Session 4: The Change Process
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Session 4: The Change Process as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,766
- Pages: 64
Session 4
The change process
Planning and preparation for change
Once a manager or a group of managers has been convinced that change is necessary and that accurate diagnosis has been made of the cause requiring change, preparation for the changes can begin.
Planning and preparation for change The change process Planning and preparation
Implementation
Evaluation
Dealing with resistance to change
Planning and preparation for change
Such planning calls for attention to several issues:
Timing Building support Communication Participation Incentives
Timing
Managers are often tempted to initiate something quickly, especially if the need for change seems exceptionally strong.
Acting too quickly can lead to changes that are not well planned and that fail because they lack sufficient support.
On the other hand, waiting too long time to make necessary changes can also be a recipe for failure.
Right timing is crucial and critical to success.
Building Support
One of the most quarantees for successful implementation is to build support for change in advance.
Requires especially careful consideration of who will be affected by the changes and how they will likely react.
This means that managers need to have a clear understanding of the situation and circumstances in which the changes will take place if they are to increase the probability of success.
It also means that this kind of analysis, in turn, must be followed with support-building activities by the manager.
How? Through …
Communication Participation Incentives
Communication
A key step in building support for major changes is to communicate about them in advance to those who will be affected.
Cooperation is likely to be enhanced and more people understand:
The reasons for the changes The ways those changes are likely to impact them.
Communication Examples of communication such as:
Explained the proposed change to all employees Required hours of training in problem solving Goal setting Conflict management Set up scheduled meetings both individual groups and with the entire workforce.
Communication
In contrast if the reasons for changes cannot be clearly communicated, they may not have high probability of success.
Seldom do change fail because of too much communication
But likely to encounter difficulty when too little information is provided.
Communication
Particularly important in using communication to build support for proposed changes is to provide a compelling rationale for changes.
Those affected need to know the specific objectives of the changes and how those relate to the larger goals and values of the unit or total organization.
Communication
Also important in communication is to focus special attention on those who are likely to be influenced in shaping the attitudes of their colleagues.
In other words, extra effort spent on communication with opinion leaders (those who knows) can be good investment.
Participation
During the planning stage, obtaining the participation of those to be affected by changes can help build later support for those changes.
Participation can build trust because those initiating the changes, in effect, are allowing themselves to be influenced about how and when to make the changes.
Participation
Use of participation is not cost free.
It takes time and effort on the manager’s part.
Participation may backfire if participants’ suggestions and requests are diverge widely from managers’ goal.
Furthermore, if those asked to participate sense that their input is not really wanted and that management is only ‘going through the motion,’ this can quickly lead to feeling of being “manipulated.”
In such cases participation has eroded rather than support for change.
Participation
Nevertheless, participation should be least be considered as a viable approach.
The real issue is whether the failure to use participation creates more problems for the changes than will the use of participation.
The answer is often “yes.”
Incentives
Other factor that can help build support for change is to emphasize incentives for those who will be affected.
Simply communicating how the change itself will directly affect them in a positive way can often increase support.
Examples are:
Installation of new equipment to make work easier. Or reorganization to provide clearer direction. Or additional training to add to an employee’s skills.
Incentives
Providing incentives may involve conferring benefits directly to those affected.
This could include either non-monetary incentives such as:
A better accessed facilities. a more desirable working conditions. Or the use of some form of monetary incentives such as increased compensation for increased responsibilities.
Incentive
Managers should consider some important cautions when using incentives to generate change.
One is that providing incentives to those likely to be affected may make them feel they are being “bought over.”
Thus use if incentives for change, especially monetary incentive, can potentially create skepticism and cynicism of managers’ motives and thus, increase resistance to changes.
Incentive
Furthermore, offering explicit incentives one time for a change may increase the probability that those affected will expect incentives any time a new change is made in the future.
Therefore, introducing incentives as a way for building support for change is not something that should be done lightly and without consideration of possible serious, though unintended, side effects.
Implementation Choices
Where planning for change leaves off and implementation of change begins, it is often difficult to specify because the process is more or less continuous.
