Political behavior sometimes emerges before and during organizational change efforts when what is in the best interests of one individual or group is not in the best interests of the total organization or of other individuals and groups.
While political behavior sometimes takes the form of two or more armed camps publicly fighting things out, it usually is much more subtle. In many cases, it occurs completely under the surface of public dialogue.
Although scheming and ruthless individuals sometimes initiate power struggles, more often than not those who do are people who view their potential loss from change as an unfair violation of their implicit, or psychological, contract with the organization.
People also resist change when they do not understand its implications and perceive that it might cost them much more than they will gain. Such situations often occur when trust is lacking between the person initiating the change and the employees.
Shortly after the announcement, numerous rumors begin to circulate among plant employees—none of whom really knew what flexible working hours meant and many of whom were distrustful of the manufacturing vice president. One rumor, for instance, suggested that flexible hours meant that most people would have to work whenever their supervisors asked them to—including evenings and weekends.
The employee association, a local union, held a quick meeting and then presented the management with a nonnegotiable demand that the flexible hours concept be dropped. The president, caught completely by surprise, complied. Few organizations can be characterized as having a high level of trust between employees and managers; consequently, it is easy for misunderstandings to develop when change is introduced. Unless managers surface misunderstandings and clarify them rapidly, they can lead to resistance.
And that resistance can easily catch change initiators by surprise, especially if they assume that people only resist change when it is not in their best interest. Another common reason people resist organizational change is that they assess the situation differently from their managers or those initiating the change and see more costs than benefits resulting from the change, not only for themselves but for their company as well.
For example:. The reorganization immediately ran into massive resistance from the people involved. His actions have already cost us three very good people [who quit], and have crippled a new program we were implementing [which the president was unaware of] to reduce our loan losses. Managers who initiate change often assume both that they have all the relevant information required to conduct an adequate organization analysis and that those who will be affected by the change have the same facts, when neither assumption is correct.
In either case, the difference in information that groups work with often leads to differences in analyses, which in turn can lead to resistance. But this likelihood is not obvious to some managers who assume that resistance is always bad and therefore always fight it.
People also resist change because they fear they will not be able to develop the new skills and behavior that will be required of them. All human beings are limited in their ability to change, with some people much more limited than others. Peter F. For example, a person who receives a significantly more important job as a result of an organizational change will probably be very happy.
But it is just as possible for such a person to also feel uneasy and to resist giving up certain aspects of the current situation. A new and very different job will require new and different behavior, new and different relationships, as well as the loss of some satisfactory current activities and relationships. People also sometimes resist organizational change to save face; to go along with the change would be, they think, an admission that some of their previous decisions or beliefs were wrong.
Indeed, there are probably an endless number of reasons why people resist change. Assessing which of the many possibilities might apply to those who will be affected by a change is important because it can help a manager select an appropriate way to overcome resistance. Without an accurate diagnosis of possibilities of resistance, a manager can easily get bogged down during the change process with very costly problems. Many 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 a change.
And, again because of past experiences, managers sometimes do not have an accurate understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the methods with which they are familiar. Many managers underestimate the variety of reactions to change and their power to influence those responses. One of the most common ways to overcome resistance to change is to educate people about it beforehand. Communication of ideas helps people see the need for and the logic of a change.
The education process can involve one-on-one discussions, presentations to groups, or memos and reports. But some managers overlook the fact that a program of this sort requires a good relationship between initiators and resisters or that the latter may not believe what they hear. It also requires time and effort, particularly if a lot of people are involved.
If the initiators involve the potential resisters in some aspect of the design and implementation of the change, they can often forestall resistance. With a participative change effort, the initiators listen to the people the change involves and use their advice. To illustrate:. We have found that many managers have quite strong feelings about participation—sometimes positive and sometimes negative. That is, some managers feel that there should always be participation during change efforts, while others feel this is virtually always a mistake.
Both attitudes can create problems for a manager, because neither is very realistic. When change initiators believe they do not have all the information they need to design and implement a change, or when they need the wholehearted commitment of others to do so, involving others makes very good sense.
Considerable research has demonstrated that, in general, participation leads to commitment, not merely compliance. Nevertheless, the participation process does have its drawbacks. Not only can it lead to a poor solution if the process is not carefully managed, but also it can be enormously time consuming.
When the change must be made immediately, it can take simply too long to involve others. Another way that managers can deal with potential resistance to change is by being supportive.
This process might include providing training in new skills, or giving employees time off after a demanding period, or simply listening and providing emotional support. Facilitation and support are most helpful when fear and anxiety lie at the heart of resistance.
Seasoned, tough managers often overlook or ignore this kind of resistance, as well as the efficacy of facilitative ways of dealing with it. One might say that organizational change encompasses project-level change. For this reason, organizational change tends to be felt at a deeper level and for a longer period of time.
It is, therefore, important for companies to manage any organizational change as effectively as possible. Managing a successful organizational change can increase morale among workers and drive positive teamwork and job enrichment. These factors can directly and positively affect productivity and quality of work while shortening production cycles and reducing costs.
