Resistance to Change: Organizational Change Course Essay Example

cope with the situation, and our "fight or flight" response still functions as it did in the ice age. Whether dodging an incoming car or running from a hungry lion, our body triggers similar chemical responses.

According to this viewpoint, men are capable of adapting to new surroundings as long as they view the alterations as significant, pressing, and not jeopardizing their present state of safety and security. The reluctance to accept change is not rooted in a distaste for it but rather in previous unfavorable encounters or uncertainty regarding the consequences of the modifications.

Resistance to change is a common phenomenon evident in organizations, as employees tend to cling onto their current organizational culture and fear the impact new changes may have on their job security. To manage this resistance effectively, we need to identify certain signs and tailor our approach accordingly, taking into account that different groups within the organization may react differently to change.

In our text, during the implementation process of change, 5 (Diagnosis for Change) presents the Force-Field Analysis Diagram. This diagram displays various driving forces and restraining forces that play a role in the progression of changes. The latter is particularly useful, as it presents a visual representation of the different factors that are hindering change progress. See Fig. 1: Force-Field Analysis Diagram.

For a manager practicing their skills, it is beneficial to view driving force arrows in a forward direction and restraining force arrows against them, allowing for an evaluation of the amount of restraining forces that work against change. Creating a plan-of-attack for addressing these restraining forces is the subsequent step - one may not eliminate

all of these forces but identifying and displaying the primary sources helps. Furthermore, the diagram can act as a visual communication tool to present resistance to change within the organization.

Along with the Force-Field Diagram, organizations should also evaluate different indicators of Resistance to Change. Just like in a mysterious sickness, there are always visible symptoms and distractions that lead to the root cause. In Chapter 6 of our text, Hultman describes resistance to change as "tridimensional," involving emotions, behavior, and cognition. Emotions refer to how people feel about the change, behavior relates to how people think about the change, and cognition pertains to people's actions in response to a change.

For effective management, it is crucial to comprehend the three distinct aspects of resistance and differentiate between misleading indications and genuine symptoms. Managers working in the field must also acknowledge both the overt and covert manifestations of resistance to change. Inaction or delay in implementing change, procrastination, and withholding information indicate passive resistance, even though verbally agreeing to change. On the other hand, active resistance is visible when a person criticizes the change, ridicules it, blames or accuses others, or undermines the change project.

Active resistances are easier to identify and handle as they are more predictable than passive resistances which are the unpredictable obstacles that could impede the strategic change process.

An article written by Ford in the Harvard Business Review in 2009, titled "Decoding Resistance to Change," highlights the significance of communication between resisters and organizations. Ford emphasizes that blaming resisters is not only pointless, but it can also lead to harmful managerial behaviors.

Management should recognize that

changes will have varying effects on individuals. Although management may not be as affected as those directly impacted, they still need to inform all employees of the reasons for the changes. Ford emphasizes the importance of ensuring that those who were not involved in the planning process understand both what and why their jobs will be disrupted. As previously mentioned, people often oppose change out of fear of uncertainty.

To successfully implement change within an organization, it is essential to clearly communicate the vision and mission while also specifying its impact on both the overall organization and specific departments. Encouraging employee feedback and participation can reduce resistance and foster positive outcomes. When employees feel a sense of belief and ownership in the process, resistance tends to decrease, leading to greater success. It's crucial to work with resistance rather than against it when implementing change, as suggested by author Ford and other experts.

In a Strategic Finance article from the same year, Bullickson wrote about "Working with Resistance" and suggested that resistance is a natural occurrence that should not be avoided or ignored. Instead, Bullickson viewed resistance as an opportunity rather than a problem. She believed that resistance serves as a warning sign, cautioning organizations to proceed carefully, not take it personally, and question its motive. Bullickson saw resistance as a roadmap to successful management.

In discussing resistance, it was noted that it is a type of energy which must be managed effectively by leaders. If leaders fail to effectively allocate and direct the energy, it can become negative and lead to problems such as office politics and sabotage related to the change. Effective organizational training

is key to ensuring positive long-term effects of change. This includes providing adequate training from top executives before, during, and after the implementation of strategic change.