Implementing change involves several critical choices for managers:
Choices of approach Choices of amount Choices of rate
Implementation of choices Choice of approaches (we discussed that earlier) involves these options:
Technology Structure Culture Strategy Process People
Choice of approach
To initiate the change process, one or more of these focuses need to be selected.
The choice depends in large part on the objectives to be accomplished, which in turn are linked to the problems identified in the assessment of the need to change.
For e.g. if the major problems is outdated equipment, then obviously changing the technology will be the approach of choice.
Choice of approach
However if the problem is one sluggish growth in sales compared with competitors, then choice of approach is not so selfevident.
It could be that the organization is not sufficiently market-oriented, which could indicate a need for change in the culture of the organization.
Choice of amount
Either :
Small Moderate Major
Choice of amount
Even after managers have decided what approaches to take and have started to implement those choices, they must also confront another set of issues:
How much change should take place?
That is, how comprehensive should the change be affected? When change is too little, the benefits are not likely to outweigh the costs involved.
Choice of amount
Changes can be too massive or too small
Although managers may be tempted to make big changes, once they decide to make change, they often overlook the potential costs.
Very large changes are sometimes what is called for, especially when major changes are occurring in the unit’s or organization’s environment.
Studies showed that companies that engaged in burst of very large changes rather than a series of small, incremental changes were better able to cope with an extremely volatile environment.
Choice of amount
Any change can cause resistance and big changes can cause immense resistance.
Thus too great a change, in effect, can create more chaos and more problems.
When this happen, no change at all would have been better than change that was made.
Choice of amount
Another aspect of the amount of change that needs to be considered is the frequency of changes.
In these times of competitive pressure and relative turbulence in many organizational environments, change must be implemented much more often than in the past.
In some sense, change is a more or less constant condition
Choice of amount
If specific changes, especially those of at least moderate size, are made continually, organization members can get mentally exhausted.
Imagine, for example, that you are a member of a sales department in a large, geographically dispersed company:
First management decides that sales department data should be centralized and install a new data information system linking all geographic region.
Next, management institutes a team structure linking sales with marketing and R & D personnel for new projects.
Choice of amount
Each of these changes, by itself, may improve customer satisfaction and employee performance.
However, if they all occur with a short space of time, you might not have time to adjust to any one change before finding yourself in the midst of a new change.
Therefore, the frequency of changes must be considered along with their size to gauge the effects on those who will have to respond.
Choice of amount
The lessons for managers is that great care must be taken in deciding how much change should be implemented.
Potential problems exist in making too small or not enough change.
Similarly, there can be potential dangers in making too large or too many changes.
Choice of amount
In particular instances, however, one of these extremes may in fact be the best alternatives.
The general guideline, therefore, is that the amount of change should fit the severity of the problems.
This should be determined by sound analysis of the strength of the need for change.
Choice of rate
Just as the amount and frequency of change represent important choices in making changes, so does the rate of change.
If the pace of change is too slow, conditions that created the need for it in the first place may again shift significantly.
Diverted back to square one
Also change that is too slow can frustrate many people, who want to see at least some early and tangible results for their efforts.
See e.g … that follows …
Choice of rate
For e.g. suppose a company spent several months putting together new work teams and training employees in decision-making techniques, group processes, conflict resolution techniques and use of computerized performance tracking.
Then, however, suppose it delayed installing the new equipment and software.
Employees would likely be frustrated by not being able to put their new knowledge and skills to immediate use.
Choice of rate
Change that is too rapid can also cause major problems.
Whether the change is primary technological, structural, procedural or some other focus, people need to adapt to the rate.
Rate that are excessively fast can exceed the typical person’s ability to cope and thus, increase resentment and resistance.
It has been suggested that in situation of rapid change, the work experience may be so stressful and so damaging to a person’s self-identity as to trigger violent behavior.
Choice of rate
Just as the rate of speed of a car can be increased or decreased depending on the road conditions, so can the rate of change in organizational settings.
Just as in a car, if the rate is changed too often or too drastic, it can be very uncomfortable for those required to adapt.
This in turn can reduce confidence in the person responsible for the changes.
Resistance to change
Although almost any change carries with it a seed of resistance, managers are often surprised, and frequently disappointed by it.