Effective organizational change management allows the company to maintain a constant state of evolution and facilitate periods of general business change, allowing workers to remain motivated and productive during the introduction of new technologies or procedures. As with change management in general, a successful organizational change management strategy will require effective communication between management and workers.
Organizational change management is, by nature, intended to facilitate structural change, so attention must be paid to each constituent part of the whole. Organizational change management also requires an emphasis on planning and training. Many of the disruptors and drivers of change that businesses encounter today involve new technologies or communication systems.
If a business wishes to remain current with new industry practices, managers need to ensure that employees are continually trained in any new technologies that they will be required to use. Beyond the functional application knowledge of new technologies, managers and organizational leaders need to create a culture of innovation , one in which employees meet change with an open and creative mindset focused on the opportunity change provides. Change at the structural level may lead to the creation of new departments or teams that focus on new business priorities.
On the other hand, change may require the consolidation or elimination of existing departments. Of course, no method is appropriate to every situation, and a number of different methods may be combined as needed. Managing change effectively requires moving the organization from its current state to a future desired state at minimal cost to the organization. Key steps in that process are:. Change is natural, of course. Proactive management of change to optimize future adaptability is invariably a more creative way of dealing with the dynamisms of industrial transformation than letting them happen willy-nilly.
That process will succeed better with the help of the the company's human resources than without. March-April Schneider, Dan. Schraeder, Mike, Paul M. Swamidass, and Rodger Morrison. Spring Wischenvsky, J. Daniel and Fariborz Damanpour. Top Stories. Top Videos. Understanding the current state of the organization. This involves identifying problems the company faces, assigning a level of importance to each one, and assessing the kinds of changes needed to solve the problems.
Competently envisioning and laying out the desired future state of the organization. For people who are risk avoidant, the possibility of a change in technology or structure may be more threatening. Change inevitably brings feelings of uncertainty. You have just heard that your company is merging with another. What would be your reaction? Such change is often turbulent, and it is often unclear what is going to happen to each individual. Some positions may be eliminated.
Some people may see a change in their job duties. Things may get better—or they may get worse. The feeling that the future is unclear is enough to create stress for people because it leads to a sense of lost control. People also resist change when they feel that their performance may be affected under the new system. People who are experts in their jobs may be less than welcoming of the changes because they may be unsure whether their success would last under the new system.
Studies show that people who feel that they can perform well under the new system are more likely to be committed to the proposed change, while those who have lower confidence in their ability to perform after changes are less committed.
It would be too simplistic to argue that people resist all change, regardless of its form. In fact, people tend to be more welcoming of change that is favorable to them on a personal level such as giving them more power over others or change that improves quality of life such as bigger and nicer offices. Research also shows that commitment to change is highest when proposed changes affect the work unit with a low impact on how individual jobs are performed.
Any change effort should be considered within the context of all the other changes that are introduced in a company. Does the company have a history of making short-lived changes? If the company structure went from functional to product-based to geographic to matrix within the past five years and the top management is in the process of going back to a functional structure again, a certain level of resistance is to be expected because employees are likely to be fatigued as a result of the constant changes.
Moreover, the lack of a history of successful changes may cause people to feel skeptical toward the newly planned changes. Therefore, considering the history of changes in the company is important to understanding why people resist.
Another question is, how big is the planned change? If the company is considering a simple switch to a new computer program, such as introducing Microsoft Access for database management, the change may not be as extensive or stressful compared with a switch to an enterprise resource planning ERP system such as SAP or PeopleSoft, which require a significant time commitment and can fundamentally affect how business is conducted.
One other reason people may resist change is that change may affect their power and influence in the organization. Imagine that your company moved to a more team-based structure, turning supervisors into team leaders. In the old structure, supervisors were in charge of hiring and firing all those reporting to them.
Under the new system, this power is given to the team. Instead of monitoring the progress the team is making toward goals, the job of a team leader is to provide support and mentoring to the team in general and ensure that the team has access to all resources to be effective.
Given the loss in prestige and status in the new structure, some supervisors may resist the proposed changes even if it is better for the organization to operate around teams.
In summary, there are many reasons individuals resist change, which may prevent an organization from making important changes. Resistance to change may be a positive force in some instances. In fact, resistance to change is a valuable feedback tool that should not be ignored. Why are people resisting the proposed changes? Do they believe that the new system will not work? If so, why not? By listening to people and incorporating their suggestions into the change effort, it is possible to make a more effective change.
They may fear that the organization they feel such a strong attachment to is being threatened by the planned change effort and the change will ultimately hurt the company. In contrast, people who have less loyalty to the organization may comply with the proposed changes simply because they do not care enough about the fate of the company to oppose the changes. As a result, when dealing with those who resist change, it is important to avoid blaming them for a lack of loyalty.
Organizations change in response to changes in the environment and in response to the way decision makers interpret these changes. When it comes to organizational change, one of the biggest obstacles is resistance to change. People resist change because change disrupts habits, conflicts with certain personality types, causes a fear of failure, can have potentially negative effects, can result in a potential for loss of power, and, when done too frequently, can exhaust employees.
Skip to main content. Module 6: Organizational Structure and Change. Search for:. Organizational Change Learning Objectives Identify the external forces creating change on the part of organizations.
0コメント