StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How" highlights that leaders must show openness to future changes that will be truly beneficial to affected parties. They must be able to clarify their support for organizational development, where ethical and social concerns are considered…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER97.7% of users find it useful
Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How"

? Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How Organisational change meets resistance, especially when it is unclear, does not offer benefits, and can lead to individual/group/social/environmental harms. This essay reviews some of the causes of resistance to organisational changes and what employees can do to effectively resist these changes. Its main objectives are: 1) to review literature on the common causes of change resistance and 2) to offer recommendations on opposing changes without jeopardising their interests and employment status. This essay does not aim to manage resistance to changes but to help students and managers understand the conditions, where resisting changes may be advantageous for the organisation. The suggested leadership approach for the resistance effort is LMX, particularly for paternalistic or team-based organisational cultures. Leaders are recommended to develop buy in through tapping initial quality relations and the use of evidence to support their arguments. These leaders have ethos, but they must boost logos and pathos appeals to became convincing to employees and management alike. Through their communication and networking efforts, they are believed to create a scintillating force that can resist harmful or unproductive organisational changes. If changes can be attained through strong leadership, a similarly engaging leadership can also result to powerful resistance efforts to changes. Managing resistance to organisational changes has been examined in numerous management, organisational behaviour (OB), and psychology journals. Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009: 144) noted from their review of literature that several management science and OB articles in particular see resistance as an obstacle to organisational development and success. Recommendations are commonly provided to avoid, control and reduce the causes of resistance (Cummings and Worley, 2009: 165; Kwahk and Kim, 2008). Moreover, a number of studies wholly focused on the change agent (Kwahk and Kim, 2008; van Dam, Oreg and Schyns, 2008). When journals examine employee perspectives, they do so with the purpose of understanding the causes of resistance, so that they could be identified for resolution later on (Meyer et al., 2007) as if all forms of resistance are problematic and unproductive per se. Scanty research has been done on why employees oppose particular kinds of changes and how they can go about preventing the implementation of unhelpful/damaging change efforts. This essay fills this information gap through exploring existing literature and applying concepts and studies to the process of effectively resisting organisational changes that are unbeneficial or harmful to employees or other stakeholder groups. This essay agrees that some organisational changes should be opposed, especially when goals, processes and outcomes are unclear and when potential for harmful/unbeneficial consequences exist. It reviews some of the causes of resistance to organisational changes and what employees can do to effectively resist these changes. Its main objectives are: 1) to review literature on the common causes of resistance to change and 2) to provide recommendations on how employees can effectively resist change without jeopardising their welfare and employment status. This essay does not aim to manage resistance to changes, but to help students and managers understand the conditions, where resisting changes may be good for the organisation, particularly, when the change goals, processes and outcomes would not be beneficial or would be detrimental to stakeholders. The reviewed literature shows how the management can effectively respond to employee resistance to changes while other studies and books examined the varied reasons behind resistance to changes. The framework for resistance is presented below (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, these studies do not identify that some of the possible reasons for resistance are due to lack of clarity and/or benefits and misalignment with personal ethical beliefs (Piderit, 2000: 784). Kirkman, Jones, and Shapiro (2000) and Cummings and Worley (2009: 167) noted that when employees are not aware of the goals and effects of changes on their jobs, they are most likely to resist changes (76). Teams, in particular, are concerned of role clarity and workload issues (Kirkman et al., 2000: 76). Aside from unclear aspects of change initiatives, absence of benefits can lead to resistance. Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009) asserted that some employees might resist change because it does not improve their workplace conditions, either financially or non-financially (144). Another cause of resistance is the belief that the changes will be detrimental to the self or others. Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009) explored from their study that self-enhancement strategies are responses to organisational changes. Self-enhancement refers to the need to attain a positive identity, and people resisting changes may do so to enhance their self-images to themselves and to others (Van Dijk and Van Dick, 2009: 167). Piderit (2000) highlighted ethical concerns as well as compassion for other affected stakeholders. With these kinds of reasons, resisting changes become urgent and meaningful. Figure 1: Change Resistance Framework Sources: Cummings and Worley (2009: 167); Kirkman et al. (2000); Piderit (2000); Van Dijk and Van Dick (2009) Figure 1 shows the suggested leadership strategies that can help gain support for resistance, and they are the participatory approach and the LMX approach. Participation means that the majority, if not all employees will engage in planning and implementing the resistance to changes (van Dam et al., 2008: 317). The LMX approach rests on the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, where leaders are believed to have diverse relationships with their employees through dyadic interactions (Graen, 2004). High-quality relationships are correlated with loyalty, liking, and professional respect for the leaders (van Dam et al., 2008: 318). This section proceeds to discussing the advantages of participatory approach. Firstly, a participatory approach can increase commitment to resistance in the same way it can enhance support for change efforts. Secondly, the participation of key leaders can affect change agents. Change agents might consider the rationality of the resistance and make fitting changes to their change programs. Thirdly, the participatory approach can address ambivalence to changes. Piderit (2000) argued that ambivalence, or combinations of positive and negative attitudes, can result in poor implementation of changes. Increasing the participation of these ambivalent people can boost their engagement with the resistance effort. Finally, a participatory approach can enhance awareness of the necessity and effects of changes. When more people are participating in analysing the consequences of changes, they are more aware of its effects and what they can do about it. Nevertheless, the disadvantages of the participatory approach must not be overlooked. First, it may be ineffective if key stakeholders are uninvolved or ambivalent to the resistance. Increasing participation per se does not always translate to engagement of key leaders. Second, employees may not feel ready for any form of public resistance. Readiness is an important