University of

Hertfordshire

MSc Project Report

Title: Exploration of Resistance to Change by

People within Organisations and its

behaviours.

Author: OMAR HABIB SALEEMI

Pathway Point: OCSM1: MSc Operations & Supply Chain

Management

Year: 2010/2011

Hand-in Date: 12th September 2011

School of Engineering & Technology

Faculty of Science, Technology & Creative Arts

Acknowledgement

Firstly and foremost, I want to thank One God (ALLAH) – the most

merciful and gracious, without whose blessings it would never been

possible. Secondly, I want to thank my supervisor Susan Murray. It has

been an honor to be under her supervision, I appreciate all her

contributions of ideas and time guidelines to start this project, as I kept

moving into researches, the journals, sources and techniques she

provided really helped me in achieving the project aims and objectives.

My parents, who supported me to continue further studies as an

international student in UK, and provided me some more details for

understanding the leadership, organizational problems in the real world.

Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge my brothers Fraz, Yasir and

Tahir and great sister Ashi, in providing me a platform for education and

fulfilling all the basic needs to get quality education by any means. Also I

would like to express my sincere gratitude to Shumaila who supported me

in this country and provide ideal nice living and study environment to

complete post graduate successfully. Lastly, Bundle of thanks to my

fiancé Aqsa, in keeping my moral full of enthusiasm and motivations.

Abstract

Most previous studies of organizational change and its resistances take an

organizational perspective as opposed to an individual perspective. This paper

investigates the resistance to change by people within organization and its

relationship between irrational ideas, emotion and employee psychology of

resisting against the management strategies or changes. Two organizations

implementing change processes were being used for the questionnaire. Few

interviews also been conducted with senior management and executives from

different industries. Strategical tools and models for minimizing resistance to

change and improvising the change process within organization were also

discussed. The result shows that employee are more concerned about the

uncertain future then the change decisions by executives, the experiences for

change failures in the past and unsatisfactory vision of the change made the

employees in a state of psychological disturbance which pushes them to stand

still against the change process thus become a resistor.

Keywords

Resistance to change, change management, organizational transformation

failure, people‟s resistance to change, organizational change.

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Aims and Objective ................................................................................................................................... 2

Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 2

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Resistance Defined .................................................................................................................................... 4

Literature review ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Sources of Change ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Behavior and causes of Resistance ........................................................................................................... 9

Overcoming Resistance to Change ......................................................................................................... 12

Results and finding .................................................................................................................................. 21

Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Interview ................................................................................................................................................. 23

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 25

Reference List .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 29

Introduction 1

1. Introduction

In a changing world, the organizations go through changes of evolution and revolution to

survive and prosper. But often it happens that most change initiatives backfire (Kotter,

2008), this is because if change is not managed properly it can cause employees to resist

the change, which in turn can cripple the organization.

Coetsee (1999) in his public administration paper explains that the ability of management

relies on the creation and maintenance of climate that exploit resistant behavior and on

the other hand maintains the environment of acceptance and employees support

effectively. The resistance is an inevitable response to any major change in organization.

Many authors such as Goldstein 1988, Strebel, 1994, maurer, 1996, Waddell and shoal

and 1998, Lawrence, 1954 stress that the reason for the failure of many change initiatives

can be found in resistance to change.

Change is the process of moving to a different and new state of things, environment,

culture or technology in organization; whereas resistance to change is the response or

reaction appeared against. Resistors lie in various levels of relationship continuum, which

are dependent on managerial behavior or change agents. Blaming resistors is not only

pointless but can actually lead to destructive managerial behaviors (Ford, 2009). Though

the companies must change course to stay aggressive due to the competition and

technological advances, the executives should be well prepared to face the consequences

Introduction 2

of change. The management and the change agent‟s must think critically to explore the

resistance to change by people in organization and its behaviors; otherwise the outcomes

may prove to be disastrous.

The resistance to change by employees can be in different forms – chronic quarrels, go-

slow strikes, rapid decrease in the productivity, asking for the transfers into any other

sections and, of course, the illogical reasons that this change process will fail (Lawrence,

2009). The good change agents and change managers must have an ability to take

immediate steps to deal constructively with these mind-sets which are referred to as

management of resistance to change.

1.1 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this project is to manage the resistance to change by people in organizations,

and the objective is to discuss and provide solutions for the different behaviors and

reactions against changes in organization, using strategies, leadership skills, tactical skill

set and various tools/procedures which will be discussed in the next chapters.

1.2 Research Methodology and Data Collection

An overview on the methods that were used to research this project is given under the

section of introduction. Field research (primary) and desk research (secondary) methods

have been used to achieve the aims of the topic in both qualitative as well as quantitative

manner.

In field research, a postal short questionnaire survey has been completed comprising of

mainly open questions on change management and resistors. Interviews have also been

conducted for the clarity of questionnaire results and practical issues. The desk research

assists on examining the literature and covers the topics: organizational change,

Introduction 3

leadership, change management, labor unions, change agents, negotiation skills, decision

making, resistance by employees, holistic and classical approaches, psychology of

workers and social behaviors. Moreover the internet has been searched for current

industrial issues, and subscribed to various journals sites for another source of desk

research.

The data collection thus includes; various books issued from University of Hertfordshire

learning resource centre, access through Athens/institutional login to journal sites such as

emerald along with Harvard business review subscription, the lecture notes, slides and

books used during the post graduate studies also assisted in researching the topic.