Some degree of resistance may be inevitable in organizational changes but overcoming that resistance is not easy.
In this section, we examine some of the reasons for resistance and some general approaches for dealing with it.
Reasons for Resistance
Change embodies potential risks and threats for those affected.
They think they know how to size up those risks and threats in their present situation, but they are uncertain what they will be in the changed situation.
Reasons for resistance
Within the overall context, some more specific reasons for resisting change can be identified:
Inertia (feeling of unwillingness to do anything)
People in organization get comfortable with their present ways of doing things.
Even if they perceive no increase in risk, people simply find it easier to do things the way they always have rather than to operate or behave differently.
Ingrained and over-learned habit die hard.
Reasons for resistance
Mistrust
Even if those proposing change emphasize positive future consequences, people often doubt that they will actually occur.
Such skepticism is especially magnified if change occurs in an existing climate of mistrust or if previous change effort have failed.
Reasons for resistance
Lack of information
A third contributing factor to resistance to change can be a lack of adequate information about both the need for the change and what its effects are likely to be.
Even a seemingly small change such as a minor reorganization of a specific unit can produce opposition, often of a subtle nature, simply because basic information was not provided.
Reasons for resistance
Anticipate Consequences
Another reason for resistance can be straight forward assessment of expected gains and losses by those affected.
In other words, employees determine what is best for protection of their self-interests.
Those affected by the change may consider possible loss of status or influenced, which may be ignored or underestimates by the managers who are instigating the change.
Dealing with resistance to change
There are no “quick fix” to reduce or eliminate resistance.
However, that does not mean that nothing can be done and therefore, having a framework for analyzing the resistance can be helpful.
Dealing with resistance to change Force Field Analysis
One very useful way of looking at the problem of resistance is what is called a “force field analysis” as proposed by psychologist Kurt Lewin.
The uses of the concept of equilibrium, a condition that occurs when the forces for change , the “driving forces,” are roughly balanced by forces opposing change , the “restraining forces,”. (please see hand-out material for description)
Force field analysis
If we apply this analysis to typical organizational changes, we see that managers basically have two choices:
Add more force for change, such as putting more pressure on subordinates to conform to new procedures OR
Reduce the resistance forces, such as convincing informal leaders that they will benefit from change.
Force field analysis
The basic problem with increasing the driving forces is that this often results in increasing the opposing forces.
Therefore, Lewin analysis suggests that weakening restraining may be the more effective way to bring about change.
Kurt Lewin’s force field theory
According to Kurt Lewin’s theory, every behavior is the result of an equilibrium between driving forces, which push for change and restraining forces, which resist change and strive to maintain the status quo.
Forces of resistance include the existing organization culture, individual employees’ self-interests and differing perceptions of organization goals and strategies.
Force field theory
In Lewin’s view, people find it difficult, if not impossible, to change long-established attitudes and behavior.
Even if they do make changes, they will soon return to their old ways if the new ways are not reinforced.
To prevent this, Lewin suggest a three-step process:
Unfreezing existing behavior patterns Using a change agent to help employees identify with and internalize new attitudes, values and behavior Refreezing to lock in the new behavior patterns.
Force field theory
Unfreezing – making the need for change so obvious that the individual, group or organization can readily see and accept that change must occur.
Change agent – the individual leading or guiding the process of change in an organization situation.
Refreezing – transforming a new behavioral pattern into the norm through reinforcement and support mechanisms.
Dealing with resistance to change
Negotiation
Negotiating too early with those who may resist could be wasted effort because the issues to be negotiated or the degree of resistance may not yet be clear.
If resistance is primary due to lack of information, entering into negotiations too may only increase resistance, thus strengthening a restraining force.
Negotiation
People may resist managers’ negotiation efforts since they feel they cannot make intelligent decisions about offers or counteroffers because they lack sufficient information.
Information is crucial under the negotiation table.
Managers should have sufficient and reliable information.
Participation
Participation may be very effective in defusing some resistance, or even identifying valid reasons why the change might not work, but it can be a costly use of everyone’s time and can be risky for managers because the outcomes are hard to predict.
