Overcoming Resistance to Change. Lester Coch and John R. P. French, JR

Overcoming Resistance To Change. Lester Coch and John R. P. French, JR.

Introduction

Harwood Manufacturing Corporations most serious prediction problem has been the resistance of production workers to the necessary changes in methods and jobs.

Resistance included: grievances about piece rates that went with the new methods, high turnover, very low efficiency, restriction of output, and marked aggression against management.

Efforts made to solve this problem through use of monetary allowance for transfers, by trying to enlist the cooperation and aid of the union, by making necessary layoffs on the basis of efficiency. However, all this did little/nothing to overcome the resistance to change.

From management perspective, there are 2 reasons to the research. Why do people resist change so strongly? What can be done to overcome this resistance?

Background

Harwood Manufacturing Corporation main plant where research was done is in small town of Marion, Virginia. . Plant produced pyjamas . Employs women mostly (500 women and 100 men) . Workers recruited from rural, mountainous areas surrounding town . Average age of workers is 23 . Average education is 8 years of grammar school

. Company policies for labour relations are liberal and progressive. Employees are encouraged to report any problems or grievances to management. There is a high value on fair and open dealings with employees. . Plant wide votes are conducted where possible to resolve problems affecting the whole working population. . Company invested time/money in employee services such as industrial music, health service, recreation programs and the lunchroom.

As a result of these policies, the company has enjoyed good labour relations since the day it commenced operations. The employees of Harwood are paid by piece rates where one unit is equal to one minute of standard work. Employees attitude toward job changes in the factory are negative as many operators refuse to change, preferring to quit. 60 units per hour equals the standard efficiency rating.

The Transfer Learning Curve

Analysis of after-change relearning curves of several hundred experienced operators rating standard or better prior to change showed that 38% of the changed operators recovered to the standard unit rating of 60 units per hour. The other 62% either became chronically sub-standard operators or quit during the relearning period. The average relearning curve for those who recover to standard production on the simplest type job in the plant is 8 weeks long and when smoothes provides the basis for the transfer bonus. This Is the difference between this expected efficiency rating and the standard of 60 units per hour. First 2-3 weeks progress is slow, and then accelerates to about 50 units per hour with an increase of 15 units in two weeks. The curve ends in a spurt of 10 units progress in one week, a marked goal gradient behavior. Something interesting to note was that the relearning period for an experienced operator is longer than the learning period for a new operator.

A Preliminary Theory of Resistance to Change

Alex Bavelas conducted earlier experiments at Harwood and found that the use of group decision techniques on operators who had just been transferred resulted in ver marked increases in the rate of relearning, even though no skill training was given and there were no other changes in working conditions. Interviews with operators who have been transferred to a new job reveal a common pattern of feelings and attitudes, which are distinctly different from those of successful non-transfers. In addition to resentment against the management for transferring them, the employees typically show feelings of frustration, loss of hope of ever regaining their former level of production and status in the factory, feelings of failure, and a very low level of aspiration.

Previous unpublished research at Harwood indicated that non-transferred employees generally have an explicit goal of reaching and maintaining an efficiency rating of 60 units per hour. Through a questionnaire sent to many groups of operators, been discovered that majority accept as their goal the managements quota of 60 units per hour. This standard of production is the levee of aspiration according to which the operators measure their own success or failure. Few operators set a goal above 60 units per hour.

Actual production records show that there is a very large number of operators who rate 60-63 units per hour and a few operators who rate just above or below this range. We may conclude: . There is force acting on the operator in the direction of achieving a production level of 60 units per hour or mote. The strength of this driving force increases as she gets nearer the goal . The strength of the restraining force hindering higher production increases with increasing levels of production.

Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study: Manuela Pardo de val and Clara Martinez Fuentes

. Resistance to change introduces costs and delays into the change process (Ansoff 1990) that are difficult to anticipate (Lorenzo 2000) but must be taken into consideration. . Resistance also considered being source of information, being useful in learning how to develop a more successful change process (Goldstein 1988).

