Analysis of Columbian Mishap on Resistance to Change - Case Study Example

? Resistance to Change Analysis of Columbian mishap on resistance to change Introduction Resistance to changerefers an aggressive mechanism against any perceived dynamism that may cause a threat on the way individuals, groups, teams and leaders carry out their operations (Sharma, 2007). According to a research report by Columbian Investigation Board, it was reported that Colombian Mishap had a significant contribution towards individuals and structural resistance to change at NASA. The report asserts that most problems that were being experienced at NASA were managerial in nature witnessed through a strike (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). The report further asserts that, lack of communication across the organization heightened resistance because majority of employees were unaware of impending changes that were being introduced (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). In above connection, lack of single culture to integrate the whole organization was a significant source of resistance to change because almost every department at NASA had its own culture different from other departments (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). Lack of proper risk mitigation measures in place to consolidated organization culture, was major factor that caused resistance to change (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). The report suggested that, termination of risky flights was not solution of reducing escalated cases of accidents but rather NASA should focus at establishing structural procedures that guarantees sustainability of a safety culture (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). Therefore, this analysis focuses at providing an insight of Columbian mishap concerning resistance to change and how it contributes to accidents. The analysis will further focus on both individual and cultural resistance as well as the impact of the board recommendation on individual and structural barriers. Individual sources of resistance to change and their causes The Sources and causes of individual resistance could be attributed to numerous factors that may include; fear for unknown. People tend to fear uncertainties that may to occur as a result of change (Griffin, & Moorehead, 2012). This is because individuals find it difficult to cope with dynamics for instance, it can be scrutinized that lack of prior cultural integration within all departments at NASA brought great resistance (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). Additionally, Inability to adjust and start doing things using new ways may make people fear change and therefore, they may develop resistance. Inability to adjust may be overcome by ensuring that there is efficient and effective integration of NASA cultural goals and mission during the earliest juncture possible (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). In above connection, it can be scrutinized that individual developed resistance to change due to a lack of effective communication, whereby, NASA engineers could not effectively communicate safety measure to the management leading to individual resistance (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). On the other hand, NASA managers failed to communicate issues raised by engineers to all the departments leading to resistance among employees because changes were introduced without a prior notification (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). Lack of proper leadership within organization contributed significantly to individual resistance because managers were not involved in directing employees on what to do to ensure that safety standard were being observed. According to a report by Columbia Accident Investigation Board 2003, misunderstanding between managers and NASA engineers was significant source and cause of resistance. Structural sources of resistance to change and their causes The most common sources of resistance to change include; inertia within the organization structure (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). Whereby, most organizations contain some mechanisms that enhance stability and sustainability making it difficult to introduce any change because it is more susceptible to face a tough structural resistance (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). Lack of appropriate focus to change may cause structural resistance because organizations are made up of interrelated systems and changing either of the system may cause resistance (Murray, Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006). Additionally, structural resistance may be brought out by group fears, whereby, people with specialized knowledge and expertise may feel threaten by impending changes and therefore, they may develop resistance to change (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). Limited focus to change and group norms may cause structural resistance, whereby, lack of adequate focus on organizations systems and subsystem may cause different reactions when a change is being introduced (Berning, 2005). The manner in which group norms causes structural resistance may be substantiated by the fact that group members tend to resist any change that is against their norms (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). Additionally, introduction of new technology led to structural resistance as employees find it difficult to cope with new technology (Beard, 1996). Research further indicates that, introducing change without prior communication to all relevant departments may cause structural resistance as employees feel that they don’t own a change (Beard, 1996). Impacts of board’s recommendations on individual and structural barriers to change and how those recommendations help overcome resistance to change The board made various recommendations among them includes; recommendation on thermal protection system. This recommendation was anticipated to help individuals and organizations to be cautious in ensuring that necessary measure of preventing accidents were in place (Nancy, 2004). The board recommended upgrading of imaging system in order to reduce structural and individual barriers to change, because upgrading imaging systems was anticipated to provide high resolution image capable of performing work more effectively (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003).The board further recommended establishment of a technical authority that could help to reduce hazards that might occur in the future. Connectively, the board recommended that it was vital to expand a training program to management team. The program was anticipated to reduce both structural and individual resistance to change because training helps to raise awareness prior a change is being introduced (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). The board further recommended establishment of a comprehensive plan that contain all the major aspects of a safety program. The plan was anticipated to overcome resistance to change because it provides steps and procedure to be adhered to when introducing changes (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003). My recommendation to NASA on how overcome resistance to change I would recommend NASA to establish measure to cope and manage resistance to change. Among the measure that I would recommend include; NASA should ensures that there is change management system in place that can help to detect resistance before it occurs (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). Additionally, I would recommend NASA management team to anticipate resistance and establish proper mechanism to deal with resistance. Connectively, NASA should addressed resistance formally using the appropriate resistance management techniques. Some of those techniques include; handling resistance in 3 phases. The first phase should focus at preparing people for change by ensuring that techniques for responding to any resistances are in place. The second phase should focus at managing change by making sure that there is a comprehensive plan for change. Thirdly, NASA should ensure that changes have been reinforced by ensuring that employees understand the need for change and comply with the prescribed changes (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). Finally, NASA should include all levels of management such as the top management, middle and the bottom management in decision making in order to ensure effective corporation when implementing changes. Conclusion Therefore, based on the above assessment it can be scrutinized that the sources and causes of both individual and structural resistance may be attributed to lack of prior communication concerning the impending changes. Connectively structural source and causes of resistance at NASA may be attributed to management among other factors discussed. Additionally, the impacts of recommendations made by Columbian board on individual and structural barriers have been put forth. Among the suggested recommendations include; NASA should anticipate resistance and should put in place resistance management techniques. Among the suggested techniques include; managing resistance formally and communicating changes prior any amendments are introduced. Additionally, all levels of management should be given a chance to participate in decision making. This is because when all levels of management are involved in decision making, it becomes easier to eradicate any perceived resistance that might occur as people feel that they own a change References Berning, J. (2005). Focus on management principles: A generic approach. Lansdowne [South Africa: Juta Academic. Beard, J. W. (1996). Impression management and information technology. Westport, Conn: Quorum Books. Columbia Accident Investigation Board (2003). Audit Report on Columbian Accidents Case study: Government printing office Washington, D.C.PP-204 V-1Retrieved from :< http://www.caib.us/news/report/default.html>on 26th November 2012 Griffin, R. W., & Moorehead, G. (2012). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning. Nancy, G.L, (2004).Final Report on Modeling, Analyzing, and Engineering NASA’s Safety Culture. Massachusetts Institute of Technology77 Massachusetts Ave.Cambridge, MA 02139 Murray, P., Murray, P., Poole, D., & Jones, G. (2006). Contemporary issues in management and organizational behavior. South Melbourne, Vic: Thomson Learning. Sharma, R. R. (2007). Change management: Concepts and applications. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill. Read More