For e.g. in a setting in which past change efforts have failed or have hurt employees (e.g., through layoffs), asking people’s participation may not seem legitimate.
Communication
Communication can be relatively inexpensive but if it comes too late, it may not have much effect.
For e.g. communicating and emphasizing to employees that a firm’s profit have dropped sharply, after layoffs have already been announced, may seem like an after-the-fact attempt to justify the layoffs action
may only result in increased levels of mistrust and resistance in the future.
Facilitation
Facilitation and support would be welcomed by those who might not want to go along with the changes but the costs can be substantial.
For e.g GE hires consultants to help with its “workout” program, a series of “town meetings” in which managers and employees meet for frank discussions of the business and to find solution to key problems
These consultants cost about $5000 to $10000 per day in fees plus expenses.
At that rate, it doesn’t take many days to rack up sizable bill.
Coercion
Coercion, such as threatening transfer or denying future promotions, is risky and not design to lessen resistance but it may overcome resistance in short term.
For this to work, management must have the power to follow through with threats and the threats must be of sufficient magnitude to motivate compliance on the part of employees.
In extreme situations, managers have no other choice but if this option is chosen, managers need to recognize that it will be highly likely to increase mistrust and resistance to change effort in the future.
Coercion
(means compel or force)
A final point to be made about dealing with resistance to change is that managers should recognize that the amount and nature of resistance may be very useful diagnostic tools to gauge whether the change is appropriate and will actually bring about desired results if implemented.
To put this another way, managers need to listen to resistance and determine whether they have accurately assessed the need for change and the process of implementation.
Just because resistance arises certainly does not mean that the proposed change must be abandoned or postponed.
Thus understanding the need for change is important.
Evaluation of change outcomes
Once change has been carried out, whether the entire organization or within one unit, managers need to evaluate the outcomes.
If the effect of changes are not appraised in some manner, managers have no way of knowing whether additional changes are needed and also whether the particular approaches implemented should be use again in similar circumstances.
To carry out the evaluation process, three steps are required:
Data collection. Comparison of outcomes against goals. Feedback of results.
Data collection
Data must be collected to evaluate the outcomes of change essentially come in two forms:
Objective or quantitative data Subjective or attitude data
Both types can be useful to the manager who has implemented change.
Data collection
For e.g after introducing major new information technology, a manager could evaluate by measuring changes in output per employee, speed of respond to customers, accuracy in reports, attitudes of employees users within the organization, and attitudes of clients who deal with employees using the new technology.
It is important to keep in mind that the collection of different sets of data to measure change outcomes may well require significant costs.
Therefore, not every type of data that could be collected should be collected.
Data collection
But the point is that significant sources of data should not be overlooked.
The more types of data that can be collected, the more likely the analysis of the effects will be informative.
Date should be collected at periodical intervals to measure the lasting power of the change.
Comparisons of outcomes against goals Collection of data is only a first step in evaluating outcomes.
The crucial next step is the comparison of those outcomes against goals and various benchmarks or standards set in advance of the change.
Without those goals and standards, interpretation of the data will be almost meaningless.
Comparisons of outcomes against goals To know that sales increased by 3% is interesting but lack meaning unless it can be compared with some explicit objective, such as 5%.
Likewise, to know that employees’ job satisfaction after the change averages 3.5 on a 5-point scale doesn’t tell a manager much unless that can be measured against a goal of “at least 3.0”.
Goals and benchmarks that have been specified in advance of change efforts provide the basis for making meaningful relative comparisons.
Feedback of results
A final step in evaluating outcomes is communication of the finding to those who are involved with or affected by the change.
Failure to provide feedback can leave subordinates and other employees with a sense of frustration.
They may even question a manager’s motives for not supplying it.
It can also produce an element of distrust, making it even harder to carry out successfully changes in future.
Managers can provide feedback to both superiors and subordinates in a variety of ways:
Written report Direct oral reports Briefings Discussion with small groups
Feedback of results
No one method is more effective than others.
The key point is that in nearly all cases, some feedback about the effects of changes is better than no communication at all.
End of lecture.
The change process
Planning and preparation for change
Once a manager or a group of managers has been convinced that change is necessary and that accurate diagnosis has been made of the cause requiring change, preparation for the changes can begin.