Literature review

. Evolutionary/incremental changes are small changes that alter certain small aspects, looking for an improvement in the present situation, but keeping the general working framework (Levy 1986). . Resistance to change is phenomenon that affects the change process, delaying or slowing down its beginning, obstructing or hindering its implementation and increasing its costs (Ansoff, 1990). . On the other hand, resistance is any conduct that tries to keep the status quo that is to say resistance is equivalent to inertia, as the persistence to avoid charges . Thus, inertia and resistance are not negative concepts . This research follows Rumel 1995 and divides the sources of resistance into five groups. More things were added to Rumelts proposal also. Rumelt 1995 insists that inertia is a problem in the strategy formulation stage and the implentation one, he does not distinguish the 5 groups of sources of inertia according to both stages. This research attempts to make this distinction and suggest that the first, second and third group are sources of resistance that appear during the formulation stage, because they deal with factors that complicate the situations analysis and the evaluation of the various change alternatives.

Sources of resistance and inertia in the formulation stage

. This first group is called ‘distorted perception, interpretation barriers and vague strategic priorities’. It includes: myopia (Rumelt 1995), denial or refusal to accept any information that is not expected or desired (Rumelt 1995), perpetuation of ideas (Rumelt 1995), implicit assumptions, which are not discussed due to its implicit character and therefore distort reality (Starbuck et al, 1978), communication barriers that lead to information distortion (Hutt et al 1995).

Second main group of sources of resistance deals with a low motivation for change. Give fundamental sources indentified: 1. Direct costs of change (Rumelt 1995) 2. Cannibalization costs: change that brings success to a product but at the same time brings losses to others, so it requires some sort of sacrifice (Rumelt 1995) 3. Cross subsidy comforts (Rumelt 1995) 4. Past failures, which leave a pessimistic image for future changes (Lorenzo 2000) 5. Different interest among employees and management/or lack of motivation (Waddell and Sohal 1998).

The lack of creative response is third set of sources. Reasons that diminish the creativeness in search for approiate change strategies: . Fast and complex environmental change preventing proper situation analysis (Rumelt 1995). . Reactive mind-set (Rumelt 1995) . Inadequate strategic vision (Rumelt 1995)

Sources of resistance and inertia in the implementation stage

Two more resistance groups found in this stage: 1. Political and cultural deadlocks: . Implementation climate and relation between change values and organizational values, considering that a strong implementation climate when the values relation is negative will result in resistance and opposition to change (Klein and Srra 1996) . Departmental politics resistance from those departments that will suffer with the change implementation (Rumelt 1995) . Disagreement among groups about nature of problem and its alternative solutions (Rumelt 1995) . Deep-rooted values and emotional loyalty (Kruger 1996) . Forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes (Larence 1954)

Five sources of resistance with different characteristics are bunched together, these include, leadership inaction, embedded routines, collective action problems, lack of necessary capabilities to implement change, and cynicism

Methodology and description of the sample

Quantitative research was carried out at Spanish companies with more than 50 employees, which had undergone a change process recently. . Population consisted of 12,656 organizations, 1,800 were extracted randomly and a questionnaire was sent by mail and by email . Out of 86 respondents, 15% are from top management, rest are middle managers. . 70% have a university degree . 2/3rds from industrial sector . about half of them have an annual turnover of less than 30 million Euro, only 20% go over 90 million . 58.8% of respondents consider the change faced by their institution as evolutionary . 22.4 % state it was more strategic . 18.8% of the companies express an intermediate situation . Questionnaire aimed to serve as a tool to test two main hypotheses

Findings Conclusion

Resistance to change is an essential factor to be considered in any change process, since a proper management of resistance is the key for change success or failure. This paper follows the 5-group classification of Rumelt 1995 completing it with other author’s contribution. The research allowed the authors to order the importance of the sources of resistance to change. The conclusion was that resistance to change is generally higher in strategic changes that in evolutionary ones.