concept in the organisational change management framework because it is a cognitive condition that can lead employees to embrace or oppose changes (Kwahk and Kim, 2008: 80). It includes sentiments and opinions about the justification for organisational changes and its related consequences (Kwahk and Kim, 2008: 80). Lastly, a participatory approach can increase risks for participants. They might feel that their job security will be threatened if they participate actively in change resistance efforts. LMX aims to manage some of the disadvantages of a participatory approach. Firstly, it can reduce risks to individuals if high LMX relationships are leveraged to influence the most decisive leaders and followers. With clear leadership, people feel more secure in supporting resistance efforts. They might feel fewer risks in openly supporting resistance. Secondly, the leaders can decrease the impact of loyalty to organisation on loyalty to changes. Kwahk and Kim (2008) showed that self-efficacy beliefs and commitment to the organisation facilitated the acceptance and implementation of organisational changes. LMX can decrease organisational loyalty effects by magnifying collaboration and social cohesion. Leaders can tap their workplace ties to argue that the changes will not be beneficial to the organisation. Thirdly, this approach may be advantageous for paternalistic or team-based organisational cultures. These organisational cultures value team cohesion and social harmony, which can be utilised to improve the support for the resistance. Moreover, readiness for the resistance effort can be increased through clear leadership that the LMX approach provides. If key leaders resist the change effort, employees can be more committed to the resistance. One of the potential causes of resistance is lack of commitment, including commitment to changes and the organisation itself (Meyer et al., 2007). The two-part study of Meyer et al. (2007) showed that affective commitment (AC) and normative commitment (NC) to a change initiative had a positive correlation with both non-discretionary (compliance) and discretionary (cooperation and championing) support behaviour, whereas continuance commitment (CC) demonstrated positive correlation with compliance and negative correlation with discretionary support (Meyer et al., 2007: 206). The LMX approach can improve commitment to resistance through affecting AC and NC. The disadvantages of LMX approach must also be understood so that they can be managed. Firstly, people who are not part of quality LMX relations may oppose resistance or act ambivalently. The feeling of being out-of-the-loop can result to strong ambivalence. Secondly, strong individualistic drives may lead to ambivalence or disagreement with resistance. They might think that they are not benefitting from the resistance, so they would no longer support it. They might also have other personal reasons for not resisting organisational changes. Thirdly, the limitations of access to quality information, which is present in LMX, may lead to lower buy in. People might not be fully educated about the problems with change efforts and what should be done to enhance them. This essay recommends the following: to improve resistance to changes, stakeholders must adopt LMX leadership, particularly in paternalistic or team-based organisations where LMX relations exist. This way people know who the leaders of the resistance are. These leaders can champion the resistance cause. They already have ethos, or integrity and credibility, which can improve buy in too. Nonetheless, LMX is suggested to follow the steps of resisting changes in Figure 1 in order to provide a compelling set of arguments (logos and pathos included) to their target stakeholders. They must have evidence of how employees feel about changes and what the change program’s possible negative consequences are. Moreover, resistance leaders should present openness to future changes that will respond to their core issues and concerns. The keys are collaboration and flexibility so that the resistance is not seen as resistance without a cause, but a resistance for a variety of meaningful stakeholder causes. To end this essay, it should be noted that the review showed that not all organisational changes are beneficial to stakeholders, and sometimes, they can lead to harm, whether ethically, physically, or socially, among others. Some of the causes of resistance in this case are lack of clear goals, policies, systems, processes and outcomes; absence of real benefits (tangible and intangible, monetary and non-monetary); and perceived negative effects. Based on these reasons, employees should learn to know the difference between positive and negative organisational changes and act according to their best interests too. The proposed strategy is LMX strategy because of the strengths of clear leadership and direction of resistance, high initial buy in among followers, and ability to drive resistance through a decisive communications strategy. The strategy involves establishing and expressing arguments that have objective basis, although emotional components can be added. These leaders, in turn, can influence important formal and informal organisational change leaders. They can explain the reasons behind the resistance more forcefully and persuasively. Lastly, these leaders must show openness to future changes that will be truly beneficial to affected parties. They must be able to clarify their support for organisational development, where ethical and social concerns are considered. Hence, in order to effectively resist changes, committed leaders and followers are critical, as well as the deployment of a convincing communications strategy that justifies and explains the resistance efforts to employees and management levels. Bibliography Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2009) Organization Development & Change, 9th edition, Ohio: South-Western Cengage. Graen, G.B. (2004) New Frontiers of Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series, Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Kirkman, B.L., Jones, R.G. and Shapiro, D.L. (2000) ‘Why Do Employees Resist Teams? Examining the ‘Resistance Barrier,’ To Work Team Effectiveness,’ International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 74-93. Kwahk, K. and Kim, H. (2008) ‘Managing Readiness in Enterprise Systems-Driven Organizational Change,’ Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 79-87. Meyer, J.P., Srinivas, E.S., Lal, J.B. and Topolnytsky, L. (2007) ‘Employee Commitment and Support for an Organizational Change: Test of the Three-Component Model in Two Cultures,’ Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 185-211. Piderit, S.K. (2000) ‘Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change,’ Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp.783-794. van Dam, K., Oreg, S. and Schyns, B. (2008) ‘Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange, Development Climate, and Change Process Characteristics,’ Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 57, no.2, pp. 313-334. Van Dijk, R. and Van Dick, R. (2009) ‘Navigating Organizational Change: Change Leaders, Employee Resistance and Work-based Identities,’ Journal of Change Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 143-163. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Human Resource Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/management/1465872-human-resource
(Human Resource Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words - 1)
https://studentshare.org/management/1465872-human-resource.
“Human Resource Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words - 1”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/management/1465872-human-resource.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Effectively Resisting Change: Why Resist and How

