his role in the change process. However, these authors recommend teaching merely as a counseling tool to help the employee adapt to the change. Management must refocus their change efforts onto the process (Geller, 2002). This process includes the involvement of others, providing feedback, listening, encouraging employees, and encouraging employee ownership of the process. To improve the acceptance of change on the individual level, the process needs to be broken down and reconstructed (Gotsill, 2007). If an individual fails to understand the change or see the vision for the future, reconstructing the change process will allow the individual to see the big picture and the individual components in that process. He will be more able to see his role in the grand design. The solution to organizational problems must be of mutual creation, a joint project by management and labor to solve an organizational dilemma. Leading change, with the full commitment of the workforce, depends on empowerment (Quinn, 1996). Axelrod (2002) described this in terms of building communities and connecting people to each other. This is where the spark of creative solutions are formed, and no doubt solutions that are mutually acceptable and solve the problem at hand. There is a need to get the whole system in the room, making all of the organization part of the process. Managers must strive to widen the circle of involvement (Axelrod, 2002). The process must be more democratic, even if there are managers with formal authority at the top of the Hall, p. 5 organization. Rather than the traditional command-and-control approach, employees need to be treated with respect for their intelligence and their abilities to contribute meaningfully to the organization. The traditional change leader is a hero, surrounding himself with advisors, while retaining all power to the leader. Engagement solves the problem of a lack of organizational support for change, because change is now an institutional process. Managers must build trust, showing a commitment and reliance on all organizational members, while at the same time proving that they will not pull the rug out from under the employees. Many employees have heard the lie, “take care of the company, and the company will take care of you”. Perhaps in generations past, employees did not know any better. But, today any employee can give reasons to fear termination. Employees would rather go with the flow than to be actively involved in improving the organization. The change agent manager is going to have to overcome this. It may take some spectacular failures or setbacks, where the manager can prove is willingness to celebrate mistakes, before he earns the trust of his followers. Once the change proposal is finalized, management must generate support or buy-in from employees (Kotter and Cohen, 2002). If there is no support or commitment, the change will fail due to poor implementation. To generate this support, the manager must have an innate ability to paint a portrait. This is the leader’s visionary and communication skills in action. The manager must show what the new organization will look like, how it will be an improvement, and then diagram the process of getting to the new future. All organizations must practice principles of organizational learning and continuous improvement. In some organizations, records need to be kept as to what changes have worked, or not, and why. These recorded lessons can be passed on to the next generation of Hall, p. 6 organizational leaders, much like any other task or skill, so that the new generation can start from a strong foundation of knowledge and shared experience. Depending on the organization, reducing the hierarchy and bureaucracy may be critical to effective organizational change. In many rigid and overly-structured organizations, individuals are not able to communicate with others, horizontally or vertically. Ideas are not shared, input is not received, and any attempt to share in the decision-making process is crushed. By leaning out the levels of hierarchy and excessive number of positions, individuals could communicate with fewer other individuals and as such would find fewer roadblocks. As a related point, open communication also serves to provide individuals with greater input into the change process. Employees at the front lines have much to contribute in analyzing organizational problems and proposing solutions. Open communication allows for a matrix style of communication, where employs can go up and down the chain of command or discuss a matter with anyone else without permission of a gatekeeper. Open communication provides for feedback, input, complaints, and otherwise for the full involvement of all personnel in the change process. The impetus of the change process is to rely on people. This requires management t communicate with people, communicating the vision, communicating the strategy, and communication through training and development (Michelman, 2007). Creating this ownership in the process ensures that changes will be more suited to solving the organizational problem at hand, while at the same time giving employees the pride and motivation to actively involve themselves in the change. Depending on the organization, changes to the hiring, appointment, and promotion process may improve organizational change. In a military-style organization, where friends appoint friends, eventually the clique takes control of an organization. At that point, there is a Hall, p. 7 vacuum—a disconnect with all other workers in the organization. Power and politics becomes a cancer that kills the organization. The in-group fights with the out-group. There is no longer a collective effort to solve any problem, and the solutions proposed by the in-group may be impossible to implement by the out-group, and it may not solve the problems. This could be addressed by changing qualifications for hiring or promotions, such as requiring low-level experience or requiring some large support at the lower-rungs of the organizational chart. Skills and Competencies to Address Resistance to Change Organizational change may be revolutionary or evolutionary, depending on the needs of the organization. Most redirection solutions are revolutionary, with evolutionary