Resistance to Change

Sarah Patterson

MGT540 – Assignment 3

Appendix

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Resistance to Change …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Trust ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Communication ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Disagreement …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Managers Response to Change Resistance …………………………………………………………………. 3

Organisational Example of Managing Change Resistance …………………………………………… 4

Power and Change Resistance ……………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6

Appendix One – Psychological Contract Iceberg Model ……………………………………………… 8

Appendix Two – Fisher Transition Curve ……………………………………………………………………. 9

Appendix Three – B-M Communication Model ………………………………………………………….. 10

Appendix Four – CAN Communication Plan ……………………………………………………………….. 11

Resistance to Change

The idea that there is resistance to change and that managers must overcome it, interferes with successful change implementation (Dent, and Goldberg, 1999). Resistance is seen as adversarial ‐ the enemy of change that must be defeated if change is to be successful (Waddel, and Sohal, 1998). For the resistance also ‘has an important role in developing organizational discourses towards mutual understanding’ (Erkama, 2010) purposes of this essay there will be critical analysis of resistance to change, managerial responses to change resistance, and the relationship between power and resistance.

Resistance to Change

Change is constant, and organisations are constantly changing, evolving, restructuring and streamlining their workplaces and processes. Change Agents and Managers are developing and implementing change management processes, but are being halted by employees who resist the change. Resistance can take many forms, active or passive, localised or globalised, negative or creative, or transformational (Gill, 2008). So, what is change resistance and why does it occur? There are many reasons why people resist change, but for the purposes of this paper, trust, communication, and disagreement will be analysed.

Trust

Strebel (1996) identified that resistance to change is a side-effect of damage to, or lack of nurturing of, the psychological contract between employee and employer. The psychological contract is the tacit or implicit set of offerings that each party will present to the other, and builds trust and harmony within the workplace (see Appendix 1 – The Psychological Contract Iceberg Model). In reviewing the offerings that the employer is promising (security, safety, wellbeing, control, etc.) one can see how change can be foreseen as a threat by the employee, and largescale change such as restructuring, globalization, and downsizing can violate the psychological contract and lead to resistance, apathy, or complete disengagement (Robinson, 1996) (Rousseau, 2001) (Saunders, and Thornhill, 2006). Change challenges the status quo, it offers new opportunities, but also new threats, and in the absence of good leadership, it leads to a dangerous uncertainty.

Communication

Communication is the cornerstone of any intervention, after all engagement and buy-in are based on good communication, so what happens when the communication is lacking, or the message is inconsistent?Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) explain that the opposite of change resistance is change readiness, and both are derived from theemployees’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. So it is only through communicating these beliefs and intentions, and being truly heard, that employees can approach change with eagerness rather than apprehension. Smeltzer (1991) detailed the importance of good, clear and timely communication in approaching change initiatives. He studied 43 different companies undergoing change and identified that failed communication resulted in inaccurate and negative rumours, which not only perpetuated, but spread fear of change and change resistance. Smeltzer (1991) surmised that the timing of critical communications most differentiated between effective and ineffective strategies, but also that the content is critical, as employees within his study reacted negatively to euphemisms and overly positive announcements. It is for this reason that organisations are implementing Change Communication tools and strategies (Appendix 3 – B-M Change Communication Tool), and having Change Agents, Change Agent Networks, and Managers briefed on what to communicate, when and how – so as to release cogent and cohesive information in a timely fashion.

Disagreement

When reviewing the reasons why people resist change, ‘communication’ looks at how the Managers have failed to impart or listen to information; ‘trust’ identifies the way in which relationships define the change, and ‘Disagreement’ explains those employees who resist the change because they simply do not agree with it. De Jager (2001) explains that trying to eradicate change resistance will eradicate the necessary function of change resistance – to avoid unnecessary change. Employees analyse the organisation, analyse the proposed change, and identify whether or not this is the right course of action. If they see the necessity and the value, they support and align with the change. If they do not see any value, the may resist the change or become apathetic or ambivalent – which is much worse than resistant (Piderit, 2000)

Manager’s responses to Change Resistance

Literature around change resistance can often be on sided and propose that resistance is an irrational and dysfunctional reaction by change recipients that needs to be challenged and overcome by Change Agents and Managers (Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio, 2008). Folger, and Skarlicki (1999) asserts thatresentment‐based resistance as a subset of all possible resistance behaviours – which implies a negative connotation to change resistance. In actuality, resistance is the first step to change (Hay, 1991), it is a normal part of the process, an understandable initial response, and something that needs to be understood by Change Agents and Managers, not challenged, but this is not always the case.

Change resistance is often demonised by Managers as it is seen to be an act of rebellion or non-compliance, instead of a rational response to the changing environment; and Managers do not see the value in the resistance. De Jager (2001) gives an excellent example – If a man does not like snakes, he may choose to eradicate all snakes from the world, but soon the world is overrun with rats, and the man begins to see that the snake (whilst a problem for him) had a valuable function. This is the same with change resistance. Change resistance forces Change Agents and Managers to review their plans and actions, take new steps and measures and consider other options. It enforces the need for communication plans and engagement strategies which increase the cogency and collegiality of the project. But as valuable as each of these tools are, they are also time consuming, often burdensome, and add time to the change initiative; which is why some Managers would rather blind loyalty from their teams rather than rigorous debate, discussion and resistance.

Organisational Example of Managing Change Resistance

The Network is currently undergoing a dramatic period of transformational change to their services, their organisational structure, their processes, and their ICT. The Change Agent that has been employed has identified the potential for change resistance and has developed some key strategies to build engagement, give people the opportunity to put voice to values, and create change leaders.