Andriopoulous + Dawson: Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation

Introduction

Change is integral to all our lives and an essential feature of work environments. Critical world events often arrive unannounced and unexpected—stimulating a radical rethink or a change in the way that business is done. Some changes may be reactive to unanticipated changes in external market conditions; others may reflect a proactive strategy to reposition or change key corporate operations.

Change and organizations

There is a difference between small developmental activities/routine modifications and large-scale transformational initiatives.

The growth, development and change in the telecommunications and computer industries over the last two decades provide us with a number of examples of radical change. Within the oil and gas sector, major multinational companies like Shell and BP are repositioning themselves as energy companies in a long term strategy for corporate renewal.

. About 70% of all change initiatives fail

Change drivers: threat, necessity or opportunity?

Internal and external figures affect change to come about for a firm. The PESTLE analysis is useful.

Technological advances in tandem with rising consumer expectations and access to global markets have contributed to shorter product life cycles and led to the need for go-to-market speed and flexibility… In many industries, technological advances also have eroded the traditional barriers to entry, such as high start up costs and the need for economies of scale. As a result, many new smaller, nimbler companies are entering markets that traditionally gave been the sanctum of industry begemoths. To compete against these new entrants, which think global and are untrammeled by the trappings of bureaucracy and tradition, established industry giants must reinvent themselves. A firm might want to reorganize in response to a competitor’s new product introduction, or creating a quality program after receiving disturbing results about its own product/service quality. (Graetz et al. 2002).

The punctuated equilibrium paradigm does not view change as an ongoing continuous process, it argues that relatively long periods of stability (equilibrium) are punctuated by short period of more radical revolutionary change (Romanelli and Tushman 1994).

People and change: the ‘problem,’ of resistance?

Unfortunately, change is frequently introduced without considering its psychological effect on others in the organization- particularly those who have not been part of the decision to make the change: those who arrive on Monday only to learn ‘from now on, its all different’. Further, when reactions are taken intro account, they often are lumped under ‘resistance’ to change, a pejorative phrase that conjures up stubbornness, obduracy, traditionalism. It seems fair to state, however, that if the reactions to change are not anticipated and managed0 the change process will be needlessly painful and perhaps unsuccessful (Jack and Peiperl, 2003).

Although most change management writers recognize that employee resistance is to be expected in any major company change programme (Strebel, 1998), employee resistance should not simply be treated as an obstacle to be overcome, but as a valuable source of knowledge and critique of change programmes. Collings 1998 stated: Workers who resist change tend to be cast as lacking the psychological make up to deal with change, and so, are said to be weak and fearful of change, whereas, those who support or manage change are regarded as go ahead chaps who have the right stuff for career success.

Why do people resist change?

. Substantive change in job (change in skill requirements) . Reduction in economic security or job displacement (threat to employment) . Psychological threats (whether perceived or actual) . Disruption of social arrangements (new work arrangements) . Lowering of status (redefinition of authority relationships)

Bedeian 1984 suggests that parochial self-interest, misunderstanding and lack of trust are common causes of resistance to organizational change.

Managing the communication process

Hayes 2007 argues that the features of communication networks and the effects of interpersonal relations can have a major influence on the process and outcomes of organizational change.

Hersey and Blanchard 1988 argue that communication is a key process skill required to change agents to get others to understand and accept change. Assessing the speed and context of change

The context of change and the speed within which change occurs can all influence employee experience and reaction to change initiatives. Balogun and Hailey 1999 have developed a diagnostic tool known as the change kaleidoscope. They highlight eh importance of context in deciding on an appropriate implementation strategy and the need to take into account potential ‘enablers’ and ‘blockers’ to change.

A change agent needs toe examine change through a contextual lens in order to make the right decisions over all the aspects of change.