Planning and preparation for change The change process Planning and preparation
Implementation
Evaluation
Dealing with resistance to change
Planning and preparation for change
Such planning calls for attention to several issues:
Timing Building support Communication Participation Incentives
Timing
Managers are often tempted to initiate something quickly, especially if the need for change seems exceptionally strong.
Acting too quickly can lead to changes that are not well planned and that fail because they lack sufficient support.
On the other hand, waiting too long time to make necessary changes can also be a recipe for failure.
Right timing is crucial and critical to success.
Building Support
One of the most quarantees for successful implementation is to build support for change in advance.
Requires especially careful consideration of who will be affected by the changes and how they will likely react.
This means that managers need to have a clear understanding of the situation and circumstances in which the changes will take place if they are to increase the probability of success.
It also means that this kind of analysis, in turn, must be followed with support-building activities by the manager.
How? Through …
Communication Participation Incentives
Communication
A key step in building support for major changes is to communicate about them in advance to those who will be affected.
Cooperation is likely to be enhanced and more people understand:
The reasons for the changes The ways those changes are likely to impact them.
Communication Examples of communication such as:
Explained the proposed change to all employees Required hours of training in problem solving Goal setting Conflict management Set up scheduled meetings both individual groups and with the entire workforce.
Communication
In contrast if the reasons for changes cannot be clearly communicated, they may not have high probability of success.
Seldom do change fail because of too much communication
But likely to encounter difficulty when too little information is provided.
Communication
Particularly important in using communication to build support for proposed changes is to provide a compelling rationale for changes.
Those affected need to know the specific objectives of the changes and how those relate to the larger goals and values of the unit or total organization.
Communication
Also important in communication is to focus special attention on those who are likely to be influenced in shaping the attitudes of their colleagues.
In other words, extra effort spent on communication with opinion leaders (those who knows) can be good investment.
Participation
During the planning stage, obtaining the participation of those to be affected by changes can help build later support for those changes.
Participation can build trust because those initiating the changes, in effect, are allowing themselves to be influenced about how and when to make the changes.
Participation
Use of participation is not cost free.
It takes time and effort on the manager’s part.
Participation may backfire if participants’ suggestions and requests are diverge widely from managers’ goal.
Furthermore, if those asked to participate sense that their input is not really wanted and that management is only ‘going through the motion,’ this can quickly lead to feeling of being “manipulated.”
In such cases participation has eroded rather than support for change.
Participation
Nevertheless, participation should be least be considered as a viable approach.
The real issue is whether the failure to use participation creates more problems for the changes than will the use of participation.
The answer is often “yes.”
Incentives
Other factor that can help build support for change is to emphasize incentives for those who will be affected.
Simply communicating how the change itself will directly affect them in a positive way can often increase support.
Examples are:
Installation of new equipment to make work easier. Or reorganization to provide clearer direction. Or additional training to add to an employee’s skills.
Incentives
Providing incentives may involve conferring benefits directly to those affected.
This could include either non-monetary incentives such as:
A better accessed facilities. a more desirable working conditions. Or the use of some form of monetary incentives such as increased compensation for increased responsibilities.
Incentive
Managers should consider some important cautions when using incentives to generate change.
One is that providing incentives to those likely to be affected may make them feel they are being “bought over.”
Thus use if incentives for change, especially monetary incentive, can potentially create skepticism and cynicism of managers’ motives and thus, increase resistance to changes.
Incentive
Furthermore, offering explicit incentives one time for a change may increase the probability that those affected will expect incentives any time a new change is made in the future.
Therefore, introducing incentives as a way for building support for change is not something that should be done lightly and without consideration of possible serious, though unintended, side effects.
Implementation Choices
Where planning for change leaves off and implementation of change begins, it is often difficult to specify because the process is more or less continuous.
Implementing change involves several critical choices for managers:
Choices of approach Choices of amount Choices of rate
Implementation of choices Choice of approaches (we discussed that earlier) involves these options:
Technology Structure Culture Strategy Process People
Choice of approach
To initiate the change process, one or more of these focuses need to be selected.
