Resisting Change

11 Key excerpts on "Resisting Change"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Coaching People through Organizational Change

  Practical Tools to Support Employees through Business Transformation

  • Sue Noble, Amy Tarrant(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Kogan Page

    (Publisher)

  07

  Resistance to organizational change

  Introduction

  This chapter considers what is arguably the largest challenge facing any organizational change practitioner – resistance. In his 1969 Harvard Business Review paper, Paul Lawrence dubbed it ‘one of the most baffling and recalcitrant of problems which businesses face’ and any seasoned change professional knows how true this is.

  Many of us will have encountered resistance in our personal lives and instinctively know what it means.

  In an organizational change context, there are several definitions from different academics, theorists and practitioners but in his 2003 research at Cornell University, Shaul Oreg provides perhaps the most comprehensive:

  [an] individual’s tendency to resist and avoid making changes, to devalue change generally, and to find change aversive across diverse context and types of change.

  This resonates because it not only correctly identifies the individual’s negative reaction to all types of change but also highlights the tendency to devalue change as a concept. The latter is crucial because it increases the likelihood of detractors sharing this sentiment with others and spreading resistance.

  The aim of this chapter is to:

  • Describe the scenarios that resistance causes in the delivery of change.
  • Highlight some of the key root causes to the resistance, using a variety of models and frameworks to understand why people react the way they do.
  • Share practical change management tools to mitigate and sometimes remove resistance.
  • Propose coaching and mentoring frameworks and techniques that can be applied in conjunction with the traditional change approach.

  Over the years, countless resistance models and frameworks have been put forward by academics and practitioners alike and it is not the authors’ intention to include them all. On the contrary, this is a hand-picked set of change and coaching techniques which have proved invaluable to the authors and which work well together.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Information Technology Project Management

  Providing Measurable Organizational Value

  • Jack T. Marchewka(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  People may resist change even though they understand that the change will be beneficial (5). For example: ▪ Some people perceive the change as requiring more time and energy than they are willing to invest. ▪ Sometimes people feel that a change will mean giving up something that is familiar, comfort- able, and predictable. ▪ People may be annoyed with the disruption caused by the change, even if they know that it will be beneficial in the long run. ▪ People may believe that the change is being imposed on them externally, and their egos will not tolerate being told what to do. ▪ In addition, people may resist because of the way the decision to change was announced or because it was forced on them. DEALING WITH RESISTANCE AND CONFLICT 293 Resistance is human nature and a natural part of any change process. Understanding what an indi- vidual or a group perceives as a loss is the first step to dealing with resistance effectively. Because the project team and sponsor are the agents of change, it is easy to see those who resist as overreacting or not being logical. As the proponents of change, the project team and sponsor have had the luxury of knowing about the change early and, therefore, have had the time to become used to it. The rest of the organization, however, may learn about the change much later and, therefore, may not be at the same place for digesting the change. Subsequently, it is important that the project team and sponsor listen to what the rest of the organization is saying. Instead of arguing and trying to reason, it is better to allow people to vent their anger and frustration. Again, having defined a boundary of what is and what is not part of the change can help deal with stressful conflict situations. Keep in mind that empathizing or sympathizing with an individual is not the same as agreeing with them. Conflict Closely associated with resistance is the concept of conflict.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Managing Change in Organizations

  • Stefan Sveningsson, Nadja Sörgärde(Authors)
  • 2023(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  In this context, resistance is a matter of people reacting to changes that they perceive to threaten their interests in some way. From this perspective, resistance to change can be understood as employees (individually or in groups) fighting to protect their interests, power and influence, which they perceive to be under threat (e.g. Cummings et al., 2020). In practice, this can mean that the work situation worsens to some degree. People may think they are at risk of losing their jobs, or that their workload will increase, or that people can no longer work with their preferred colleagues, or that they are given less interesting and rewarding tasks, or that they are forced to do things (such as administration) that does not match their professional experience, and so on. It can also mean that the change is managed in a way that undermines individuals’ or groups’ abilities to exert influence, informally and/or formally. In other words, this perspective goes beyond the idea that resistance is primarily about uncertainty of the unknown. Even if the employees know the very finest details of the change plans, it does not guarantee that they will accept them. Rather, knowledge about the changes creates resistance because people then know they stand to lose something, in one way or another, if the changes are implemented (Pfeffer, 1992). Another way of expressing it is that the individual’s ‘implicit contract’ changes for the worse (Watson, 2006). This means that employees perceive that the tacit agreement about what efforts they are supposed to put into work, in relation to the rewards and benefits given in return (see Figure 9.1), has been broken or is unbalanced. It does not necessarily mean that only their job or specific work duties are threatened, but also that the individual’s identity is challenged or questioned, as individuals’ identities are often closely associated with their working life (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2016)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Managing Change in Healthcare

  Using Action Research

  • Paul Parkin(Author)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  Piderit (2000) explains that individuals’ responses may lie anywhere along the continuum of each dimension ranging between extreme positives and negatives. She also outlines that the separate dimensions allow for different reactions along different dimensions. This means that someone can show ‘ambivalence’ about change where a positive cognitive response (this change is good for the department) may conflict with a negative emotional response (I don’t want to lose my role). Behavioural ambivalence may exhibit in an individual through covert opposition (by sending anonymous feedback comments) whilst demonstrating public support through fear of management retribution.