Change Management Plan for IBM

This will allow the employees to analyze a given situation and come up with solutions regarding what to do and how to do it.... oft Approach with the employees:Coetsee (1999) states "any management's ability to achieve maximum benefits from change depends in part of how effectively they create and maintain a climate that minimizes resistant behavior and encourages acceptance and support" (p.... The managers should understand the fact that people will more likely to resist change if they have a disagreement on the causes of the current problems or the reason for the change....
12 Pages (3000 words) Essay

Managing Organisations, People and Self

However, steering an organization to success depends largely on how effectively a leader manages its people, self, and the organization.... This paper will discuss the main problems facing Hole in the Wall and will present recommendations on how the problems can be solved.... As such, organizations must be able to adapt effectively to these forces to ensure success....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

Employees Resistance to Organizational Change

The paper "Employees Resistance to Organizational change" discusses that Kotter's model again emphasizes a specific stage to remove obstacles, making it a more favorable and complete model for change management.... change management as a function is now proved vital.... The above statement effectively summarises the context of this research interest, which deals with the concept of organizational change, with a specific focus on employee resistance towards such a change in a given organization....
9 Pages (2250 words) Research Paper

Resisting Change

This paper ''resisting change'' tells us that to compete with the ever-changing customer needs whether external or internal, organizations need to renew their direction, structure, and capabilities present at any level.... The fear as to how change affects them, their job performance, relationships in the organization, and other aspects makes them resist change.... In my view, individuals, in the workplace context, do resist change even if it is for their benefit because they consider themselves to be affected by it....
1 Pages (250 words) Research Paper

Ways an Employee May Effectively Resist Change

The paper also looks at the psychology of organizational change and of inertia on the part of organizations and its employees, and why that inertia leads to employees resisting change.... The following review is an investigation of the ways in which employees in organizations are able to resist change effectively, from a study of the available relevant academic and trade literature on organizational change.... The paper aims to discuss the ways that employees may effectively resist change in modern organizations, as detailed in the academic literature....
7 Pages (1750 words) Literature review

Change Management

This work "change Management" discusses an organization's ability to gain benefits from their change efforts.... From this work, it is clear that Resistance to change is a natural part of an organization.... Human beings generally have an inclination towards stability and this means that organizational change may be regarded as something that will cause instability.... This kind of behavior creates a barrier that may make it extremely hard to implement organizational change....
10 Pages (2500 words) Coursework

Effective Management of Organizational Change

When change is introduced in the organization, employees tend to resist change most.... The employees always fear the unknown and tend to resist any changes that affect their normal way of working and/ or performing their normal duties.... In most cases, organizational change adds work to the employee and hence they do resist change.... The management is normally responsible for the success or failure of the organization and hence they may not resist any change in the organization aimed at improving the performance....
12 Pages (3000 words) Term Paper

Change in Planet Air Travel

The paper "change in Planet Air Travel" addresses the key change issues that can have a significant impact on the implementation of its new-developed business strategies.... he external environment entails all factors that emanate from outside but have the potential to cause change within the organization.... The worst mistake the management of a company can do is to overlook the external drivers of change.... As such, it is always important that organizational managers continually monitor and adapt to external drivers of change, working appropriately to make the right changes or undertake a reactive approach which can lead to a different outcome (Hamstra, Van-Yperen, & Wisse 2014)....
8 Pages (2000 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us