Main Sources Of Resistance To Organizational Change Management Essay

Main Sources Of Resistance To Organizational adjustment Management EssayChange is undeniable for advanced(a) organizations and increasing rapidly in the world collectible to internal and external triggers (Refer to Appendix 1) (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). For survival, organizations must be able to anticipate switch over and keep reconfiguring themselves as it is critical determinant for their success although it has difficulty and challenges. Organizations that wait for an overwhelming mandate to engage in swap efforts atomic number 18 very(prenominal) likely to be left over(p) behind and may struggle to survive (Lawler and Worley, 2009). For example, Nokia has already been through one successful convert turning itself from an unfocused conglomerate into a focused nimble phone producer in the 1990s. But, lack of accountability, poor leadership and complacency those came from mobile phone success has caused less competitive in the market due to customer transition from mobile phone to smart-phone (Riley, 2012). According to Nauss (1999), Jacques Nasser, Ford Motors CEO similarly advocated that any business that is satisfied with the p resent state of affairs is deluding itself. posing still or moving at a snails pace is effectively moving backward.Organizational change must be based on endeavor and goal-oriented and come from within the organization to be effective (See assure 1 and 2) according Cumming and Worley (Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman, 2001).It also lease very cargonful assessment of individual and organisational capacity for change since they are potential subway to change.In this report, we will first discuss various causes for resistance to change from those who affected positively or negatively using Arthur Bedeians four common causes for resistance to change, Kotter and Schlesingers six practical techniques to overcome these resistances and Kurt Lewins 3 phase change management model.2.0 Resistance to Organization ChangeBucha nan and Huczynski (2010) define resistance to change is unwillingness or an inability to accept or discuss changes that are perceived to be damaging or dark to individual. Carr et al also claim that its signifi rout outce trick be measured by those affected perceive and react to it (Salawu, 2011). As a result, change efforts are often found resisted by individuals and groups overtly and covertly due to their negative perceptions to some extent. Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman (2001) show a variety of sources of resistance in Figure 3 (Detail in Appendix 2).To overcome resistance to change, managers and employees must figure its primers and sources. Arthur Bedeian cites four common causes for resistance to change (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010).2.1 Parochial self interestIndividuals are so comfort and content with their menstruum situation and they fear that any change in organization may threaten their vested interests. It is one of major reason that people resist organizational change.According to Desler (2004), there are 4 types of organizational change its strategy, technology, structure and employees. Structural change requires reorganizing organizational chart involving replacing, dismissing or adding personnel (Salawu, 2011). When this situation comes, employees fear to lose their existing positions. E.g. Current Burmese government involves liberal and conservative. Reorganization needs for democratic change process. It is good and dope improve the status of its people, but most conservatives fear reorganization as they think that it is a threat to their status quo and interests. For these reasons, Burmas change processes encounter resistance long-term time than desired and resulted as a poor country.2.2 Misunderstanding and lack of trustBuchanan and Huczynski (2010) suggest lack of understanding the reasons and consequences can create resistance to change because it might cost them more than what they will gain. much(prenominal) misunderstandin gs most likely occur where there is lack of trust between manager and employees.My former capital of Singapore based Japanese construction announced to his managers an implementation of a flexible 5 days work for all site staffs. No managers resisted because they were introduced the concept of that change in management meeting. Shortly after circulating announcement, various resistances arise from site staffs who do not understand and trust the meaning of flexible operative days. One rumor is that they might need to work extra hours in the evening. They were not satisfied with management decision at the beginning.According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1997), only some organizations have a high level of trust between employees and managers. So, it is easy to develop misunderstandings when organizational change is introduced. If managers do not clarify them in time, this can lead to resistance.2.3 Contradictory assessmentsAnother reason people resist to change is evaluation of costs a nd benefits variously. According to Buchanan and Huczynski (2010), it is the result of poor communication and inadequate teaching that causes contradictory assessments. But such resistance to change may lead to constructive criticism and improved aims to achieve better outcomes since people have different perceptions and knowledge. E.g. My previous project director of Construction Company was shocked by his design team members who made value technology of structural column. Although this value engineering can achieve design requirement while saving cost, he thought that it can damage the companys reputation. So he didnt allow the design proposal submission to owners consultant. He had reorganized the design team immediately that caused resistance from the people involved. As a result, company lost two good designers and halting the design team.Different people have different skills and knowledge that may lead to resistance. For the above case, design team has more skill and kno wledge than director. And resistance resulted from reorganization will be good for companys future.Low tolerance for changeBuchanan and Huczynski (2010) suggest that people respond to change and uncertainty in different ways. nearly are more readily to accept and adapt to changes. Others may have a low tolerance to adapt to changes since they have different abilities compared to others. Drucker (2010) also argue that the managers are the major obstacle for organizational growth since they are unable to change their attitude and behavior rapidly to meet organizational requirement. It is the result of peoples control tolerance that lead to oppose potential beneficial changes even they know that it is positive change.E.g. an engineer in my former construction company received a