The choice depends in large part on the objectives to be accomplished, which in turn are linked to the problems identified in the assessment of the need to change.
For e.g. if the major problems is outdated equipment, then obviously changing the technology will be the approach of choice.
Choice of approach
However if the problem is one sluggish growth in sales compared with competitors, then choice of approach is not so selfevident.
It could be that the organization is not sufficiently market-oriented, which could indicate a need for change in the culture of the organization.
Choice of amount
Either :
Small Moderate Major
Choice of amount
Even after managers have decided what approaches to take and have started to implement those choices, they must also confront another set of issues:
How much change should take place?
That is, how comprehensive should the change be affected? When change is too little, the benefits are not likely to outweigh the costs involved.
Choice of amount
Changes can be too massive or too small
Although managers may be tempted to make big changes, once they decide to make change, they often overlook the potential costs.
Very large changes are sometimes what is called for, especially when major changes are occurring in the unit’s or organization’s environment.
Studies showed that companies that engaged in burst of very large changes rather than a series of small, incremental changes were better able to cope with an extremely volatile environment.
Choice of amount
Any change can cause resistance and big changes can cause immense resistance.
Thus too great a change, in effect, can create more chaos and more problems.
When this happen, no change at all would have been better than change that was made.
Choice of amount
Another aspect of the amount of change that needs to be considered is the frequency of changes.
In these times of competitive pressure and relative turbulence in many organizational environments, change must be implemented much more often than in the past.
In some sense, change is a more or less constant condition
Choice of amount
If specific changes, especially those of at least moderate size, are made continually, organization members can get mentally exhausted.
Imagine, for example, that you are a member of a sales department in a large, geographically dispersed company:
First management decides that sales department data should be centralized and install a new data information system linking all geographic region.
Next, management institutes a team structure linking sales with marketing and R & D personnel for new projects.
Choice of amount
Each of these changes, by itself, may improve customer satisfaction and employee performance.
However, if they all occur with a short space of time, you might not have time to adjust to any one change before finding yourself in the midst of a new change.
Therefore, the frequency of changes must be considered along with their size to gauge the effects on those who will have to respond.
Choice of amount
The lessons for managers is that great care must be taken in deciding how much change should be implemented.
Potential problems exist in making too small or not enough change.
Similarly, there can be potential dangers in making too large or too many changes.
Choice of amount
In particular instances, however, one of these extremes may in fact be the best alternatives.
The general guideline, therefore, is that the amount of change should fit the severity of the problems.
This should be determined by sound analysis of the strength of the need for change.
Choice of rate
Just as the amount and frequency of change represent important choices in making changes, so does the rate of change.
If the pace of change is too slow, conditions that created the need for it in the first place may again shift significantly.
Diverted back to square one
Also change that is too slow can frustrate many people, who want to see at least some early and tangible results for their efforts.
See e.g … that follows …
Choice of rate
For e.g. suppose a company spent several months putting together new work teams and training employees in decision-making techniques, group processes, conflict resolution techniques and use of computerized performance tracking.
Then, however, suppose it delayed installing the new equipment and software.
Employees would likely be frustrated by not being able to put their new knowledge and skills to immediate use.
Choice of rate
Change that is too rapid can also cause major problems.
Whether the change is primary technological, structural, procedural or some other focus, people need to adapt to the rate.
Rate that are excessively fast can exceed the typical person’s ability to cope and thus, increase resentment and resistance.
It has been suggested that in situation of rapid change, the work experience may be so stressful and so damaging to a person’s self-identity as to trigger violent behavior.
Choice of rate
Just as the rate of speed of a car can be increased or decreased depending on the road conditions, so can the rate of change in organizational settings.
Just as in a car, if the rate is changed too often or too drastic, it can be very uncomfortable for those required to adapt.
This in turn can reduce confidence in the person responsible for the changes.
Resistance to change
Although almost any change carries with it a seed of resistance, managers are often surprised, and frequently disappointed by it.
Some degree of resistance may be inevitable in organizational changes but overcoming that resistance is not easy.
In this section, we examine some of the reasons for resistance and some general approaches for dealing with it.
