Management of Change - Assignment Example

Management of Change Word count: 2051 words (excluding cover page and reference page) Management of Change Introduction The concept of management of change has been a major issue of discussion in the 21st century. Change is a major re-organization process initiated through planned strategic decisions and choices of top management, which are then translated into tactical strategies and operational actions (Genus 1998:5). According to Leana & Barry (2000: 754), change is necessary in order to adapt to changing consumption and production patterns facilitated by changes in information technology, decline in the mass consumer markets, and the shift of focus from the manufacturing to the service sector, the rise of fragmented and differentiated markets and the need for products with short life cycles. The main organizational challenge is resistance to change amidst these developments. This paper argues that effective change management is necessary for overcoming resistance to change and ensuring organizational flexibility that is necessary for maintaining a competitive advantage. Reasons for Resistance of Change Major organizational changes fail to achieve the intended objectives due to resistance to change. Resistance to change may occur at the strategy formulation phase or the implementation phase. There are several reasons, which may provide an explanation for resistance of change. The following section explores the impact of organization structure and culture on management of change. The organizational structure may pose several challenges for the design and implementation of new changes in the organization. In their study, Beer & Eisenstat explores some of the ways the organization’s structure may affect the initiation and implementation of change. Firstly, they observe that structural inertia and rigidity may make it virtually impossible to attain the flexibility in processes and operations needed for the management changes. Secondly, they suggest that initiators and implementers of new changes are likely to face stiff resistance from internal organizational politics and existing power structures. Thirdly, they argue that resistance from work groups may pose serious challenges to management of change. Fourthly, they observe that experience from previous failures in change interventions may pose serious threats to future change initiatives (Beer & Eisenstat 1996:598). Apart from organization structure, another possible reasons for the resistance of change lies in the organization culture. According to a study by Klein and Sorra, the organization culture may affect implementation of change initiatives in a number of ways. Firstly, they observe that a poor implementation climate may distort the management and employee perceptions of change leading to resistance. Secondly, their study indicates that lack of correlation between change values and organization values may result into low motivation for change from the implementers of the change initiatives. Thirdly, they note that disagreements and negative management beliefs may hinder creative responses to change. Fourthly, lack of consideration about the social implication of the proposed change may result into resistance (Klein & Sorra 1996:23). Aspects of Resistance to Change Resistance to organizational change may take several forms and aspects. A study by Kotter and Schlesinger (1979:451) explores some of the various aspects of resistance to change. The most common aspects explore in the study include parochial self-interests, misunderstanding and lack of trust, different assessment and low tolerance to change. Kotter and Schlesinger research shows that parochial self-interest may hinder rational thinking and become a major source of resistance to change. Parochial self-interest refers to the situation in which individuals are more concerned with the consequences they are likely to suffer because of the planned management change. Kotter and Schlesinger observe that the desire to safeguard personal and individual interests at the expense of organization interests results into organization politics. They note that this kind of conflict is mostly subtle and occurs under the surface of public negotiations, although it may also involve public power struggles between two or more conflicting camps (Kotter & Schlesinger 1979:451). Kotter and Schlesinger also explore the impact of misunderstanding and lack of trust in implementing organizational changes. They argue that most resistance to change occurs because people in the organization, managers and other employees, do not understand the implications of change. Their study argues that it is inevitable to avoid misunderstanding when implementing change because only a few organizations are able to develop a high level of trust between change initiators and other employees (Kotter & Schlesinger 1979:452). A similar observation is found in a study by Fine who argued that managers should deliberately allow for resistance while planning for change in order to slow down the implementation process to allow people to adjust and adapt to it (Fine, 1986: 88-89). However, the findings from both studies argue that change initiators should be proactive in surfacing misunderstanding and clarifying them accordingly to prevent them from going overboard and jeopardizing the change implementation process. Another aspect of resistance to change examined by Kotter and Schlesinger is the impact of different assessment in the implementation of organizational changes. Their study argues that most employees resist change because of differences in the assessment of the impact of the planned change. Differences in assessment leads to a sense of insecurity since employees may perceive the planned change as not cost effective for both themselves and their organization. The main cause for the differences in assessment is the implicit assumption that employees have the same amount of information as the management, which is not always the case (Starbuck, Greve and Hedberg 1978:112). Kotter and Schlesinger argue that resistance to change is justified incase the assessment of the implementers is more accurate than that of the initiators of the desired change. However, this may still be a further source of conflict when managers perceive change resistance to be non-beneficial (Kotter & Schlesinger 1979: 453). Lastly, Kotter & Schlesinger explores the problem of low tolerance to change. According to their study, low tolerance to change may instill fear in employees who may be worried that their level of skills may not conform to the requirements of the planned strategic change. Rigid attitudes and behaviors may make it very difficult to change and adapt to new situations and job expectations. A study by Sagie et al. (1985:158) supports these assertions by showing that people who performed routine and specific tasks were likely to resist change than those who were less experienced or who performed general tasks. Overcoming Resistance to Change Appropriate assessment of the causes and aspects of resistance to change is important in developing effective strategies for overcoming resistance. In their study, Kotter and Schlesinger (1979: 454) offer a framework for overcoming resistance to change which comprise education and communication; participation and involvement; facilitation and support; negotiation and agreement; manipulation and co-optation; and explicit and implicit coercion. According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979: 454), education and communication provides the greatest opportunity to manage change and overcome resistance. Educating people on the importance of change