Psychological Impact of Change Management Initiatives - Research Paper Example

Psychological impact of change management initiatives & how to mitigate the risks associated with them Table of Contents Introduction: 2 Need for a change: 3 Motivation to Resist Change: 4 Mitigating the Psychological Impact: 5 Conclusion: 9 Change Management & Mitigating Risks Introduction: Despite the fact that it is an implicitly indispensable element for the long-term development and economic growth, ‘change’ is usually met with severe obstructions in most of the organizations. In contemporary organizations, there are a lot of challenges that are taking place due to newer work procedures, sophisticated technologies, a change in the workforce education levels and demographics, socio-political and economic environment and above all the global competitive environment. All this makes us a number of fronts that any huge corporate has to tackle, with its given or potential resources. Therefore, the ability to rapidly and effectively settle in to all such environmental challenges is now perhaps a very crucial factor for the success of any organization in today’s world. As a consequence, the success of an organization is not just building upon a single competitive advantage which can be derived from its production techniques and facilities or its financial backing which gives it economies of scale or negotiating strength, but rather its ability to embrace the changes that are posed by the environment. An organization which can work on ideas that are not very conventional can deal with the new situations with enough flexibility and accommodate the changes and we can consider it to be perhaps one that can sustain growth over a longer period of time successfully. Need for a change: The need to adapt ‘change’ is critical all organizations which aim towards sustainable growth. Although people are progressively becoming more and more aware of an urgent need for change, in most of the cases many significant organizational change initiatives actually fail to even meet minimum requirements and are therefore unable to deliver the desired results as expected by the change sponsors. As per few studies that have been carried out, it has been estimated that somewhere around 40% to70% of the total change initiatives in huge organizations have failed (Burnes, 2000). Activities that are pertinent to the implementation of ‘change’ in an organization should primarily focus on the changing motivations and the behaviors of organizational stakeholders. Fundamentally the human resources in view of the fact that they are the most vital assets that an organization possesses which can be leveraged for the improvement of organizational outcomes. Change needs to be properly managed. It cannot just be implemented in a single wave. A radical change can be highly risky and may turn out to be a big failure as the people affected by the change may backfire to resist it and leaving no future scope of attempting to bring even a gradual one. Change management can be defined as the preamble and administration of an initiative which is designed for “renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers” (Moran & Brightman, 2001). Motivation to Resist Change: Despite the critical need for change and the prospective positive results that are expected to be a by-product of the change, in most cases the internal customers i.e. the human resource are always highly motivated to challenge any changes to the status-quo. Negative reactions from the employee can be highly damaging for organizations. This is due to the fact that change initiatives are commonly associated with destructive effects such as employee withdrawals or downsizing, lower levels of productivity and psychological pressures. Machines are made to work for long hours without compromising the accuracy and quality of work, for example. A change initiative to implement a new information system may pose a great threat to the existing workforce. It poses the employees with the threat of losing their worth and they feel challenged by the efficiency of the new solution. Another important factor that contributes towards hatred towards change is that of ‘uncertainty’. Human beings are generally risk averse. Though some exceptions are always there, but mostly people take up calculated risk or want unfair game with a guaranteed outcome. An organizational change however, is innovative and unique to each organization. Therefore, the process of change and the related outcomes of the change initiative(s) are uncertain to a high extent with only probabilities of certain expected outcomes to come true. These factors provides for enough motivation for the workforce to be resistant to any of the change initiatives that their organization is planning to take up for implementation (Jackson et al., 1987). “Fear of failure” is another response that employees are expected to demonstrate in the face of an organizational change initiative (Nadler, 1982). As in some cases for example, the employees might just be scared of not being able to conveniently operate with the new technologies which are part of the new changes and/or not understanding new work requirements and procedures. ‘Fear of failure’ can be predominantly harmful for the reason that it is likely to hinder rational analysis of the forthcoming changes and the potential opportunities that they may accompany and this can ultimately lead to stress and psychological disturbance which is again detrimental for the organizational success, considering the fact that human resource is an important asset of the organization. As per many observational studies conducted, the fact that fear can be reduced is supported. This can be managed by properly managing and communicating to the workforce how they should handle and accommodate themselves with the change (Eden & Aviram, 1993) and build the employees sense of self-esteem and worth (Herold et al., 2007). Mitigating the Psychological Impact: The Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “There is nothing permanent except change.” Change is a perhaps a much larger truth in modern-day life; it is taking place at a galloping pace, and there is almost no possibility of hindering the fact that change is inevitable. Nor is it possible to spotlight on the status-quo as central for the way we do business is changing and ‘We’ have to admit and assimilate to it. As organizational settings hassle for a change, organizations and its stakeholders must adjust to it given they actually want to survive and prosper in the long run. A ‘Change’ implementation initiative can have adverse effects not only on the socio-political structure of the organization but also on the psychological and physical health of the internal customers. The human resource is too sensitive to change. Lack of self-confidence regarding one’s job is mostly seen as a strong argument to be the source