  Pardo del Val and Martinez Fuentes (2003: 149) and Hunt (1992: 291) define resistance as ‘any conduct which attempts to preserve the status quo’ in the face of pressures or actions to alter it. Hunt argues that resistance is the most frequently cited reason for failure in organizational change and is linked with feelings of fear, uncertainty and a perceived loss of control.

  Other writers disagree: Kegan and Lahey (2001: 85) state that ‘resistance to change does not reflect opposition, nor is it the result of inertia’, rather people display a ‘personal immunity to change’ (see below).

  Ford et al. (2002) note that when resistance is objectified to the individual, management strategies focus on changing those individuals rather than wider systems. This not only creates more resistance but is far removed from Lewin’s original conception that resistance is diffused throughout a system.

  The emerging view

  Giangreco and Peccei (2005) note that recently a more objective and positive approach to resistance is being taken. Pardo del Val and Martinez Fuentes (2003) argue that since change in organizations is not always beneficial, so attempts to avoid change through inertia and resistance cannot necessarily be seen as negative. Others point to the positive aspects of resistance. Lamb and Cox (1999) argue that resistance to change is healthy and that without real questioning and scepticism it is unlikely that an organization can progress to a productive stage of learning and working in any new structure. Mabin et al. (2001) argue that resistance is better than apathy as it avoids group-think and provides more alternatives from more people.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Leading and Implementing Business Change Management

  Making Change Stick in the Contemporary Organization

  • David J. Jones, Ronald J. Recardo(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  4 CHANGE RESISTANCE

  “A new philosophy, a new way of life, is not given for nothing. It has to be paid for and only acquired with much patience and great effort.”1

  Fyodor Dostoevsky

  SITUATIONAL CONTEXT FOR CHANGE RESISTANCE

  Your change initiative has been rolled out. The change master plan is in place and the change vision, goals, and benefits have been thoughtfully crafted and communicated at a town hall meeting by the change leadership team. Things should be progressing, and you expect to find an abundance of uplifting energy across the initiative. But as you walk the halls, pop in to teamwork sessions, and listen in on candid conversations between your leaders, it becomes clear that people are holding back. Attitudes, behavior, and energy are not flowing in a unified, positive direction. Resistance is impeding your organizational change initiative. You need to get the resistance out on the table, find out what is causing it, and implement actions to address it.

  Resistance is a high risk for change initiatives

  On a change initiative, leaders need to identify resistance, surface its underlying causes, and address the causes efficiently and effectively. This cycle of identifysurface-address resistance should be performed at the outset of the change initiative and continued periodically throughout its duration. If resistance is not sufficiently addressed, the minds and hearts of those in the organization will not transition to the desired state of change. When implementing change stakeholders’ hearts and minds have to be aligned. Individuals may understand the business case for change but still need time for their emotions to catch up before they can embrace change.

  Why do stakeholders and other members of the organization resist change?

  •    People are afraid of uncertainty and the unknown, including what they perceive they might lose. Natural human anxieties and concerns about change, as described in Chapter 1 , are organic and common to individuals. These concerns collect, grow, and intensify around efforts to change the organization. This resistance can negatively impact and disable change initiatives, as described in the IBM study on the causes of organizational change initiative failure cited in Chapter two

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Understanding and Managing Change in Healthcare