Through assessing the contextual elements change agents can make a judgment on whether a programme for organizational change is likely to succeed, have significant difficulties or is likely to fail (Balogun and Hailey 1999).

The organizational development approach to change management- OD (Human relations)

. The approach is historically rooted in the human relation’s perspective that emphasizes the importance of people and collaboration through a two way process of communication (French and Bell 1983). . Warren Beenis 1969 defined OD as: ‘a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets and challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself.’ . According to Beckhard 1969, the approach attempts to include all employees, is planned, seeks to improve both working conditions and organizational effectiveness and is supported by top management.

Lewins model of change

Lewin 1947 argued that in order for change to be successfully managed, it is necessary to follow 3 steps: unfreezing, changing and refreezing . Unfreezing is the stage in which there is a recognized need for change and action is taken to unfreeze existing attitude and behaviour. This stage is critical in gaining employee support. His past research highlighted that in order to minimize worker resistance, employees should be brought tin to participate in the process of planning proposed change programmed. Once an imbalance has been created the system can be altered and a new set of driving and restraining forces put into place. A planned change programmed is implemented and only when the desired state has been achieved will the change agent set about ‘refreezing’ the organization. The new state of balance is then appraised and, where appropriate methods of positive reinforcement are used to ensure employees internalize attitudes and behaviour consistent with new work regimes.

The sub-discipline of organizational development The approach assumes that conflict between individuals and groups in an organization can be reconciled and, generally, OD programmed have common objectives, namely: . To improve an organizations health and effectiveness through whole system change . To systematically introduce planned interventions . To apply top down strategies and get all employees committed to change . To introduce change incrementally and to base planned change on empirical data . To use a specialist change agent to manage change . To achieve a lasting rather than temporary change within an organization

French et al 2004 highlight the important of employee involvement, and development of a climate of trust and openness.

Once a change agent is appointed, information is then gathered from the client system in order to identify the major areas in need of change and following feedback to the client, appropriate plans are formulated and action taken. Planning is generally viewed as a collaborative process based on valid information.

OD programs can be seen to adopt a normative framework that promotes a one best way to manage change that will increase both organizational effectiveness and employee well being.

The implementation phase remains a key phase under the OD approach and it is at this stage that employee resistance and conflict may be an issue that needs resolving. The approach recognizes that such problems may arise at different levels within the organization. For example, problems at the individual level may arise through personality clashes, task allocations, skill development and training issues. At the group level, conflicts may occur both within and between groups, over issues such as: leadership, resources and areas of responsibility, or though an unwillingness to cooperate or perhaps as a result of competing group priorities. At the organizational level, a lack of vision or clear direction of change may generate concerns over change and lower staff morale.

A matrix model of OD interventions

Pugh developed a matrix model that accommodates OD intervention at different levels. It enables the OD consultant to assess the situation and determine the appropriate level and type of intervention required.

Criticisms of the planned approach

. The linearity of the OD model has been criticized and is not supported by longitudinal empirical studies of change (Pettigreq 1985) . Kanter and colleagues indicated that organizations are never frozen, much less refroze, but are fluid entities Kanter et al 1992) . The strength of the OD/Lewinian model lies in its simple representation (makes it easy to understand), although this is also perhaps its major weakness as it presents a unidirectional model of change. In other words, by creating an image of a need to design in stability (refreezing), the model has a tendency to solidify what is a dynamic and complex process. It may also result in the creation of cultures and structure not conducive to continuous change.