of stress in the traditional settings (Barling & Kelloway, 1996). This implies that an extended exposure towards a threat to job security may even lead to adverse health effects for the individual(s). The employees’ experience of job insecurity may be explained as a set of a perceived threat regarding their jobs, and the sense of helplessness to do anything regarding the change in status-quo and that stresses them further. The psychological impact may not only lead to severe mental stress but also causes injuries directly or indirectly. Employees have been observed to act unexpectedly weird and hostile to towards their fellows, friends and even family when undergoing through the above mentioned situation. Severe accidents have also been reported due to stress that has overwhelmed employees of man urban corporate who were implementing ‘Change’ (De Witte, 1999). Although the event of job uncertainty is highly correlated to the actual change implementation activity, it is logical to believe that the perception of threat towards job of individuals may well be originated by factors beyond the specific change processes that are taking place. The underlying principle for this explanation is demonstrated by the facts showing that undesirable side effects of organizational change implementation and restructuring go well beyond the actual set of activities due to the change. This effect is related to the so-called ‘survivor sickness syndrome’ which has been stated as a consequence of organizational change and restructuring activity. Survivor sickness refers to the conclusion that anxiety and worries related to the downsizing movement continues to act as an agent of stress for the employees that are left out in the organization even after the given change implementation. This suggests that the perception about job security may be not only the function of the change process but also be present externally to the whole activity. Another aspect that needs further explanation is related to the continuation of the perceived job threat. Mergers & acquisitions, that are recently a growing trend due to the minimum capital requirements and financial downturn globally, is a huge factor contributing to accelerated change activities which may well lead to the adverse health and trigger stress in the workforce (Bellou, 2006). That is why it is argued that rapid changes, mergers, and downsizing efforts, are all factors contributing to a certain increased level of job insecurity for the employees. Efforts have been made and sometimes were fruitful in mitigating risks involved with all these factors and risks involved with change management. Even the most drastic change can be theoretically implemented with significant amount of success if the stakeholders are comfortable with it and they are willing to own it. Change agents and/or sponsors, should therefore be careful with their efforts for implementing the change. They should involve all stake holders of the organization before implementing the change. For this purpose they can invite the stake holders to be a part of the activity by planning for it and brainstorm the best possible solution to the challenges faced by the dynamic environment, given the constraints of the organization and its limited resources. This way the stakeholders will not only own the change but actually have a positive attitude and sometimes even an urge to quickly and successfully implement the change. They then perceive it as one of the important and inevitable factors for the long term organizational growth and success. In addition to the magnitude of changes, the frequencies with which the changes are occurring in any particular organization are another factor that impacts employees’ commitment towards the change process. The change initiative should therefore be well thought and planned upon. Proper planning and a comprehensive framework for the implementation of the change can itself be a very good source of communication towards its stakeholders. Communication and commitment towards change by the workforce and all other organizational stakeholders is an essential to mitigate the risk associated with the uncertainty that is predominantly involved with the change initiative. Conclusion: The key to successful change management is to first get a strong and reliable project sponsor who will act as the change agent or support the individual(s) leading the change. This along with stakeholder involvement can be fruitful towards the success of the initiative. While going for implementation of a change initiative, complete commitment from and support of the organization is a requisite for the success of the process. Proper dissemination of information and communication and a focus on people-oriented leadership that is synchronous with the organizational goals and objectives for success is also a decisive factor in mitigating the risks. In addition to that proper arrangement and assignment of tasks and duties and the driving motivation towards the implementation of the change is perhaps an essential mix of ingredients that is crucial for the success of implementation of change initiative in any organization. To survive and augment the scope and growth, organizations must rapidly get used to the inevitable changes in their environment by having flexibility in their work procedures. If companies do not change, they might lose the ability to even compete with existing market, let alone the prospects of growth. When the external environment changes the market gets saturated or even expectedly different from what it had been previously. What the company possesses thus becomes unimportant or is superseded if not flexibly upgraded or responsively changes with the dynamic environment; therefore to avoid it, organizations must properly manage and adapt to ‘change’ or eventually die. References Barling J.& Kelloway E. K. (1996) Job insecurity and health: Stress Medicine. Bellou Victoria (2006). Psychological contract assessment after a major organizational change: The case of mergers and acquisitions: University of Macedonia, Greece. Burnes B. (2000) Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics, 3rd ed. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. De Witte H. (1999) Job insecurity and psychological well-being: European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Eden D., Aviram A. (1993) Self-efficacy training and speed of reemployment: Helping people help themselves: Journal of Applied Psychology. Herold D.M., Fedor D.B., Caldwell S.D. (2007) Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change: Journal of Applied Psychology Jackson S.E, Schuler R.S., Vredenburg D.J. (1987) Managing stress in turbulent times: Praeger. Moran J.W., Brightman B.K. (2001) Leading organizational change: Career Development International. Nadler D.A. (1982) Managing transitions to uncertain future states: Organizational Dynamics. Read More