Background 4

2. Background

2.1 Resistance defined

In relation to organizations it is more accurately defined as resistance to losing something

of value to a person or it can be any behavior that defend to maintain the status quo, and

in the expression of pressure alters it.

There is no one definition to resistance, however a number of change experts and

researchers have attempted to define it in a much broader scope. In their definition Folger

and Skarlicki (1999) propose that resistance is employee behavior that seeks to

challenge, disrupt or invert prevailing assumptions, discourses and power relations,

whereas Dent and Goldberg (1999) explain that individuals aren‟t really resisting the

change, but rather they may be resisting the loss of status, loss of pay or loss of comfort.

On the other hand Schein (1988) considers resistance against change is one of the most

all-pervading of organizational phenomena, while Ansoff (1988) defines it as a

multifaceted phenomenon, which introduces anticipated stoppage, overheads and

instabilities into the course of a strategic change.

Moreover, emotions based definition include the acknowledgment of aggression and

frustration in employees as the emotional factors that caused undesirable behaviors and

resistance to change (Coch and French, 1948). Also, resistance, in an organizational

setting is an expression of reservation which normally arises as a response or reaction to

change (Block, 1989). Thus, resistance is most commonly linked with negative employee

Background 5

attitudes or counter-productive behaviors. Examining these definitions and views should

deepen the understanding of employee‟s resistance to change.

2.2 Literature review

Resistance in the classical theory is well known as the foundation cause of conflict that is

undesirable to organizational health. Early this century, Kurt Lewin, first introduced the

ideology for overcoming resistance against the planned changes in the organization. In

that Era, theorist considered unity of purpose as the symbol of technically efficient and

superior organization and divergent attitudes reduces the organization performance and

productivity. Thus early human resource theories consider resistance as a form of conflict

that indicates the breakdown in the interaction of management and employees. Once

again perception was to avoid resistance in order to restore harmony of the organization

(Milton, 1984). The first known research which was published on resistances by employee

in organization for change was in late 1940‟s, which was conducted by Lester Coach and

John R. R. and named as „Overcoming resistance to change‟ in 1948, it was based on the

employee empowerment and involvement in decision making.

In the following years, as the understanding of the resistance become increasingly

sophisticated, the theorists realized that the application of anthropological, psychological

and sociological disciplines can be beneficial. The importance of resistance to change,

especially in the organizations is described by many researchers (Lawrence, 1969; Kotter,

1979; Levy, 1986; Shein, 1997; Maurer, 1996) and several tool and approaches were

seriously consider in dealing with behaviors by people during the transformation period.

Block (1989) states that „resistance is an emotional process not a rational or intellectual

process‟. Some states that successful change requires an inner shift in peoples behavior,

attitudes or values which means to change their way of thinking (Senge 1999; Doppler

and Lauterburg, 2001, Wilson 1997). Therefore, it is more of a natural reaction to change,

which is actually a fear of unknown or uncertainty, and if this behavior is not managed or

overviewed prior to change, it can be destructive to productivity, resulting in paralyzed

organization.

Background 6

In contemporary management textbooks (Burke 2008; carnall 2007; Burnes 2004)

difference between individual and organizational resistance is distinguished, Hayes (2002)

mentioned low efficiency, turnover, and restriction to productivity, grievances and

aggression. The result of John Kotter‟s study (1995) is that only one third of major change

initiatives is successful, which is not surprising. The implementation of organizational and

cultural change is described as difficult, time consuming and costly (Burnes, 2004). The

resistance and its behavior alter during the change process as discussed by Watson

(1969). He categorized the resistance behaviors in few stages; in the early stages, almost

everyone openly criticizes the change. In the second stage in the transformation, the

opponents and innovators become identifiable. Third stage is marked with conflicts and

confrontation. In the fourth stage, innovators become powerful and opponents retreat to

latent resistance. Fifth stage alienates the opponents from the organization.

The roots of the resistance to change can be found in the science of psychology. At the

individual level we find psychological factors such as resentment, frustration, fear, feeling

of failure, low motivation and insecurity (Coch and French, 1948). Kotter and Schlesinger

(1979) states examples of what they see as the four most common reasons for resisting

change; belief that the change does not make sense in the organization,

misunderstanding of the change and its implications, instead of focusing on the whole

organization- people prefer their own interest (one is tempted to read „management‟ here

instead of „organization‟) and low tolerance to change. Connor (1998) declared that the

loss of control is the most of important cause of resistance to change. On the other hand,

research and approaches of two authors Mullins (1999) and Watson (1969) are slightly

apart, as Mullins discusses organizational culture, investments in resources, past

performances, results and agreement, threat to power or influence and leadership,

whereas Watson focuses on conformity, vested interests, systematic and cultural

coherence and rejection of outsiders which is more of a psychological concept.

Background 7

A summary to this literature review of resistance to change and its behaviors result in the

following common view concepts. One of the most baffling and unmanageable problem

which senior management faces is resistances by employees against any planned or

unplanned change. Resistance is a natural reaction of people to change in organization. It

is more over a resistance to uncertain future instead of resistance to change because of

past experiences and psychology of individuals. Resistance management is now being

considered as a standard which has to be controlled in a well manner and planned way

during the change processes for a smoother transformation because since few years the

competition between the companies and man power availability is on top. A company

needs to change every day to stay in the market with the least internal resistance - to

change rapidly. Tools and theories by the change experts must also be considered for a

better management of opposition. Some important tools, steps and approaches include;

Kotter eight-step process for leading successful change, Bechard‟s transition model

(1977, 1987), Lewin‟s change process (1943), Kubler Ross Change Model (1975), Bridge

Change model (1980) by W. Bridges, change model three: Longaker by C. Longaker

(1993), fit model to focus change effort by Galbraith (1982) and Conner‟s managing

change (1992).

