Changes in government regulations and changes in the economy, for example, are often unplanned. Responsiveness to unplanned change requires tremendous flexibility and adaptability on the part of the organizations. Managers must be prepared to handle both planned and unplanned forms of change in organizations.
Forces for Change
Forces for change can come from many sources. Some of these are external, arising from outside the company, whereas others are internal, arising from sources within the organization.
External Forces
The four major external forces for change are globalization, workforce diversity, technological change, and managing ethical behavior are challenges that precipitate change in organizations.
Internal Forces
Pressures for change that originate inside the organization are generally recognizable in the form of signals indicating that something needs to be altered. Declining effectiveness is a pressure to change. A company that experiences its third quarterly loss within a fiscal year is undoubtedly motivated to do something about it. Some companies react by instituting layoffs and massive cost – cutting programs, whereas others look at the bigger picture, view the loss as symptomatic of an underlying problem, and seek the cause of the problem. A crisis also may stimulate change in an organization. Strikes or walkouts may lead management to change the wage structure. The resignation of a key decision-maker is one crisis that causes the company to rethink the composition of its management team and its role in the organization. Changes in employee expectations also can trigger change in organizations. A company that hires a group of young newcomers may be met with a set of expectations very different from those expressed by older workers. The work force is more educated than ever before. Although this has its advantages, workers with more education demand more of employers. Today’s workforce is also concerned with career and family balance issues, such as dependent care. The many sources of workforce diversity hold potential for a host of differing expectations among employees Changes in the work climate at an organization can also stimulate change. A workforce that seems lethargic, unmotivated, and dissatisfied is a symptom that must be addressed. This symptom is common in organizations that have experienced layoffs. Workers who have escaped a layoff may grieve for those who have lost their jobs and may find it hard to continue to be productive. They may fear that theywill be laid off as well, and many feel insecure in their jobs.
Resistance to Change
People often resist change in a rational response based on self – interest. However, there are countless other reasons people resist change. Many of these center around the notion of reactance – that is, a negative reaction that occurs when individuals feel that their personal freedom is threatened. Some of the major reasons for resisting change follow. Change often brings with it substantial uncertainty. Employees facing a technological change, such as the introduction of a new computer system, may resist the change simply because it introduces ambiguity into what was once a comfortable situation for them. This is especially a problem when there has been a lack of communication about the change. When a change is impending, some employees may fear losing their jobs, particularly when an advanced technology like robotics is introduced. Employees also may fear losing their status because of a change. Computer systems experts, for example, may feel threatened when they feel their expertise is eroded by the installation of a more user –friendly networked information system. Another common fear is that changes may diminish the positive qualities the individual enjoys in some employees fear changes because they fear their own failure. Introducing computers into the workplace often arouses individuals’ self – doubts about their ability to interact with the computer. Resistance can also stem from a fear that the change itself will not really take place. In one large library that was undergoing a major automation effort, employees had their doubts as to whether the vendor could really deliver the state – of – the – art system that was promised. In this case, the implementation never became a reality –the employees’ fears were well founded. Employees may resist change that threatens to limit meaningful interpersonal relationships on the job Librarians facing the automation effort described previously feared that once the computerized system was implemented, they would not be able to interact as they did when they had to go to another floor of the library to get helpfinding a resource. In the new system, with the touch of a few buttons on the computer, they would get their information without consulting another librarian. When the change agent’s personality engenders negative reactions, employees may resist the change. A change agent who appears insensitive, to employee concerns and feelingsmay meet considerable resistance, because employees perceive that their needs are not being taken into account. Organizational change may also shift the existing balance of power in the organization. Individuals or groups who hold power under the current arrangement may be threatened with losing these political advantages in the advent of change. Sometimes cultural assumptions and values can be impediments to change, particularly if the assumptions underlying the change are alien to employees. This form of resistance can be very difficult to overcome, because some cultural assumptions are unconscious. Some cultures tend to avoid uncertainty may be met with great resistance. Some individuals are more tolerant of ambiguity. We have describedseveral sources of resistance to change. The reasons for resistance are as diverse as the workforce itself and vary with individuals and organizations. The challenge for managers is introducing change in a positive manner and managing employee resistance. Managing Resistance to Change The traditional view of resistance to change treated it as something to be overcome, and many organizational attempts to reduce the resistance have only served to intensify it. The contemporary view holds that resistance is simply a form of feedback and this feedback can be used very productively to manage the change process. One key to managing resistance is to plan for it and to be ready with a variety of strategies for using the resistance as feedback and helping employees negotiate the transition. Three key strategies for managing resistance to change are communication, participation, and empathy and support. Communication about impending change is essential if employees are to adjust effectively. The details of the change should be provided, but equally important is the rationale behind the change. Employees want to know why change is needed. If there is no good reason for it, why should they favour the change? Providing accurate and timely information about the change can help prevent unfounded fears and potentially damaging rumours from developing. Delaying the announcement of a change and handling information in a secretive fashion can serve to fuel the rumour mill. Open communication in a culture of trust is a key ingredient for successful change. It is also beneficial to inform people about the potential consequences of the change. Educating employees on new work procedures is often helpful. Studies on the introduction of computers in the workplace indicate that providing employees with opportunities for hands – on practice helps alleviate fears about the new technology. Employees who have experience with computers display more positive attitudes and greater efficacy – a sense that they can master their new tasks. There is substantial research support underscoring the importance of participation in the change process. Employees must be engaged and involved in order for change to work – as supported by the notion “That which we create, we support.” GE’s Workout process that was mentioned earlier is a good illustration of how to get a large group together in a free – form, open – ended meeting. The outcome is a change to which everyone is committed. The group comes together later, after the change is implemented to see what has been learned and to look for what is happening on the horizon. Participation by a large group can move change further along. Participation helps employees.