or incremental changes used to modify and continuously improve the organization (Burke, 2002). Organizational changes, including those using the paradigms mentioned herein, are revolutionary changes. This occurs when technology makes the company buggy whip obsolete, or when competitors from Asia can make the car better and cheaper. This requires a whole new vision, strategy, and purpose for the organization. Evolutionary changes are more small and frequent, such as implementing a new software package. The greater concern here is in making revolutionary changes. The two key skills that managers must have to build a coalition of change agents are communication skills and trust-building skills. Employees are in fear of losing their jobs, either from a change that they fail to adapt to or from resisting the change. Employers have to build trust, by celebrating mistakes and encouraging dissention so the organization can learn from the reasoning behind the resistance. Communication is necessary to communicate the vision and the proposed changes. Communication is necessary to build and manage teams or action committees within the organization. Hall, p. 8 Kotter and Cohen (2002) propose a basic graphic model of the change process, but the authors stress top-down control over the change process. As with other models, the problem must be identified, and a sense of urgency developed to confront the problem. A team is assembled that is representative of the organization and that has the complementary competencies in its membership to get the job done. Proposed changes are presented to the workforce, in an effort to build support, generate buy-in, and to seek out questions or challenges to the proposal. Employees are empowered to implement the changes and to make recommendations for improving the process. All short-term victories are celebrated, and milestones are set in manageable chunks so that organizational members do not grow weary of the process. The change is sustained by continuously refining the changes made and continuing to perfect the organization. Anderson and Anderson (2001) propose a change model that is both transformational and transitional. As such, change is an involving process that includes all organizational members. It begins with the acknowledgement that there is a problem and getting agreement on what the problem is. From their, the leader sets the vision for what should be. The solution or alternative solutions are assessed and entertained as a group effort, complete with challenges and risks being brought to light by all participants. The team designs the desired state and analyzes the impact of the proposed changes. Action steps are established and the implementation conducted. Each step or small achievement is celebrated, and modifications are made so as to continuously improve the process and ultimately the organization. The change focus is on the process (Anderson and Anderson, 2001). The leader goes from being the controller to the facilitator of the process. He assists employees in seeing their role and contribution, to seeing the vision, and then in guiding workgroups to design and Hall, p. 9 implement change as a collective. He is a catalyst for change, engaging others to their greatest contribution. He freely shares information. He celebrates the small and incremental accomplishments. Change leadership should also be an engaging process (Axelrod, 2002), building on the principles of empowerment and collaborative leadership. This is no different that the material supporting transformational change and transformational leadership. An engaging process is not dependent on one lone-ranger styled leader. Engagement is not a command-and-control environment. Engagement seeks out ideas and challenges. It encourages active and proactive participation. It encourages and tolerates employees who act like they own the place. Summary and Recommendations An organization must develop a new vision and a new faith in the workforce before it can approach the organizational change process. Managers must exhibit a trust in the workers to contribute to solving organizational problems, which in turn will build trust in management. The door must always be open for individuals to take an active role in improving the organization, allowing for open communication, initiative, and teamwork in problem solving. The ultimate lesson is to learn that individuals will support what they help to create. If the employees and low-level managers shared in assessing the problems, identifying the alternative solutions, and designing the solutions, then those same workers will work diligently to implement and refine the changes proposed. Hall, p. 10 References Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917-931. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Anderson, D., & Ackerman-Anderson, L. S. (2001). Beyond change management: Advanced strategies for today’s transformational leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Axelrod, R. H. (2002). Terms of engagement: Changing the way we change organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Geller, E. S. (2002). Leadership to overcome resistance to change: It takes more than consequence control. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3), 29-49. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Gotsill, G., & Natchez, M. (2007). From resistance to acceptance: How to implement change management. T+D, 61(11), 24-27. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Michelman, P. (2007). Overcoming resistance to change. Harvard Management Update, 12(7), 3-4. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Neck, C. P. (1996). Thought self-leadership: A self-regulatory approach towards overcoming resistance to organizational change. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4(2), 202-216. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Hall, p. 11 Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business & Psychology, 19(4), 429-459. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 15(1). Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change' Harvard Business Review on Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(7/8), 543-548. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.