These literatures actually help in creating an environment where trust and learning can

occurred, to make the stronger alliance of employees, managers and executive, to make

organization internally strong so as to face the challenges and rapid changes in the

business competition. Contemporary holistic system and quality of working life

programmes changed the directions and management behaviors, and restricting the

authorities, command and classical management techniques in dealing with the

employees. Thus the new procedure must b adopted to deal with the present change

management and its resistances by employees. Although the past research and

approaches will also be benchmarked before conclusion and recommendation.

Analysis 8

3. Analysis

3.1 Sources of Change

The global business environment is changing faster than ever. Although Change has

always been a feature of organizational life but we are living in an era where businesses

constantly need to reshape their ideas merely to survive (Colin, 2007). It is not sufficient

enough to just focus on betterment of present operations, but to achieve long term

success, the employees and management needs to do things radically differently to

secure an advantage over competitors of the organization. Therefore instead of

restructuring the organization and re-engineering processes, the change management

should focus on re-engineering market and on transforming the organization in a well

planned way and must always be in a safe position to face any unplanned change also.

The sources (forces) of change for an organization that will affect your organization can

be; Internal quality and service issues, environmental issues, world political conditions,

efficiency and cost cutting, energy conservation, suppler activity, buyer pressure, new

regulations, organizational changes, economic situation, increased or decreased product

range, political initiatives, competitors activity, profitability, dependability or it can be due

to decreased market share. Mostly, these are the factor when professionals need to take

adequate steps for the transformation of an organization.

Change creates challenges for all. It also brings stress and anxiety as well as

opportunities and possibility for optimism. Moreover organizational structure and

Analysis 9

management style have an important effect by creating a climate which is supportive of

change. There has been considerable interest and research (Burns 1978; Burnes 1995) in

political leadership to leadership in organizations, which identifies two basic organizational

states which are convergent and divergent. A convergent state is referred to as a stable

state which requires management style as transactional (ones who are good at optimizing

the performance of the organization within the confines of existing policy). Thus these

types of managers will prefer approaches to strategy that stresses continuity and

predictability. In Divergent state, the predictability and stability are absent, thus a manager

with transformational style is required (one who challenges the status quo and create new

visions) who will be more comfortable with an evolutionary type of approach. The

characteristics of change can be unpredictable impact, either natural/evolutionary or

adaptive/reaction to external pressures and it can be continuous small changes.

3.2 Behavior and Causes of Resistance

It is important to distinguish between the symptoms of resistance to change and the

causes behind the resistance. The nature of resistance can be divided into two categories,

first category which includes employees with fault findings, appealing to fear, pretending

to be ignorant or ridiculing. The second category may include employees with symptoms

of withholding information or agreeing verbally only but no participation in the

transformation process.

Folger and skarlicki (1995) argues that resistance offered by employees is actually the

reaction to the way they have been treated in the change process. Blaming resisters is not

only pointless but can actually lead to a destructive managerial behavior. Actually, the

resistance by employees is more of psychological and social effect against the social and

psychological changes mainly instead of technical changes; that is a change in

employee‟s relationships that generally goes together with procedural changes. As in old

classical theories, the executives and management can take strict steps to deal with the

employee attitudes, stress new standards, making signs of resistance as a practical

warning, shifting attentions to work assignments and performances. These temporary

Analysis 10

techniques might delay the psychological reaction for a time being but it can be

destructive in the future when planned change process initiates. Various steps and

methods must be followed to minimize the causes of resistance.

To provide methods and recommendations which could overcome the resistance and help

in change process satisfactorily, it is required to understand the causes of resistance to

change in depth. By literature research, interviews with executives/senior management;

Aysha (Br. Mngr. – JP Morgan), Fahad (Owner- Subway Franchise), Karamat (Chief Engr.

- PIA), and questionnaire results, following can be threats and causes of resistance to

change:

Risk of authority on an individual such as managers resisting changes which will decrease

their authoritative image in the department and transfer it to their juniors. Losing the

control over the employees causes resistance among those that has taken common low

on control. In a change process, threat of power on an organization level is when some

teams, sections or divisions in the company become powerful, thus the resistance will be

offered by those groups, who have chances of loosing part of the power. Increasing the

authorities of managers can cause resistance by employees. Organizational change can

damage status, performance and reputation, which is a basic right of worker, this will lead

the resistors to stand still against the change to safe dignity. Discomfort is when change in

organization, results to make employee‟s life more difficult through the new policies.

Employee have skills to do an old job with more comfort and less attention and

accomplish it, every new job requires energy dissipation and learning which another

resistance to change. Lack of information about the change processes appears as a

resistance to change. Adequate information on the organizational changes should be

provided.