A situational approach to change management

Dexter Dunphy 1981 has a background in OD and developed a model for identifying key contingencies that can be used by managers to determine the most appropriate change strategy given the prevailing circumstances. . Two dimensions to model: scale of change and style of leadership required to bring about change . Scale of change: . Fine tuning + incremental adjustment (refer to small scale changes. Modular transformation and corporate transformation (refers to large scale changes such as revolutionary changes throughout whole firm or divisional restructuring. . Style of leadership: autocratic, democratic, participative, collaborative, coercive, directive. Participative evolution and forced evolution refer to incremental change through collaborating and directive change. Charismatic transformation is describes as large-scale discontinuous change achieved by collaborating means. Dictatorial transformations is used to describe major coercive change programmes

An appraisal of the Dunphy/Stacy model

. Clearly influenced by Lewin . A major failing of this model is the way change is characterized as an apolitical process. . No attempt is made to provide a typology of change strategies and conditions for their use under different periods during the process of change. In short, the models suggest that there is an appropriate strategy given that you can identify the context and purpose of change, and that this strategy will see you through the entire process of regaining internal fit with the external environment. This contrasts Balogun 2006 and Hayes 2007, who highlight the influence of change recipients on shaping change outcomes can alter the need to adapt change strategies over time. In this, the model sidesteps key issues that arise during the dynamic and unpredictable process of large-scale workplace change.

A Political Process Approach to Change management

Change as a political process involves decision-making and these decisions involve the mobilization of organizational power.

The importance of political behaviour

The importance of politics in determining workplace arrangements was spotted in the early critical work of Harry Braverman 1974 . Studies on gender and change (especially in public sector organizations) demonstrate the importance of power and control in making sense of change (Itzin and Newman 1995) . Pettigrew 1973 identifies the importance of political behaviour in legitimating a particular position and in de-legitimizing the demands and values of other competing individuals or groups.

Power, politics and organizational change

In Buchanan and Badham 2008’s book ‘Power, Politics and Organizational Change’, they focus on the place of political behavior in organizational life and, in particular, on the way a ‘cast of characters’ shape organizational outcomes. They see an inextricable link between the creation of uncertain and ambiguous situations and the mobilization of power in the form of political behaviour . They claim that the political dimension is broadly a perennial feature of the terrain of the change driver, and that whilst political processes may not have received so much attention in earlier studies, there is nothing new in politics, only in our heightened awareness of political agendas. . Buchanan and Badham 1999 set guideline: change agent who is not politically skilled will fail. Implies necessity to be able to intervene in the political processes of the organization, to push particular agendas, and influence decisions, decision makers, to deal with criticism and change and cope with resistance. . They argue that the degree of political intensity varies between different change contexts and that his will in turn influence the effectiveness of a range of strategies for managing change. In one context a more open and communicative approach may be appropriate, under different conditions there may be less time and reason to engage employee in change strategies which may require power- coercive solutions. . They state that radical change programmes, which are critical to the survival of the company and yet are highly politicized and contested, will need to be forcefully driven. . For them a politically skilled change agent is not a Machiavellian type manager but rather a political entrepreneur. Such manager’s have good diagnostic and judgmental skills, creative, self critical, able to improvise, risk taking approach. . Through incorporating this political dimension of change, the authors forward a model that suggests that eh degree of political intensity will vary under different settings and with different types f change initiatives,. They argue that managing change in quadrant 1 (where change is critical to survival but challenged) is likely to require power-coercive solutions. This form of radical change which as wide implications and has to be managed fairly swiftly0 is contrasted with marginal incremental change. Where there is time to negotiate over disagreements and concerns (quadrant 4). Quadrants 2 and 4 require ‘trust, trust, love and collaboration’ types of approach.

A Processual Perspective For Understanding Change

A processual perspective views change as a dynamic fluid process that continues ad infinitum. . Alcesson and Sveningsson 2008 state: Organizational change seen as processual involves applying an understanding of a complex and chaotic organizational reality, Unforeseen consequences of planned organizational change, resistance, political processes, negotiations, ambiguities, diverse interpretations and misunderstandings are part of this. Consequently, organizational change is not mainly a matter of carry out a sequential list of steps.

