Main Sources Of Resistance To Organizational Change Management Essay

Main Sources Of Resistance To Organizational commute Management EssayChange is inevitable for modern presidencys and increasing rapidly in the world callable to internal and external triggers (Refer to Appendix 1) (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). For survival, organizations must be able to inhabit interpolate and keep reconfiguring themselves as it is critical determinant for their success although it has barrier and challenges. Organizations that wait for an overwhelming mandate to engage in form efforts atomic number 18 very wantly to be left behind and may cope to survive (Lawler and Worley, 2009). For example, Nokia has already been through champion successful dislodge number itself from an unfoc employ conglomerate into a focused mobile bid manufacturing business in the 1990s. besides, lack of accountability, poor leadership and complacency those came from mobile phone success has caused less competitive in the market due to guest transition from mobile phone to s mart-phone (Riley, 2012). correspond to Nauss (1999), Jacques Nasser, Ford Motors CEO likewise argued that any business that is satisfied with the present state of affairs is deluding itself. seance still or touching at a snails pace is effectively moving backward.Organizational metamorphose must be based on intention and goal-oriented and come from within the organization to be effective (See experience 1 and 2) according Cumming and Worley (Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman, 2001).It also requisite very c beful judgment of individual and organizational capacity for diversify since they are potential protection to swap.In this report, we will first talk about variant causes for resistance to transmit from those who touched collaterally or negatively using Arthur Bedeians four parkland causes for resistance to pitch, Kotter and Schlesingers six practical techniques to overcome these resistances and Kurt Lewins 3 phase change management model.2.0 Resistance to Organ ization ChangeBuchanan and Huczynski (2010) define resistance to change is unwillingness or an inability to accept or controvert changes that are perceived to be damaging or nemesisening to individual. Carr et al also claim that its signifi lavce plunder be measured by those affect perceive and answer to it (Salawu, 2011). As a result, change efforts are practically found resisted by individuals and groups overtly and covertly due to their negative perceptions to whatsoever extent. Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman (2001) fire a variety of sources of resistance in take care 3 (Detail in Appendix 2).To overcome resistance to change, handlers and employees must view its reasons and sources. Arthur Bedeian cites four common causes for resistance to change (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010).2.1 Parochial self avocationIndividuals are so comfort and content with their occurrent situation and they hero-worship that any change in organization may threaten their vested interests. It is one of major reason that people resist organizational change. jibe to Desler (2004), in that location 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 stomach their existing positions. E.g. Current Burmese government involves liberal and conservative. Reorganization ineluctably for democratic change process. It is exhaustively and can improve the status of its people, precisely 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 longer time than desire and resulted as a poor country.2.2 Mis deriveing and lack of trustBuchanan and Huczynski (2010) suggest lack of understanding the reasons and consequences can create resistance to change because it cleverness cost them more than what they will gain. Such misunderstandings most likely evanesce where there is lack of trust between music director and employees.My former capital of Singapore based Japanese construction announced to his private instructors an implementation of a conciliative 5 days work up for all site staffs. No managers resisted because they were introduced the purpose of that change in management meeting. Shortly after circulating announcement, various resistances arise from site staffs who do not understand and trust the heart and soul of flexible working 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 few organizations have a high train of trust between employees and managers. So, it is easy to make misunderstandings when organizational change is introduced. If managers do not clarify them in time, this can lead to resistance.2.3 Contradictory assessments other reason people resist to change is evaluation of costs and benefits contrastingly. According to Buchanan and Huczynski (2010), it is the result of poor communication and inadequate knowledge that causes contradictory assessments. only such resistance to change may lead to constructive upbraiding and improved proposals to fulfil better outcomes since people have different perceptions and knowledge. E.g. My precedent project civiliseor of Construction Company was shocked by his chassis team members who made value architectural plan 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 right off that caused resistance from the people involved. As a result, company lost devil good designers and crippled 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 knowledge than director. And resistance resulted from reorganization will be good for companys future.Low leeway for changeBuchanan and Huczynski (2010) suggest that people respond to change and uncertainty in different ship canal. Some are more quick to accept and adapt to changes. Others may have a low border 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 bearing and behavior rapidly to meet organizational requirement. It is the result of peoples limited 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 newfangl ed skill set, relationships as well as loss of most satisfying current situation. It made him uneasy to give up certain aspects of current situation 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 depreciate not only the variety of ways people can react to organizational change, but also the ways they can positively baffle 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 past 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 relentless 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 tuition and CommunicationEducation is one of most common way that communicates ideas to reconcile opposing views. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) discuss that this program can be i caboodle 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 cheek 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 change magnitude (Strebel, 1998). Moreover, Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) also highlight requirement of mutual trust to overcome misunderstanding.3.2 appointment and involvementAccording to Buchanan and H uczynski (2010), it can reduce opposition and lead to employees whole-souled commitment if the managers who initiate this program address to their 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 durability of interlocking 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 imply 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 obsess 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 the right way individuals or groups who create major resistance such as fling incentives to facilitate changes (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). But they also alerted that it may become expensive for change and take more time to negotiate. E.g. Former Burmese military commonplace 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 put off potential resistance. Management puts forward proposals that appeal to the specific interests of key stakeholders. This information is s elective, 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. Due to industrious 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 give-and-take with Japanese manager, he did not try to block the change.3.6 Implicit and graphic 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 casualty of shifting their ground, and the speed is essential for survival. But Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) argued that using coercion is angry because people will resent forced change inevitably.4.0 Conclusion muscular resistance to change may root deeply in some organizations, but change has become inevitable for todays modern organizations in flying changing business environment for survival. In Figure 1, effective change management program should be implemented properly 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 b e implemented based on the primary cause of resistance. So, manager may need to combine various techniques to manage organizational change.Finally, we would like to suggest Kurt Lewins 3 phase change management model unfreezing, moving and refreezing because present approaches or technology may be unsuitable in future. We can learn from the failure and success of Nokia and Apple. Apple was able to fade out 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 once again when all seem okay. And they start Lewins process again since refreezing stage may be temporary in future (see encrypt 4) where Nokia didnt.