The other causes of resistance include economical factors that could be seen by

employees such as decreasing the pay or delays in increments or salaries. This will

Analysis 11

influence the resistance by those employees who will be affected with this change

process. Although new technology can help in reducing the man power but on the other

hand during the change the resistance will be caused by that employee who doesn‟t have

job security covered with this type of change. In a organizational change where some

departments or groups will get more resources on damage of other, the resistance will be

offered by those who become deficient of resources. A specific change which acquires

interest of some groups only and remaining the old coalition at risk will result in

appearance of resistance by groupd which are ignored. A resistance by employee can

appear if there is an implication on personal plans or activities by the proposed

organizational change. The employees who are normally abit more dependent on others

and this dependency are based on support from powerful individuals. If the change

represents the threat of that defense it will affect on appearing resistance to change of

those that will be covered with this change.

Furthermore, if the employees normally don‟t feel satisfied with the those who are

designated as initiators for a specific organizational change thus change step will be

accepted in negative and affect on appearing resistance. Due to the difference in opinion

and perception, a employee can think about the proposed change as bad ideology,

because of which resistance will be offered. Another resistance occurred if employees are

unaware of purpose of change. Unless change process is communicated well, they kept

assuming something bad. It is a human psychology to fear of unknown or uncertainty,

when employees feel uncertain on the process of transformation, they have a fear that

change will lead to something unsafe. This fear affects change agents or member during

the change process. Employees perform work tasks in a certain way and it is based on

the habits which developed over time. Thus sometimes organizational change shifts these

habits of individuals and appeared as resistance to change. Employees work in teams, in

friends and with mutual understandings, thus developing strong interpersonal and social

relationship. If any change process can be considered as threat to this powerful

social network among employees, a resistance to change can be appeared. Since most of

the employees have some experiences in previous change process in organization and

Analysis 12

familiar with the disturbances as more programs for change are unsuccessful, hence this

might be a cause of another resistance to change.

Sometimes a proposed change plan may have a drawback that employees can easily

observe; this will encourage employees to resist on that specific point to the fullest. A

normal problem in organizations is the availability of resources, sometimes a change

process appears as a threat to resources, which results in another resistance to change.

Some individuals have a psychology of hearing information that they just want news which

they really wanted to listen, and simply process selective information; ignoring information

that is opposite. These individual also act as resistor. Bureaucratic inertia exists where

individuals want to change their behaviors against the built mechanisms across policies

and procedure, appearing as a support to resistance. As the organizational systems are

exposed to environment . Some external forces or pressure can lead to a short time about

change process, which could be another cause of resistance to change. Employees

mostly do not change personal interest unless there is any (skepticism about the urgency

of change), they will have low willingness for change because they do not see the need

why they need to be change. At Last, apart from normal job tasks and work activities,

employees will be overloaded with extra activities from transformation process, which also

emerges as resistance.

3.3 Overcoming Resistance to change

The change can be operational or strategic, it can be continuous or periodic, mostly it is

planned but unplanned change also exists. Much more efforts will be required if the

change is for total system of organization, else it can be a local system change which

exists within organization. What so ever type of change can it is; evolutionary or

revolutionary, the human nature being what it is, the change which will affect the people,

so they will often resist. Therefore successfully leading the change is both incredibly

difficult and very important as it includes the management and overcoming of the

resistance to change.

Analysis 13

There are several models and equations which can change the change process from

failure to success. Among which the psychologist Kurt Lewin (1943, 1944) well known as

of the modern pioneer of social and organizational psychology. He theorized the three

stage model; unfreeze, change and refreeze. In the stage one, the old classical ideology

and processes must be tossed aside so that new ones can be learned. Often, getting rid

of old processes is more difficult then learning new ones due to a common psychology. A

change agent or manager must help to clear out the old practices. All the attention and

focus is to provide little bit of knowledge but lot of interest in breaking the old habit and

unlearning. Second stage is for the new ideas which must be learnt by practicing, as it is

easier for employees to forget what they hear, but what they see and do, is actually what

they will remember and understand most of the time. A little bit of encouragements and

cheerleading is helpful due to the affect of overloading and learning period. In the final

stage, the learning period is actually being practiced on the job thus; lot of appreciation

and cheerleading is used to set up the next change process.

Present

State

OR

Desired

State

Driving Forces

(Positive forces for change)

Restraining Forces

(Resisting Forces to change)

Figure 3.1 Force Field Analysis – Kurt Lewin. (Reproduced)

Analysis 14

In figure 3.1, Kurt Lewin‟s Force Field Analysis is a significant contribution to the fields of

organizational development, change management, external and internal forces in an

industry. This shows the balance of both the forces, and stated as in equilibrium. But to let

the change process satisfactorily complete, this balance should be disturbed; by adding

activities to the favorable forces or dropping the number of resistances. Kurt Lewin theory

is that when driving forces are powerful than the restraining forces, the status quo or their

inertia can be change. This is the reason to understand how people behave during the

change process and their reason for resistance. Driving forces which are attractive to

people will always exists, but on the other hand there are restraining forces which keeps

the things where they are. According to him, to succeed in change, either strengthen the

driving forces or weaken the restraining forces. Thus Kurt Lewin‟s tool is helpful in

distinguishing among the factor which is driving organization towards or away from the

desired state. Development of self awareness can be beneficial in understanding the

values and experience of particular group or individual. To conclude, mind mapping or

brain storming the driving forces and restraining forces, evaluating them, review the forces

frequently and prioritize each step can help in process.