In a 2009 article titled "The Key Elements to Effective Organizational Training" by Lenzner on the Education & Training section of the Central New York Business Review, various methods were discussed for top executives to encourage positive changes in their organization. The first element emphasized the importance of leadership from top executives, both in words and actions. This means that when introducing new changes, the organization must have the support of the CEO and other leadership figures. The CEO should clearly define the direction and goals of strategic changes to align with the organization's vision and mission towards success. Furthermore, the CEO should maintain involvement in the project and provide full support towards its completion.

According to the book "Successful Project Management" by Gido and Clements, there are five phases in the progression of a project that contribute to the success of strategic change within an organization: Initiating, Planning, Controlling, Implementing, and Terminating. Although top executives bear responsibility for this implementation, project managers also play a significant role in its achievement.

The project phase, consisting of planning, implementation and control, is a significant time investment for project managers. Throughout this stage, it is crucial for them to be aware of possible resistance to change and ready to address any unforeseen circumstances. This could involve finding alternative solutions for accommodating particular stakeholders, presenting different visions of change to help employees adapt, and allowing time for feedback to gain insight into employee perspectives. Moreover, project managers need to evaluate the risks

associated with carrying out the project and communicate with senior executives about whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks or if risks can be effectively managed.

A Communication Plan is vital for successful communication of plans with subordinates and top executives. The plan guarantees adherence to protocol throughout all project phases, prepares contingency plans for risks, and documents every aspect of the project. To create this plan, key stakeholders should be identified, their preferred information type should be determined through inquiries, communication strategies should be documented, and sign-off signatures from key stakeholders must be obtained for approval.

The communication plan needs to be updated with any project changes and conveyed to relevant parties such as employees, stakeholders, and supervisors (as mentioned in the book "Successful Management"). However, managers and CEOs can also impede project implementation, intentionally or unintentionally, as seen in the case of Liz Claiborne in Table 6 of the textbook. Despite going public and making it to the Fortune 500 list after just five years of being founded in 1976, Liz Claiborne serves as an example of how managers can become resistors to change.

The author claims that Liz Claiborne is just one of numerous organizations that have experienced the "The Icarus Paradox" syndrome, as stated in Table 6.10. In Greek mythology, Icarus made a pair of wings from wax to fly, but he met his demise when he came too close to the sun and his wings melted. This same notion was echoed in a 2009 article from Management Services magazine titled "Business Process Reengineering," which discussed how two sector/local government organizations tried to implement change through BPR.

Paper et al (2001) stated

that the reason for Business Process Reengineering plan or models' failure is due to BPR senior managers not comprehending its concept and implications. Additionally, they encountered obstacles such as cultural inertia, opposition to change, and insufficient leadership at higher levels. The authors stressed that top management's endorsement alone is inadequate and they must actively engage in the transformation process for the new paradigm to be effective. In conclusion, the lack of comprehension and direction from senior management led to an unsuccessful implementation of the project.

The text suggests that managers can be resistant to change, causing cultural inertia in the organization. To overcome this, it is essential to have a Strategy Wing that ensures everyone in the organization is on board with the expected changes and their implementation. When managers themselves resist change, Kotter and Schlesinger's "Situational" Approach, discussed in a Harvard Business Review article, can help manage this resistance to change.

The process of change involves several steps including education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and cooptation, explicit and implicit coercion. To ensure success, managers need to consider their internal and external environments when implementing change, so that they do not encounter resistance. When resistors are misinformed or lack information, the Education and Communication method is suitable. Alternatively, the Participation and Involvement method should be used when resistors feel excluded from the process.

The use of Facilitation and Support is recommended for managing resistance in situations of anxiety and uncertainty. Negotiation and Agreement are appropriate when resistors have significant power to undermine the change project. If participation, facilitation, or negotiation are too complex or resource-intensive, Manipulation and

Cooptation may prove necessary.

The manipulation of individuals who oppose a particular method refers to the selective release of incomplete information by managers as a means of manipulation. When attempting to address resistance, managers may opt to use a forceful approach by providing an excessive amount of factual information to the resistors. Alternatively, managers may choose to ignore resistance, assuming it will soon dissipate. Lastly, the play off relationship method involves managers using a "tit for tat" approach in which they offer support to resistors and then expect reciprocity in return.