significant promotion due to expansion. New position required new skill set, relationships as well as loss of some satisfactory current situation. It made him uneasy to give up certain aspects of current situa tion and resist changing since his tolerance for change was low and he did not understand wisely the reason of change.3.0 Overcoming ResistanceMany managers underestimate not only the variety of ways people can react to organizational change, but also the ways they can positively influence specific individuals and groups during change ( Kotter and Schlesinger, 1997, p-454). E.g. Singapore construction industry has been unable to achieve better productivity due to knightly experience of managers who dont understand advantages and disadvantages of the methods which they are familiar. So, organizational change becomes managements responsibility. And coping resistance resulted from organizational change becomes the haunting question for todays manager because it determine the success or failure of organization (Martin, 1975). Kotter and Schlesinger identify six practical techniques for managing and overcoming resistance (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010)3.1 Education and CommunicationEduca tion is one of most common way that communicates ideas to reconcile fence views. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) discuss that this course of study can be ideal when resistance is based on inadequate or inaccurate information and analysis especially if the initiators need the resistors help in change implementation. Afferson, M. (2010) argue that this program requires face to face communication to discuss sensitive issues since email or written notices are very weak at conveying and developing understanding. E.g. former Philips CEO, Timmer used this program to explain the future of Philips to his employees. As a result, its operating income has increased (Strebel, 1998). Moreover, Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) also cotton up requirement of mutual trust to overcome misunderstanding.3.2 Participation and involvementAccording to Buchanan and Huczynski (2010), it can reduce opposition and lead to employees wholehearted commitment if the managers who initiate this program address to thei r concerns. And it will provide employees a sense of belonging to successful implementing of change. E.g. Coch and French (1948) experimented to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of participation to overcome resistance to change involving introducing by managers to employees, employees representative participation and all employees involvement. Based on their experiment, all employees involvement was the best for overcoming resistance. But Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) also highlighted that it is time consuming and will be useful if employees skill and knowledge has ability to cope the changes.3.3 Facilitation and supportBuchanan and Huczynski (2010) suggest facilitation and support can overcome resistance when it is caused by fear or anxiety. Such approaches include new trainings or simply listening or emotional support. According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), one rapidly growing electronics company devised this program for its employees to adapt shop at organizational changes. They employed four counselors to spent most of their time in talking, listening, educating and training to employees.3.4 Negotiation and agreementIt is another way to deal with powerful individuals or groups who create major resistance such as offering incentives to facilitate changes (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). But they also alerted that it may become expensive for change and take more time to do. E.g. Former Burmese military general have strong power to resist political reform in Burma. Current government has to negotiate with them to reach an agreement for successful change such as protecting their interests.3.5 Manipulation and co-optationIt involves covert attempts to sidestep potential resistance. Management puts forward proposals that supplicant to the specific interests of key stakeholders. This information is selective, emphasizing benefits and playing down disadvantages. Co-optation involves giving key resistors direct access to the decision-making process, perhaps giving them well-paid, high-status management positions (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010, p-573). E.g. A local manager in my former Japanese Construction Company invited Japanese manager to analyze one missing item in the design. delinquent to busy schedule, he was unable to do proper analysis. It limited his influence on the analysis. But his commitment was subsequently very important during discussing with Japanese director. Generally, he did not like someone trying to make changes. After discussion with Japanese manager, he did not try to block the change.3.6 Implicit and explicit coercionAlthough many researchers advocate supportive approaches to overcome resistances, managers have to deal with resistance coercively such as firing or transferring to facilitate change. Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) discuss such situations as where the target group is profound disagreement, has little chance of shifting their ground, and the speed is essential for survival. But Kotter and S chlesinger (1979) argued that using coercion is risky because people will resent forced change inevitably.4.0 ConclusionStrong resistance to change may root deeply in some organizations, but change has become inevitable for todays modern organizations in fast changing business environment for survival. In Figure 1, effective change management program should be implemented mightily by the managers who understand the firms culture to facilitate the change process while protecting the interests of affected person.In this report, we applied Kotter and Schlesingers approaches to manage change. Since these approaches have their limitation, they may not be likely to be effective under all conditions and circumstances. There are many prescriptive models or approaches for successful change. In reality, appropriate approaches can be implemented based on the primary cause of resistance. So, manager may need to combine various techniques to manage organizational change.Finally, we would like t o suggest Kurt Lewins 3 phase change management model unfreezing, moving and refreezing because present approaches or technology may be unsuitable in future. We can check off from the failure and success of Nokia and Apple. Apple was able to unfreeze the old technology or mind set that are outdated, develop new process and technology to move on from the old ways of doing things to the new and refreeze again when all seem okay. And they start Lewins process again since refreezing stage may be jury-rigged in future (see figure 4) where Nokia didnt.