Figure 3.2 Eight Critical Success Factor by John P Kotter (Reproduced)

Step 8 : Institutionalizing New Approaches

Step 7 : Consolidating Improvements and Producing Still More Change

Step 6 : Planning for and Creating Short-Term Wins

Step 5 : Empowering Others to Act on the Vision

Step 4 : Communicating the Vision

Step 3 : Creating a Vision

Step 2 : Forming a Powerful Guiding Coalition

Step 1: Establishing a Sense of Urgency

Analysis 15

Harvard business school professor (Retrd.), John P Kotter understands the anatomy of

organizational change very well. Kotter (1996), described eight critical factors to success –

from establishing a sense of urgency to changing the cultures. These eight step are

mentioned in figure 3.2. According to kotter (1995), “Leaders who successfully transform

businesses do eight things right (and they do them in the right order)”. These Steps and

factors which Kotter described briefly helps in transforming organizational change process

with minimal resistance as these steps can urge motivation and decrease the fear factors

in individual who don‟t want to change the present states. These steps actually a guide for

the change managers and agents, as neglecting these factors will result in 8 major errors,

which could result in failure.

The first step is to develop sense of urgency around the need of change, which will help to

spark the initial motivation in keeping things moving. This may include honest and

convincing dialogue about the happenings in marketplace and the competitor‟s

performance/ activities. The second step is a guide to form a powerful coalition; this

includes finding effective change leaders within organization who don‟t necessarily follows

the traditional hierarchy, leading the change needs influential people whose power comes

from various sources such as expertise, politics, social attitude or status.

The third step defines to create a vision. In the start there are many great ideas and

solutions, these must be linked together in a form of simple-short vision which employees

can easily remember or digest. Since kotter defines it as in many failed transformations,

there are often plenty of plans, directives and programs but no vision. In the forth factor,

the created vision must be communicated well. Keep it fresh in people‟s mind by

communicating it daily during decision making and problem solving; this will make them

remember the vision well.

Now that vision is communicated well in the field, but still the obstacles are being face.

Step five is to remove the obstacles to the new vision. Removing the resistance and

Analysis 16

barriers empowers the employee to execute the vision. There will be bosses, colleagues

and relatives who refuse to change or make demands, these obstacles must be removed

and keep moving for the vision. In a video, Kotter explains this as; some people will

always say no and they strongly mean that. Although change managers have tendency to

try to pull them in, to cope them in the process to work and change their minds, but

kotter‟s tip is to get them out of the way, as they might become part of the coalition but

more chances are that they will resist while staying in the coalition, which is more

damaging. Since main obstacles are out of the way, in the sixth step, systematically

planning for, and creating short-term wins is very beneficent. As this produced expected

short term goals helps in maintaining momentum and the celebrations will boost

acceptable of change process, which results in reduction in further resistance of those

people who have joined the resisting forces.

Kotter argues that many projects fail because victory is declared too early. The success

must be observed several times and Japanese management style Kaizen is helpful which

focuses to implement continuous improvement in organization. The last step is to seep the

changed process into the blood stream of the corporate body.

Positive Negative

Figure 3.3 SWOT analysis.

In figure 3.3, A strategic planning model is mentioned which helps in defining the desired

change state aims or objectives more clearly. This tool is widely used in strategic

Strenghts Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats

SWOT

Internal

External

Analysis 17

planning, thus before change process, it is beneficial to observe SWOT analysis, which

will create a mover clear vision of possibility of the resistances, weaker areas, external

threats by those not in the coalition of change process, influential employees who can be

used as a agent or exposure of opportunities arising during the transformation. SWOT

analysis is a diverse model which can be used is every planning whether it is strategical,

tactical, business planning or operational planning.

Another theory and advice for dealing with resistance to change and succeeding with the

change process is Todd Jick‟s Ten Commandments for implementing change. Jick (2002;

2010), emphasizes on ten pillars for successfully implementing change. These principles

are mentioned in figure 3.4.

Todd Jick (2010) explains that managers should understand an organization‟s operations

in depth; strengths, weaknesses and threats (SWOT) which could be affected by

proposed change. The unity plays vital role achieving common direction and vision.

Disengaging past issues and realities which could help in embracing new vision. The

influential and powerful leaders in the change process must be supported; those who are

socially, technically or well in status. He also defines the role of developing structure that

10. Reinforce and instutionalize the change.

9. Communicate, involve people and be honest

8. Develop enabling structures.

7. Craft an implementation plan.

6. Line up political sponsership

5. Support a strong leaders role

4. Create a sense of urgency

3. Separate from the past

2. Create a shared vision and common direction

1. Analyize the Organization and its need for change

Figure 3.4 Jick’s Ten Commandments

Analysis 18

to alter the status quo and create new mechanisms, rearranging the organization‟s

physical space has significance in change process. The last commandment emphasizes

the fact that change managers or agents should communicate openly, and seek out the

involvement and trust of the people throughout the department or organization which is

under change process.

According to William Bridges (1980), the difference in change and transition is that change

is situational and happens without people transitioning, whereas transition is psychological

and is a three phase process where people gradually accept the details of the new

situation and the changes that come with it. He argues that it is the emotional aspect that

is complicated to manage, rather than the technical change program of planned action

such as a new software arrangement in the organization or shifting the working place to

new location. It is only after psychological transition that people adapting to the new

organizational traditions or different dimension of working. He furthermore split up the

stages of transition into following steps:

William Bridges three stage models (figure 3.5) contributed significantly to the leadership,

management and consulting practice of managing change by identifying this unique and

notably starting with the ending zone. In this zone, clarify why ending is necessary,

defining clearly the ending, the change is fast and stress can be high among resisters.