1)Change Agent Network (CAN)

The CAN is a group of 24 people (3 groups of 8) who come from all levels of the organisation, and have been chosen to lead the change, share information, and be a force for positivity. CAN members have an opportunity to voice concerns over change initiatives, and are a conduit for others working in their areas. This gives people whoresist the change a forum for discussion; and streamlines cohesive and cogent information to the correct people at the appropriate time. This network aligns with the social constructionist view that change is derived from discourse amongst the team (Condor, and Antake, 1997).

2)Change Communication Plan

The Communication Plan details not only what will be shared, but when it will be shared to address issues of misinformation and prevent rumours and disengagement.The Network has a clear communication plan which is implemented through the Leadership Group, and the Change Agent Network (Appendix 4 – CAN Communication).

The organisation is receptive to resistance, and each member of the CAN and the organisation is encouraged to offer suggestions, solutions, or identify issues with the proposed change. There is a register for innovations and ideas which every idea or criticism is added to, and this is reviewed by the Leadership Group each month. Teams are encouraged to question instructions and interventions, are supported to elevate their concerns, and are reassured through the process that they will be informed and consulted prior to any intervention that directly affects them.

Relationship between Power and Resistance

There is an ongoing relationship between power and resistance, “in limiting power, resistance influences the outcome of power relations” (Barbalet, 1985). Some state power and resistance are a dichotomy or a dualism, but from a critical perspective, resistance is not considered as something outside of, or in opposition to power (Knights & Vurdubakis, 1994),(Mumby, 2004), (Fleming and Spicer, 2008).

Power and resistance go hand in hand, as Foucault argues, “while power creates the conditions for its own resistance, opposition draws in the very power it rejects” (Collinson, 2005). This interrelationship between power and resistance sits in the social constructionist view that it is the utterances or discourse between parties that constructs change (Condor & Antaki, 1997), (Phillips & Hardy, 2002), (Erkama, 2010). In this way, power or resistance is not something that sits with an individual, but is a complex mix of relationships within the organisation that shapes decision making and change (Hardy, and Phillips, 2004).

When making decisions regarding large scale change, individual and organisational ethics will always underpin the decision making. Identifying and assessing resistance is a subjective process undertaken by Managers and Change Agents, which Thomas and Hardy (2011) attest is a potential ethical issue. Managers can view employees protests or suggestions as resistance, and afford them more energy that is required (so as to not overlook the resistance) which could potentially waste time and lead to better outcomes. The challenge therefore for the Manager is to assess the resistance on its merits, and try to identify and resist bias within the heuristics of doing so. When the resistance has merit, accepting and welcoming it as part of the discourse that constructs the change offers an opportunity for a better outcomes (Thomas, and Hardy, 2011). Alternatively, rejecting the resistance, leads to the prior example with the snakes – you have responded poorly to a short term annoyance, and created a larger problem, hindering the change management process.

Another ethical issue with resistance and power is the concept that resistance should be celebrated, as opposed to demonised. The challenges associated with this perspective are that then those staff who do not resist the change are seen to be potential non-contributors to the process, or less engaged with the change (Thomas, and Hardy, 2011), (Fleming, and Spicer, 2008). This again isolates a subset of the team, and homogenises the discourse; creating a lost opportunity for collegial and collaborative change management.

Conclusion

Understanding and accepting change resistance is essential to good change management, and more broadly, good leadership. Change resistance is the way in which employees can assert their concerns, express their fears and renegotiate or reassert the psychological contract they have with their employer. Managers who choose to ignore or demonise change resistance miss out on valuable opportunities to add rigour to the discourse, yet over-emphasising the value of resistance is also an issue in itself. In order to afford the organisation the best opportunity to developing and implementing change processes, there needs to be a safe forum in which employees can assess and respond to change processes, and be heard; so that any interventions are collegial, socially constructed, and well communicated.

References

Barbalet, J. M. (1985). Power and resistance. British Journal of Sociology, 531-548.

B-M Change Communication Tool. (2010).Retrieved from

Business Balls (2010) The Psychological Contract Iceberg Model. Retrieved from

Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419—1442

Condor, S., & Antaki, C. (1997). Social cognition and discourse. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 1—34). London: Sage.

De Jager, P. (2001). Resistance to change: A new view of an old problem. The futurist, 35(3), 24.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41.

Erkama, N. (2010) Power and resistance in a multinational organisation. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 26. pp 151-165

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as mistreatment. Journal of organizational change management, 12(1), 35-50.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of management Review, 33(2), 362-377.

Foucault, M., & Bernauer, J. (1981). Is it useless to revolt?. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 8(1), 2-4.

Gill, S. (2008). Power and resistance in the new world order: fully revised and updated. Springer.

Hay, L. L. (1991). The power is within you. Hay House, Inc.

Knights, D., & Vurdubakis, T. (1994). Foucault, power, resistance and all that. In J. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 167—198). London:Routledge.

Mumby, K. (2004). Discourse, Power and Ideology: Unpacking the critical approach. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 237—258). London: Sage.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis. Investigating process of social construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management review, 25(4), 783-794.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative science quarterly, 574-599.

Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74(4), 511-541.

Saunders, M. N., & Thornhill, A. (2006). Forced employment contract change and the psychological contract. Employee Relations, 28(5), 449-467.

Smeltzer, L. R. (1991). An analysis of strategies for announcing organization-wide change. Group & Organization Studies, 16(1), 5-24.

Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change?. Harvard business review, 74(3), 86.

Thomas, R. & Hardy, C. (2011) Reframing resistance to organisational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 27 pp. 322-331.

Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management decision, 36(8), 543-548.

Appendix One – Psychological Contract Iceberg Model

Sarah Patterson

MGT540 – Assignment 3

Appendix Two – Fisher Transition Curve

Appendix Three – B-M Change Communication Model

Sarah Patterson

MGT540 – Assignment 3

Appendix Four – CAN Communications