will not only reduce their intolerance but also equip them with the necessary skills for transition. Effective communication on the other hand provides a justification of the rationale for change and allows employees to be aware of the intended change before it is initiated. Education and communication can be achieved through training management and employees on the fundamentals of change management. Training is therefore an effective tool in overcoming communication barriers and implementing the capabilities required for effective implementation of the planned change. However, training is also limited in a number of ways. Firstly, it may not work incase of poor employee relations. Secondly, it requires more resources, time and effort to train the whole workforce. Another key approach examined by Kotter and Schlesinger is employee participation and involvement in the formulation and implementation of the proposed change. According to their study, participation is essential when change initiators perceive that they do not have adequate information to design and implement the proposed change on their own. According to Lucas (1974:49), it is important to involve employees in change management in order to gain their commitment to the change process. Apart from this, employee involvement in decision-making promotes smooth transitions thus reducing resistance. However, a study by Baker (1989:58) supports Kotter and Schlesinger’s arguments that employee participation may result into negative outcomes if not properly managed in addition to being a time consuming exercise. Another approach for overcoming resistance to change is management facilitation and support. Facilitation and support entails listening to employees, training for new skills and providing emotional support as a way of overcoming resistance because of fear and fatigue (Kotter and Schlesinger 1989:445). This study however argues that this approach may not be appropriate when there is no time and money for facilitation and support. Negotiation and agreement approach is also another strategy for overcoming resistance to change. This strategy involves rewarding certain groups through union pay rise, higher wages and retirement benefits to gain their support. Kotter and Schlesinger (1989:455) argue that this approach is effective in subduing groups with high resistance power. Baker (1989:55) supports these arguments by observing that negotiation is the only way of containing powerful individual and employee unions. However, Genus (1998:10) disagrees with these assertions by arguing that negotiation may have serious financial implications in addition to opening room for corruption and blackmail. Another strategy commonly used to overcome resistance to change is the use of manipulation and co-optation. According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1989:456), manipulation may take the form of selective use of information while co-option may include giving the resisting individual or group a ceremonial role in the implementation process to prevent them from resisting. Their study argues that this approach is inexpensive and feasible where other strategies fail to work. This method is however risky because it may result into even greater resistance should the co-opted parties realize that they are being tricked, lied upon or simply being used as puppets. It may even be disastrous if these parties use their co-opted positions to amass power and influence that would enable them to further their personal interest. Lastly but not the least, Kotter and Schlesinger (1989:456) observe that managers constantly use explicit and implicit coercion to overcome resistance to change. This approach involves the use of force, threats, firing and transferring employees as a way of instilling fear and compliance with the proposed changes. Kotter and Schlesinger argue that coercion may be the strategy of choice where urgency is required and when the proposed change is not popular. Similarly, Starbuck, Greve & Hedberg (1978:120) also argue that coercion is necessary in moments of crisis. However, Beer & Eisenstat (1996:600) observe that the use of force is not an effective approach because it simply results into compliance but discourages commitment. Employees who are coerced to change may engage in industrial actions and lower their productivity. Conclusion and Recommendation Management of change is a fundamental concept that would enable top management to overcome resistance to change and implement necessary changes that would ensure survival of the business. This paper sought to explore the fundamental issues related with management of change. Specifically, the paper explored the major reasons for the resistance of change, which are integrated in the organization structure and culture. In addition to this, the paper examined the various aspects of resistance to change commonly experienced in organizations. The paper also considered the various strategies for overcoming resistance to change. Although several strategies have been highlighted, it is recommended for the top management to consider two aspects of management that are deemed fundamental for implementation of the above strategies. Firstly, this paper suggests the need to align organizational culture with the change objectives as a way of removing the cultural challenges. An emphasis on the cultural dimension will not only nurture the change environment but also facilitate employee participation and involvement, management facilitation and support and effective negotiation and agreement. Secondly, this paper suggests the need for management and employee training. Training would reduce the communication barriers experienced in organizations and facilitate in effective capability gap analysis, which would enhance the change management process. This paper contributes abundantly on the many research efforts directed towards understanding the concept of change, resistance to change and design and implementation of effective change management process. The paper also offers insights into the management of business enterprises by providing strategies for effective change management that if properly adapted and implemented, would aid in understanding change, overcoming barriers to change and ensuring flexibility that would ensure their survival in the highly dynamic and competitive business environment. References Baker, S.L., 1989. Managing resistance to change. Library Trends, 38(1):53-61 Beer, M. & Eisenstat, R.A., 1996. Developing an organization capable of implementing strategy ` and learning. Human Relations, 49 (5): 597-617. Fine, S.F.,1986. Technological innovation, diffusion and resistance: A historical perspective. ` Journal of Library Administration, 7(spring): 83-108. Genus, A., 1998.The Management of Change: Perspectives and Practice. UK: Cengage Learning ` EMEA Klein, K.J. & Sorra, J.S., 1996.The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of ` Management Review, 21 (4): 22-42. Kotter, J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A., 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business ` Review, 57(2): 451-459. Leana, C.R. & Barry, B., 2000. Stability and Change as Simultaneous Experiences in ` Organizational Life. Academy of Management Review, 25 (4): 753-759. Lucas, H. C., 1974.Toward creative system design. New York: Columbia University Press. Sagie, A., et al.,1985. Job experience, persuasion strategy and resistance to change: An ` experimental study. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6(April):157-162. Starbuck, W., Greve, A. & Hedberg, B.L.T., 1978. Responding to crisis. Journal of Business ` Administration, 9 (2): 111-137. Read More