Allow for resistance and grieving over the loss, and let the people take the piece of past

with them. Once the staff felt the loss of the old way, they are in “Neutral zone” now. It is a

difficult time as they start feeling the loss of their old ways and new way doesn‟t adjusted

yet; resulting in anxiety, motivational failure, and disorientation among people and

ENDING The New

Beginning

The

Neutral

Zone

Figure 3.5 Change Model : Bridge

Analysis 19

teamwork issues may arise. He also urges that managers should not be discouraged in

this zone, because it is the best period for creativity and renewal, as old habits are

extinguishing and new ones are taking their places. This is a time to take surveys, policy

reviews and suggest campaigns because the staff goes through an inner „sorting‟ process,

they will soon start getting used to this new direction of change; thus preparing

themselves for the next zone. This zone (the new beginning) starts involving new

situations, beginnings and new understandings. Change agents have to be consistent,

ensure short wins method, symbolize new identity and celebrate successes. Involve staff

in creating strategies and action plans. Four „P‟ are important which are purpose, picture,

plan and part.

Another well known name is Dr. Elizabeth Kubler Ross, who defined resistance

psychology and technical awareness, to make it easier for change managers in planning

and making resistance weaker. This psychiatrist (Kubler, 1970) described five stages of

grief model which helps in understanding people‟s reaction to change. According to her,

it‟s a normal reaction to tragic news, in fact a defense mechanism or coping mechanism.

The first stage is Denial or shock which is a temporary defense against the news. This is

the start of the numbness and shock. Second stage is of anger, when employee realizes

that change process is real, and it will affect us soon. Now this is the anger, and starts to

blame the system or anything which might be a part of change process. Third is the

bargaining stage when resistors start absorbing the facts that change is taking place, thus

bargaining will be offered by resisting employees. But when the employees realize that the

bargaining is not going to work the reality of the change sets, they become aware of the

losses associated with the change and start thinking what they left behind. This is

depression stage, where they might feel de-motivated and uncertain about the future, so

interest in the job will be least. Finally in fifth stage, when employees realize that resisting

to change is not going to work , they start moving into stage of acceptance. Kubler Ross

stage model identifies the resistance psychology, making it a useful tool to understand

and cope with resistances.

Analysis 20

The first impression of the possibilities and conditions to change an organization and its

resistances is explained by Richard Beckhard and Reuben T. Harris (1987). It is a simple

but powerful tool that gives quick condition for change. The formula of the change

equation given by them is „D x V x F > R‟. The letter „D‟ in the change equation is

Dissatisfaction with the current situation. „V‟ is the vision of what is possible in the future,

whereas „F‟ is to achieve the first step towards reaching the vision. „R‟ being the

resistance must be eliminated by the procedure that this all must have some values during

the change process to keep resistance subdominant. As soon as there is lack of any of

these variables, and value will be zero or nearer, thus the value of left hand side will

become nearer to zero or zero, thus making the resistance Dominant. To overcome the

resistance, the solution for increasing these variables is; to increase „D‟ actions such as

external experts describing the trends and best in class examples about this business,

Leader of organization discussing his/her views or financial metrics which may include

cost of poor quality/service or missed opportunities. For „V‟, a very clear, compelling vision

for the future. Creating big goals for the future are very crucial. Finally to start with the first

step to get the change going may include; short term and long term goals for achieving

the change, measures for success, announcing short term wins and visible signs of

success about the business, communicate the plan and link people to the system or

meaningful involvement.

Another goal-oriented model which helps in changing the people behavior towards change

is ADKAR. It allows change managers and leaders to focus their activities on vision and

strategic result. Initially this model is used to determine the activities of change process

during various organizational transformations. The first detailed document on the ADKAR

model was released by Prosci (2006), since prosci define themselves as leaders in

change management research and design. It says that satisfactory management of the

people aspect of change requires managing five important goals that is the foundation of

this model; „A‟ denotes Awareness of the necessity of the change, „D‟ is the desire of

participation in the change, „K‟ is for knowledge of management of change and what will it

look like, „A‟ represents Ability to implement the change o a day-to-day basis and lastly „R‟

is for Reinforcement to keep change in place. The power of model is that it focuses on

Analysis 21

the first element that is awareness, which is actually the root cause of failure of change

process or transformation. While approaching for change using this model, it can be easily

identifiable where there is a breakdown or any elements are being overlooked, thus

keeping spotlight on the area that will create the maximum possibility for success. This

model can help the change leader or agents to plan effectively for a new change or in

diagnosing why the transformation fails. The strength of this model is that it provides

useful management checklists of the phases of the transition. The weak point is that it

ignores the need for leadership to address the emotional dimension.

3.4 Results: Interviews and Questionnaire

For the further research, a questionnaire, comprised by partially open questions has been

used to clarify the problems in the real world more appropriately. The aim of the

questionnaire is also to find out to what extent the behavior of the employees or the

resistance during the change process has been taken as a major factor. On the other

hand, telephonic interviews have been conducted, all three interviews lasting more than

five minutes.

The total number of companies being asked is three, among which two companies

participated. Total number of questionnaire sent were 135, total number of received

questionnaires are 81 which includes; 75 males, 06 females in which all the females are

above 40, and in males there are 63 who are above 40 years of age and remaining 12

declared to be under 40 years of age. The sample of the questionnaire is available in

Appendices.