The approach of Pettigrew: The awakening giant

. Draws on longitudinal contextual data . Pettigrew examines the interplay between internal contextual variables of culture; history and political process with external business conditions that maintain continuity it bring about change. He terms it as holistic contextualist analysis: The approach provides both multi level analysis (vertical) and processual analysis (horizontal). . In his longitudinal study of the unfolding and non linear aspects of change at ICI (imperial chemical industries), Pettigrew criticize the aprocessual character of a lot of the material on change management in advocating the need for the adoption of a particular type of research strategy and methodology (Pettigrew 1990) . In contrast to the dominant approach in organization theory that emphasizes the importance of sophisticated quantitative analyses, the processual approach is concerned with the collection of longitudinal qualitative data that facilitates a more detailed understanding of the complex and dynamic process of change (Dawson 1994). . Pettigrew demonstrates that strategic change is a continuous process with no clear beginning or end point.

Dawson’s Processual Perspective

. Processual approach developed by Dawson 1994 includes element of Accessibility and The practical dimension to understanding change . Dawson 1994 explains: The guidelines presented are located within and derive from a processual framework which emphasizes the importance of ongoing timeframes and the interconnected dynamics between the substance, context and politics of change. Unlike contingency models, this processual perspective does not advocate or identify a single emergent homogenous structure, which can be prescribed as an appropriate design for a ‘changed’ organization. Change is viewed as an ongoing process, which is progressive and regressive, planned and unplanned, and incorporates intended and unintended innovations from the initial conception of the need to the change through to the emergence of new work arrangements. Furthermore, unlike situational or contingency models that use snapshot models and assume that context is singular and unproblematic, the processual perspective sensitizes the researcher and practitioner to the importance of the interplay between organizational governance and politics, and the history and culture of organizations and change programmes. . E.g. processual; research is able to identify competing histories of change and how organizational stories may be rewritten to lend support to the claims of differing ewsted interest groups and thereby reflect the political agendas of powerful decision makers rather than representing some objective reconstruction of past events. . The approach also advocates that the different views and experiences of individuals and groups at all levels within organizations need to be captured and analyzed . The framework is able to highlight discrepancy and conflicting views between and within individuals and groups occupying different hierarchical positions. . The processual perspective proposed by Dawson 2001 aims to make complex change date accessible to the reader, to use the material to identify practical lessons form the research and to ensure that the views and voices of those who experience change are heard form the shop floor employee through to middle management and the chief executive officer of an organization.

Factors Shaping the Process of Change

. The processual perspective aims to examine change as it happens and is concerned with three groups of detriments that ship this process, namely: politics, substance and context of change . The politics of change is taken to refer t o the political activity of consultation, negotiation, conflict and resistance, which occurs at various levels within and outside an organization during the process of managing change. E.g. competitor alliances or governmental pressure . The context of change refers to factors that reside within the organization as well as those within the wider business market environment. Examples of external contextual factors include changes in competitor’s strategies, government legislation, changing social expectations. Examples of internal contextual factors include Leavitts 1964 four-fold classification of human resources, administrative structures, technology, and product/service as well as additional category labeled the history and culture of organization. . The substance of change (Pettigrew refers to as content). The scale and scope of change is analyzed. The defining characteristics of the change programme. The timeframe of change. Perceived centrality of the change

Criticism of Dawson’s Processual Approach

. It doe enable contextual explanations of the non-linear dynamics of change, however, it does not present a model of how to best manage change.

Conclusion

Drawing on the human relations theory, the OD model set out to prescribe the best way to manage change that will ensure the participation and involvement of all staff. According to this approach, change should be managed in a way that embraces employees at all levels; it should not be rushed nor forcefully imposed (French et al 2004). In contrast, the situational model of Dunphy and Stace 1990 was developed to explain the rapid and more autocratic approaches to change management that were occurring in many business organizations during the 1980s and 1990s. The processual perspective recognizes the political nature of change and the importance of power: the need to orchestrate and steer change, to engage people and overcome obstacles to respond to the unforeseen and be proactive in circumventing potential barriers and to gaining the support of significant stakeholders (Dawson 1994)