Reasons for Resistance
Change embodies potential risks and threats for those affected.
They think they know how to size up those risks and threats in their present situation, but they are uncertain what they will be in the changed situation.
Reasons for resistance
Within the overall context, some more specific reasons for resisting change can be identified:
Inertia (feeling of unwillingness to do anything)
People in organization get comfortable with their present ways of doing things.
Even if they perceive no increase in risk, people simply find it easier to do things the way they always have rather than to operate or behave differently.
Ingrained and over-learned habit die hard.
Reasons for resistance
Mistrust
Even if those proposing change emphasize positive future consequences, people often doubt that they will actually occur.
Such skepticism is especially magnified if change occurs in an existing climate of mistrust or if previous change effort have failed.
Reasons for resistance
Lack of information
A third contributing factor to resistance to change can be a lack of adequate information about both the need for the change and what its effects are likely to be.
Even a seemingly small change such as a minor reorganization of a specific unit can produce opposition, often of a subtle nature, simply because basic information was not provided.
Reasons for resistance
Anticipate Consequences
Another reason for resistance can be straight forward assessment of expected gains and losses by those affected.
In other words, employees determine what is best for protection of their self-interests.
Those affected by the change may consider possible loss of status or influenced, which may be ignored or underestimates by the managers who are instigating the change.
Dealing with resistance to change
There are no “quick fix” to reduce or eliminate resistance.
However, that does not mean that nothing can be done and therefore, having a framework for analyzing the resistance can be helpful.
Dealing with resistance to change Force Field Analysis
One very useful way of looking at the problem of resistance is what is called a “force field analysis” as proposed by psychologist Kurt Lewin.
The uses of the concept of equilibrium, a condition that occurs when the forces for change , the “driving forces,” are roughly balanced by forces opposing change , the “restraining forces,”. (please see hand-out material for description)
Force field analysis
If we apply this analysis to typical organizational changes, we see that managers basically have two choices:
Add more force for change, such as putting more pressure on subordinates to conform to new procedures OR
Reduce the resistance forces, such as convincing informal leaders that they will benefit from change.
Force field analysis
The basic problem with increasing the driving forces is that this often results in increasing the opposing forces.
Therefore, Lewin analysis suggests that weakening restraining may be the more effective way to bring about change.
Kurt Lewin’s force field theory
According to Kurt Lewin’s theory, every behavior is the result of an equilibrium between driving forces, which push for change and restraining forces, which resist change and strive to maintain the status quo.
Forces of resistance include the existing organization culture, individual employees’ self-interests and differing perceptions of organization goals and strategies.
Force field theory
In Lewin’s view, people find it difficult, if not impossible, to change long-established attitudes and behavior.
Even if they do make changes, they will soon return to their old ways if the new ways are not reinforced.
To prevent this, Lewin suggest a three-step process:
Unfreezing existing behavior patterns Using a change agent to help employees identify with and internalize new attitudes, values and behavior Refreezing to lock in the new behavior patterns.
Force field theory
Unfreezing – making the need for change so obvious that the individual, group or organization can readily see and accept that change must occur.
Change agent – the individual leading or guiding the process of change in an organization situation.
Refreezing – transforming a new behavioral pattern into the norm through reinforcement and support mechanisms.
Dealing with resistance to change
Negotiation
Negotiating too early with those who may resist could be wasted effort because the issues to be negotiated or the degree of resistance may not yet be clear.
If resistance is primary due to lack of information, entering into negotiations too may only increase resistance, thus strengthening a restraining force.
Negotiation
People may resist managers’ negotiation efforts since they feel they cannot make intelligent decisions about offers or counteroffers because they lack sufficient information.
Information is crucial under the negotiation table.
Managers should have sufficient and reliable information.
Participation
Participation may be very effective in defusing some resistance, or even identifying valid reasons why the change might not work, but it can be a costly use of everyone’s time and can be risky for managers because the outcomes are hard to predict.
For e.g. in a setting in which past change efforts have failed or have hurt employees (e.g., through layoffs), asking people’s participation may not seem legitimate.
Communication
Communication can be relatively inexpensive but if it comes too late, it may not have much effect.