The companies participated in the survey (questionnaire) are not named explicitly

because it was guaranteed to keep the information confidential. The questions include

three options; Agree, Neither agree nor disagree and Disagree. The questions include,

need for the changes in organization, past success in change process, importance of

employee needs and requirements before implementing any major changes in the

Analysis 22

department, job satisfactions, performance of senior management in implementing the

change. The questions which focuses individual‟s behavior for resistances are; sincerity

towards career and future, individual comments or advices for the change leaders, fear of

unknown and uncertainty after the change is implemented, adequate tools and strategies

were used by senior management or not, change team‟s role towards employees before

and between the change process and job security.

Some of the important findings which are really important and helpful in focusing the

resistance to change importance and the behavior of the individuals which actually is

proven to be a common psychology as per table 3.1, where the insecurity of job and fear

of uncertainty is on 80 percent. 67 employees out of 81 agree with the fact that they feel

uncertain regarding their importance after the change is implemented and had fear that

their job will be insecure if change takes place. Furthermore, 41 employee have trust that

change managers have vision for the future and most important 49 disagrees on the

management‟s performance in last few years on the implementation of change processes.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Need for current changes

Satisfied with past change process

Use of strategic tools satisfactorily

Management implemented change

nicely

Fear Of Uncertainty

Insecurity Of Job

Managers have Vision for Future

Agree

Neither

Disagree

Table: 3.1 Results

Analysis 23

When they were asked about their answer of the usage of performance measure tools,

strategic tools or change management tools for the change process by the senior

management or change leaders, 30 percent did not have much information or they neither

want to agree or disagree, showing the fact that there is lack of information flow in

between senior management, mid level managers and employees under level managers.

A slightly different result came out with the employees comments on need for change. As

it was clear that employees resist change which is mostly fear of uncertainty, which is also

being proved with the survey. In the research, there were two different questions, both

representing the future consequences and actual problem of their resistances, and the

result came out in a way that employee voted that they want change (88.8 percent)

whereas they are not satisfied with past experiences of change, and on the other hand 82

percent voted to have fear of uncertainty. Therefore, this result also proves that there is a

very important connection between change and fear of certainty. The employees of these

companies need change, but they have a fear of uncertain future.

The other research used is the interview method. Three executives have been interviewed

from different types of industries and entirely different organizational culture, as one was

from aircraft maintenance department, one from food industry and last one from banking

sector. The short come of their replies are; during the change process, how important is

the behavior and resistance of employees in your department? Mr. Shahab – the chief

engineer of PIA stated that in his opinion, resistances by employees and labor union is a

only disturbing obstacle between the success and failure of engineering department, Mr.

Fahad – the owner of Subway franchise commented that it is in our culture to resist again

any changes, whereas Mrs. Aysha stated that it is very important. The second question

was- Did your department experience problems in change process in past? If yes, what

was the major cause? Mr. shahab replied that we keep changing everyday every night,

but still the employees of my department kept resisting with same magnitude, each

individual resist as he/she is more strongly supported. Mr. Fahad replied that he always

had bad experiences with change management, as employees create uncontrollable

trouble thus experiencing a major financial loss. Mrs Aysha replied that employees were

less confidence towards boss due to lack of communication, thus creating problems

Analysis 24

internally. Another question was- Do the management use enough tool and strategies to

manage resistances? Mr. Shahab replied in negative, it seems unsatisfactory

performance and experience with change, thus adequate procedures are not being

followed by higher management. Mrs. Aysha replied that yes! We tries the best to adapt

all safety procedures and make strategies which are beneficial for employees and

management during the change period and hereafter. Mr. Fahad states that he does need

a change manager who can manage and implement strategies and tools for change, but

presently, shortage of finance and time pushed me to stay away, hopefully in the future.

During the interview there were few informal questions were also asked regarding the

level of employee resistances and importance but it was observed that franchise owner

and chief engineer, both are disturbed with change process and do not feel comfortable in

handling the resistances. It can be the lack of knowledge for resistance and change

management or the employee culture which is strong enough to have command over

leaders.

Conclusion 25

4 Conclusion

In conclusion, the outcomes of this project have provided further support for adopting a

balance approach to implementing change. Instead of managing technical aspects only, it

is important for management to work with human factors associated with resistances to

change. Resistance from individuals mostly shall be taken as a feedback which can be an

important source in improving the quality and clarity of the vision. It was also cleared from

the interviews, questionnaire and literature research that the objective should be very

clear and path which will be followed during the change process should be the best for the

employees and businesses both. Employee resists on the fear of uncertainty in future thus

rarely they want to change their present state, whether present state is not satisfactory,

although if the transformation or change process is managed will using strategies and tool

along with real world examples, the resistance can be reduced drastically. Resistance by

people and improper change strategies are mostly the reason for failure of change

process whether it is business, politics, culture or trend. The rate of change in

organizations of all types seems to be every-increasing and in present holistic system,

employee empowerment is beneficial. It is the team of leaders and managers, who share

thoughts and finalize vision by considering large amount of feedbacks from employees in

opposition, negotiators in the field who will lead as change agents, decision makers who

have sense of urgency, vision and strategic thinking. The best leader or manager is the

one who create vision and objective for the business, reinvent it with feedback from

resistors or supporters, reduce the gap between behaviors of opposition and change

agents, move with the concept of continuous improvement and make strongest teams and

bonding between the departments, sections and groups; who are serving for the

organizations when and where needed for the betterment of the businesses.