  A Step-by-Step Guide

  • Jaqui Hewitt-Taylor(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  However, although it is unlikely to feel this way if it is your project that is being opposed, resistance to change is a very understandable and, in princi-ple, sensible thing. Change alters the status quo; it creates uncertainty about what people are expected to do and can expect others to do, and reduces their control over situations (Welch and McCarville 2003). Instead of won-dering why change is resisted, it may be more realistic to ask why people would want to accept it (Price 2008). This can be difficult to do, especially if your idea has fallen on unenthusiastic ears, but it can help you to clar-ify what the positive aspects of the change you are suggesting are, and why people might want to participate. People questioning or opposing your plans can also be useful because it makes you think things through thoroughly. If no one questions your idea, it may mean that possible pitfalls or problems are missed (McDonnell et al. 2006). Although it may not feel that way when it is your idea at stake, other people challenging you can safeguard against over optimism and make you consider every aspect of a situation, so that the new way of working is more robust in the long term (de Jager 2001, Fronda and Moriceau 2008, Wright 2010). People questioning your ideas can also stop something from happening that, although it looks and sounds good at first, is never going to work or might even be dangerous. A culture in which every idea was immediately adopted without question would be as problematic as one in which people resist all change. A healthy organisation needs a certain amount of scepticism and questioning so that it knows why it does the things it does, and thinks things through before implementing them (Parkin 2009: 159). It is, nonetheless, OK to go away and sulk over a coffee and cake for a while before you come round to this way of thinking. Resistance to change can be discouraging, but it also serves a useful protective function.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Dynamics of Change

  Insights into Organisational Transition from the Natural World

  • Francis Stickland(Author)
  • 2002(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  This requires asking ‘Second Loop Learning’ questions (Argyris and Schon, 1978) which seek to explore the nature of the resistance and work with it, as opposed to against it. The entrenched positions that develop during union negotiations over pay, or the fierce dialogue and posturing that can occur in the Board room when corporate and personal empires are at stake, are good examples of preservative resistance in action. Identity must be maintained and the prevailing structures, processes and capabilities within the organisational unit under threat shape the nature of the defensive response.

  ‘How often do we see transformational change programmes trumpeted from the Board room end up as minor improvement projects that tinker cosmetically with the business?’

  This concludes our look at resistance. The natural and physical sciences have a great deal to teach anybody seeking a better understanding of resistance to change. The seven categories offered in this section are certainly not comprehensive, but merely an attempt to highlight some of the dynamics at work when resistance to change manifests itself.

  Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, as we all know. Sadly, there has been a tendency within our organisations to treat people like turkeys, keeping them in the dark right up until the last minute and then springing change on them. Why? Maybe because we do not understand resistance well enough and are afraid to deal with it as a potential issue early on. Fears of having change blocked can often evaporate with the morning sun if we are willing to consider it upfront, and ask sensible questions about where resistance is likely to come from and what is driving it. It can be surprising how much of the opposition can then be specifically targeted and constructively dealt with—gaining support in the process from those whose working lives will be affected by the change. The different types of resistance which we have looked at here go some way to demonstrating that the concept is far richer than we are often prepared to believe. It need not always equate to stubbornness, defiance and obstructive opposition. Viewed in those terms, it will be dealt with in those terms—with potentially damaging consequences. Stepping back and trying to understand why the resistance is there allows some space to give the ‘turkeys’ a chance to vote and voice the reason behind their reluctance to change. By understanding resistance better we are by definition learning more about change itself, and therefore enhancing our ability to manage it more effectively.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Change Basics

  • Linda Russell, Jeffrey Russell(Authors)
  • 2023(Publication Date)
  • Association for Talent Development

    (Publisher)

  Table 6-5 offers a final integrative list that pulls together some of these suggestions and offers a few more approaches for effectively dealing with resistance. Why Leaders Should Value Change Resisters This chapter has focused on understanding the origins of resistance and then taking actions to reduce this resistance. Although every change leader should become a master at diagnosing and addressing resistance, leaders should also learn to celebrate what resisters bring to the change process. Edgar Schein (1999, p. 121–123) argues that, in order for change to take hold, “survival anxiety” (“If I don’t change, will I survive?”) must be greater than “learning anxiety” (“Do I have what it takes to make it in the future?”). For some people, their learning anxiety is strong enough that there is little room to feel anxiety about survival. For them, the in-your-face question of “Can I do this job?” takes precedence over abstract questions about whether the organization is head- ing in the right direction. Noted Table 6-4. Common causes of people’s low tolerance to change. • They believe that they do not have the knowledge, skills, or capabilities to perform in the new environment. • Their learning anxiety is greater than their survival anxiety. • They are trying to save face. If they were to go along with the change, it would be an admission that their previous behaviors, actions, and decisions were wrong. • They are entrenched in and comfortable with the status quo. They believe it is better to live with the imperfect present than to face open-ended uncertainty. • Because of peer or group pressure, they do not want to stand in support of a change when others in their circle of co-workers, friends, or family are against the change. • Dogmatic or strong-willed individuals and those with a strong internal locus of control tend to be more resistant to change. Understanding and Dealing With Resistance to Change ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 94 Table 6-5.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Organizational Change