For e.g. communicating and emphasizing to employees that a firm’s profit have dropped sharply, after layoffs have already been announced, may seem like an after-the-fact attempt to justify the layoffs action
may only result in increased levels of mistrust and resistance in the future.
Facilitation
Facilitation and support would be welcomed by those who might not want to go along with the changes but the costs can be substantial.
For e.g GE hires consultants to help with its “workout” program, a series of “town meetings” in which managers and employees meet for frank discussions of the business and to find solution to key problems
These consultants cost about $5000 to $10000 per day in fees plus expenses.
At that rate, it doesn’t take many days to rack up sizable bill.
Coercion
Coercion, such as threatening transfer or denying future promotions, is risky and not design to lessen resistance but it may overcome resistance in short term.
For this to work, management must have the power to follow through with threats and the threats must be of sufficient magnitude to motivate compliance on the part of employees.
In extreme situations, managers have no other choice but if this option is chosen, managers need to recognize that it will be highly likely to increase mistrust and resistance to change effort in the future.
Coercion
(means compel or force)
A final point to be made about dealing with resistance to change is that managers should recognize that the amount and nature of resistance may be very useful diagnostic tools to gauge whether the change is appropriate and will actually bring about desired results if implemented.
To put this another way, managers need to listen to resistance and determine whether they have accurately assessed the need for change and the process of implementation.
Just because resistance arises certainly does not mean that the proposed change must be abandoned or postponed.
Thus understanding the need for change is important.
Evaluation of change outcomes
Once change has been carried out, whether the entire organization or within one unit, managers need to evaluate the outcomes.
If the effect of changes are not appraised in some manner, managers have no way of knowing whether additional changes are needed and also whether the particular approaches implemented should be use again in similar circumstances.
To carry out the evaluation process, three steps are required:
Data collection. Comparison of outcomes against goals. Feedback of results.
Data collection
Data must be collected to evaluate the outcomes of change essentially come in two forms:
Objective or quantitative data Subjective or attitude data
Both types can be useful to the manager who has implemented change.
Data collection
For e.g after introducing major new information technology, a manager could evaluate by measuring changes in output per employee, speed of respond to customers, accuracy in reports, attitudes of employees users within the organization, and attitudes of clients who deal with employees using the new technology.
It is important to keep in mind that the collection of different sets of data to measure change outcomes may well require significant costs.
Therefore, not every type of data that could be collected should be collected.
Data collection
But the point is that significant sources of data should not be overlooked.
The more types of data that can be collected, the more likely the analysis of the effects will be informative.
Date should be collected at periodical intervals to measure the lasting power of the change.
Comparisons of outcomes against goals Collection of data is only a first step in evaluating outcomes.
The crucial next step is the comparison of those outcomes against goals and various benchmarks or standards set in advance of the change.
Without those goals and standards, interpretation of the data will be almost meaningless.
Comparisons of outcomes against goals To know that sales increased by 3% is interesting but lack meaning unless it can be compared with some explicit objective, such as 5%.
Likewise, to know that employees’ job satisfaction after the change averages 3.5 on a 5-point scale doesn’t tell a manager much unless that can be measured against a goal of “at least 3.0”.
Goals and benchmarks that have been specified in advance of change efforts provide the basis for making meaningful relative comparisons.
Feedback of results
A final step in evaluating outcomes is communication of the finding to those who are involved with or affected by the change.
Failure to provide feedback can leave subordinates and other employees with a sense of frustration.
They may even question a manager’s motives for not supplying it.
It can also produce an element of distrust, making it even harder to carry out successfully changes in future.
Managers can provide feedback to both superiors and subordinates in a variety of ways:
Written report Direct oral reports Briefings Discussion with small groups
Feedback of results
No one method is more effective than others.
The key point is that in nearly all cases, some feedback about the effects of changes is better than no communication at all.
End of lecture.
Related Documents
Session 4: The Change Process
May 2020 10
2.3 Employment Change Process (4
November 2019 15
Session 4
May 2020 8
Session 4
June 2020 4
Process Of Change
May 2020 22
Session 4
May 2020 17More Documents from "Rosa"
2 Focus Of Organization Change
May 2020 5