Reference List 26

References

Block, P. (1989), “Flawless consulting”, Prentice Hall.

Kotter, J.P. (1996), “Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard

Business Review, p.01-18.

Schein, E. (1997), “Organizational Culture and Leadership”, Jossey Bass

Publishers, 2nd Edition.

Maurer, R (1996), “Using resistance to built support for change”, journal for

quality and participation, Vol 19 No 3, p.56-65.

Coetse, L. (1999), “from resistance to commitment”. Public Administration

Quarterly Summer, 202-223.

Lawrence, P R (1954), “How to Deal with Resistance to Change”, Harvard

business review, June, P. 48-58.

Maurer, R. (1996), “Using resistance to build support for change”, the journal

for quality and participation, Vol.19 No 3, p.55-67.

Strebel, P.(1994), “Choosing the right path”, California Management review,

Vol. 36 No 2, p. 27-53.

Waddell, D & Sohal, A.S (1998), “Resistance: a constructive tool for change

management”, management decision, Vol. 36 No 8, p.541-548.

Goldstein, J. (1988), „A far from equilibrium system approach to resistance to

change‟, organizational dynamics, Autumn, p15-27.

Jeffrey D. Ford and Laurie W. Ford (2009), “Decoding resistance to change”,

Harvard business review, April, p. 01-08.

Paul R. Lawrence (1969), „How to deal with resistance to change‟, Harvard

business review, January, p.01-11.

John p. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger (2008), „Choosing strategies for

change‟, Harvard business review, July, p.01-08.

Dent, E and Goldberg, S. (1999), “Challenging „resistance to change‟”, Journal

of applied behavioral science, p.22-44.

Folger, R and Skarlicki, D (1999), “Unfairness and resistance to change:

hardship as mistreatment”. Journal of organizational change management,

p.34-51.

Reference List 27

Ansoff, I. (1988), “The New Corporate Strategy”, John Wiley & Sons, Newyork,

NY.

Schein, E. (1988), “Organizational Psychology”, Prentice Hall, 3rd ed.,

Coch, L. and French, J. R.P., Jr. (1948), Overcoming resistance to change,

Human relations, p.1,2,511-533.

Levy, A., and Merry, U. (1986). “Organizational transformation. Approaches,

strategies, theories”, New York: Praeger.

Milton, C., Entrekin, L and stening, B. (1984), “Organizational behavior in

Australia”, Prentice Hall.

Senge, P.M (1999), “The dance of change, London” Nichloas Brealey

publishing Ltd.

Doppler, K, Lauterburg, C. (2001), „Managing corporate change‟, Springer

publishing.p. 3,4,11-99.

Wilson, D.C (1997), „A strategy of change‟, Thomson business press, p. 7-11,

120-122.

Hayes, J (2002), „The theory and practice of change management‟, Palgrove

mcMilan UK.

Watson, G. (1969). „Resistance to change‟, New York: Holt, Rinehar and

Winston.

Mullins, L.J. (1999), „Management and organizational behavior‟, Prentice Hall,

5th Edition.

Kotter, J.P, and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979), „Choosing strategies for change‟,

Harvard Business Review, 57, 105-116.

Coch, L., and French, J.R.P. (1948), „Overcoming resistance to change‟,

Human Relation, 1, 512-532.

Conner, D.R. (1998), „Managing at the speed of change‟, How re silent

managers succeed and prosper where others fail, Chichester:Wiley.

Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D. (1999), „Unfairness and resistance to change:

hardship as mistreatment‟, Journal of organizational change management, p.

35-55.

Reference List 28

Burnes, B and James, H (1995) „Culture, cognitive dissonance and the

management of change‟, International Journal of Operations and Production

Management, p.14-31.

Burns, JM (1978) „Leadership‟, Harper and row: USA.

Lewin, K (1943) “Psychological ecology”, in D Cartwright (ed) (1952): Field

Theory in Social Science.

Lewin, K (1999) “The dynamics of group action.” In M Gold (ed): The complete

social scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader. American psychological association:

Washington, DC, USA

Kotter, J.P (1996), „Leading Change‟, Harvard Business School Press,United

States of America

Kotter, J.P (1995), „Leading Change Why Transformation effort fails‟, Harvard

Business Review, March-April.

Jick, T. and Peiperl, M (2010), “managing change: cases and concepts”,

McGraw-Hill, 3rd Edition.

Jick, T. and Peiperl, M (2002), „managing change: cases and concepts‟,

McGraw-Hill, 2nd Edition.

Bridges, W. (2009), “Managing Transitions: Making the most of change,”

Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 3rd edition.

Kubler, R (1970), “On Death and Dying”, Tavistock Publications, First edition.

Beckhard, R and Harris, R. T (1987), “Organizational Transition:

Understanding Complex Change”, Addison- Wesley series on organizational

development.

Hiatt, M. Jeffrey (2006), “ADKAR: A Model for change in business, government

and our community”, Prosci Research.

Bernard, B (2007), “Managing Change”, Prentice Hall, 4th Edition.

Carnall, C. (2007), “Managing Change in Organizations”, 5th Edition.

Burke, W. (2008), “Organization Change – Theory and Practice”, Sage

Publishers, 2nd Edition.

Greenfield, T. (2002), „Research Methods for Postgraduates‟, Arnold

Publishers, 2nd Edition.