  Creating Change Through Strategic Communication

  • Laurie Lewis(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  As Maurer (1996) observes, “the energy of resistance can be a powerful and frightening force” (p. 25). Energy in a change effort is absolutely necessary. It is an affirmative action to make change. Doing nothing cannot usually bring about change – except perhaps in the case of aging. However, even survival (of a human being or an organization) requires affirmative action. Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio (2008) argue in a similar vein that resistance can keep a change “in play” and in the conversation. “If people want a change to die … they would be better off not talking about it than engaging in existence-giving ‘resistance’ communications that provide energy and further its transla- tion and diffusion” (p. 368). Forms of Resistance We can array the ideas related to resistance in many different ways, but for simplicity’s sake we discuss them here in terms of subtle and more forceful versions of resistance. This should not be considered as 192 Power and Resistance a stand-in for degrees of effectiveness, but rather a convenient descrip- tion of intensity from an observer’s point of view. At the subtle end of the continuum (see Figure 6.1) are those reac- tions that some managers describe as resistant but that others have referred to as “ambivalence” (Larson and Tompkins, 2005; Piderit, 2000) or “reluctance” (Watson, 1982). A masters student, Jessica Castles (unpublished), in my organizational change seminar developed the following definition of resistance with this idea in mind, “a state of hesi- tation in which stakeholders are reluctant to fully embrace a change effort due to legitimate concerns about the potential consequences of its application” (p. 5). Castles points to the arguments of Dent and Goldberg (1989) in explaining that people do not resist change per se, rather they resist the negative consequences that could potentially accompany that change such as uncertainty, fear, loss of status or power, and/or personal harm.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Understanding Change in the Workplace

  • Institute of Leadership & Management(Author)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  2 The missing word in the following statement begins with P. What is it? Among the main underlying causes of people's resistance to change is that they see it as a threat to their position, prospects and __________.

  3 In any change situation, there will be forces supporting and forces opposing the change. When faced with forces opposed to change, which two of the following should you do?

      Increase the supporting forces.

      Maintain the supporting forces at their present level.

      Reduce the opposing forces.

      Ignore the opposing forces.

  4 Fill in the missing words. a Where change is concerned, __________ is the best antidote to resistance. b __________ is the best medicine for uncertainty. c __________ is infectious.

  INFORMATION	PLANNING	ENTHUSIASM
  CHANGE	PARTICIPATION	ASSERTIVENESS

  Answers to these questions can be found on page 81 .

  5  Summary

      Resistance to change is normal.

      When you react negatively to the prospect of change, it may be because you see it as a threat to position, prospects or prosperity, or because you are uncertain about what it will bring.

      As a manager, you need to take the lead in overcoming your initial negative reactions to proposals for change and focus on how to respond in a constructive way.

      Before announcing any major change, it is essential to know what the main implications of that change will be.

      In any change situation, there will be forces supporting and forces opposing the change. As a leader of change, you need to work on maintaining the forces that support a change and reducing those that oppose it.

      Two-way communication has a major role to play in preparing people for change during the ‘unfreezing stage’ of a change programme.

      The three main ingredients of the recipe for successful change implementation are as follows.

      Participation

      Information

      Enthusiasm

      Where change is concerned, participation is the best antidote to resistance.

      Information is the best medicine for uncertainty arising from change.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Leadership in Higher Education from a Transrelational Perspective

  • Christopher M. Branson, Maureen Marra, Margaret Franken, Dawn Penney(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  This means that the desired change is often reactionary – a delayed fix to a slowly recognized and acknowledged problem – rather than a proactive initiative to a foreseeable challenge. For those employees charged with the task of actually making the change happen, the unexpected and poorly understood change can induce fear and anxiety rather than enthusiasm and commitment, and hence resistance. Instead of seeing the good in the change, many see the uncertainty of successful change as well as the possible loss of personal job security when new workplace knowledge and skills are required. What a commitment to transformational organizational change overlooks is the need to address the internal dimension of the individual attached to the organization. That is to say, such organizational change overlooks the need to adjust the natural personal thinking processes of each person within the organization. To this end, the concept of complexity theory (Black and Edwards 2000; Maguire and McKelvey 1999; Styhre 2002; Tsoukas 1998), or complex adaptive systems theory (Englehardt and Simmons 2002), has been drawn upon to further advance understandings of how to successfully lead organizational change. Essentially, complexity theory argues that the only substantial form of organizational change occurs naturally through the interaction of the people within the organization (Beinhocker 1997). By necessity, any form of organizational change needs to enable and encourage positive and constructive The Challenge of Organizational Change 107 interpersonal interaction throughout the organization. Hence, promoting effective organizational change is extremely complex because it requires paying attention to how the individual thinks, which is influenced by their personalized feelings, beliefs, values, perceptions and sensitivities. The book Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society , by Senge et al.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book