Based on research and the discussion of resistance to change, my personal change model is a fusion of the Star Model and Congruence Model mentioned in our text. The Star Model would establish the necessary foundation or bone structure, while the Congruence Model would provide the substance of the model. I concur with Kotter and Schlesinger's assertion that organizations must employ various approaches and models that align with their own style to achieve successful implementation.

The Star Model incorporates five key components, namely strategy, structure, processes and lateral capability, reward system, and people practices. A structured strategy is the major component as it leads the remaining four components towards making strategic changes effectively.

The direction of an organization refers to its mission and its strategic plan. The direction also includes the organization's competitive advantage, which distinguishes it from its competitors, and how organizations can use this advantage to foster growth and potential in the market. On the other hand, the Structure aspect of an organization does not have specific sub-components but instead refers to the roles, reporting relationships, power hierarchy, and authority within

the organization.

The purpose of the structure wing is to define the individuals responsible for implementing and overseeing changes. This aspect of the organizational structure clarifies which team members report to specific managers for various tasks and instills a sense of confidence and certainty in identifying the individuals with power and authority.

The People Practices wing is the final component of the Star Model and involves staffing/selections, performance feedback, and learning and development. It requires the collaboration of the Human Resource Department, Project Managers, and Supervisors' input. The Human Resource Department will aid in staffing and selection, with Project Managers filtering the selection with assistance from the Supervisors of each team. Project Managers will also consult Supervisors for performance feedback to identify which areas of the project require additional hires and specific skill-sets necessary for the project.

The Learning and Development aspect pertains to all individuals involved in the project. The project will encounter errors and experimentation as it evolves. The process of strategic change is a continuous process of "Learning and Development". The Start Model's wings produce "Effect of Misalignment," which arises when organizations or managers misuse or misalign the Star components resulting in problems such as confusion, internal competition, gridlock, low performance, friction, and others.

Misalignment Effects may arise from the absence of a clear strategy or vision statement. In addition, inadequate coordination between the Structure, Process and Lateral Capability, and weak monitoring may contribute to this issue. Inadequate reward structures or team members failing to take responsibility for their tasks can also be to blame.

The Context section in Congruence complements the Strategy section in Star Model by emphasizing the importance

of considering an organization's environment, resources, and history when creating a Strategic Plan. It is essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses of our management models by comparing and contrasting them.

Recently, I came across a compelling change management model written by Kakonsson, Klass, and Carroll titled "Organizational Adaption, Continuous change, and The Positive Role of Inertia." The article uses analytical and intricate approaches to discuss change management. It emphasizes that continuous change models center around dynamic changes and how stability and change tension is managed through structures and processes.

The Continuous Change Model views the resistance to change as a resource, while the Punctuated Model considers it a constraint to the project's progression. Both models recommend conducting additional research to identify the areas where resistance may emerge, but they differ in their approach to handling it. The Continuous Change Model aims to overcome resistance, whereas the Punctuated Model seeks to manage and leverage it. In my opinion, my personal management model aligns with the Continuous Change Model for Strategy and the Punctuated Model for processes.

While the Star and Congruence models discussed in our text offer more detailed and structured approaches, the conceptual nature of these two models still provides valuable insights into the level of detail necessary for a user-friendly change management model. In conclusion, Resistance to Change Management Models and Change Management Models are crucial tools for managers and organizations to successfully navigate strategic change.

The incorporation of models depends on the situation and organization, and the models chosen will influence the outcomes of managers and organizations. While all models and approaches have limitations, it is up to managers and

organizations to determine whether those limitations impede or facilitate the progress of change projects.

In order to be a successful manager, it is crucial to be aware of one's methods and understand the consequences of each choice. There are numerous management strategies available to tackle issues that can either positively or negatively impact an individual or company. However, there is no definitive formula for effective management; rather, it involves trial-and-error and reflecting on past errors. To prevent disastrous results, it is vital to conduct extensive research, remain open-minded about various scenarios, collect feedback from employees, and keep thorough records of all project-related tasks for future reference.