Organizational Change 1

Organizational Change

Name

Course
Instructor
Institution
City
Date
 Organizational Change 2

Organizational Change

Any time an organizational change is embarked on in how a company conducts its

operations, resistance becomes inevitable. In the economy of today, change is all far-flung in

companies. It occurs unceasingly, and mostly speedily. Moreover, because change is part of daily

dynamics of the organisation, employees who are resistors can cripple a company. John Kotters,

for example, claims that We have a tendency to try to pull [resistors to organisational change] in,

to co-opt them into the process. To work away and change their minds. And my tip is forget it!

Get them out of the way, not matter who they are in terms of power or relationships to you. This

paper will critically discuss the above statement by John Kotter and it will argue against his

claim that resistors to change should be done away with in an organization.

To comprehend the employee resistance concept, it is essential to define resistance.

Change resistance denotes behaviour that is aimed to safeguard a person from impact of

imagined or real change. Resistance is also any behaviour that serves to maintain the current

state of affairs in an organization during immense pressure to change the status quo. Resistance

can also be defined as employee conduct, which strives to disrupt, challenge or reverse

prevailing discourse, power relations, and discourses. Three conceptualisations of resistance

exist, which are emotional, behavioural, and cognitive state. The idea that resistance in

employees can be surmounted insinuates that negative beliefs or thoughts regarding the change

exist; hence, in this case, what is referred as resistance is simply reluctance. Frustration and

aggression are the emotional aspects, which lead to change resistance. Hence, resistance to

organisational change is a form of defence mechanism triggered by anxiety and frustration (Ford

and Ford 2009).

 Organizational Change 3

The behaviour conceptualization of resistance defines resistance as a type of inaction or

action or deliberate deeds of commission. Based on the three resistance conceptualisations, it is

evident that when employees resist change, they are not actually resisting change itself, but

rather the loss of pay, comfort, and status, and hence, John Kotters claim that employees should

not be co-opted into the change process is wrong and suggests a lack of a better understanding of

employee resistance (Waddell and Sohal 1998).

Resistance to any key change in an organization is inevitable. Naturally, people rush to

protect the existing state of affairs whenever they feel their status or security is threatened.

According to Folger and Skarlicki, change in an organization can result to scepticism leading to

resistance, which can hinder the implementation of organizations changes (25). In case the

management fails to comprehend, accept and make efforts to work with resistors in an

organization. Failure of the management to understand the dynamics of employee resistance can

weaken the most well-conceived and intentioned efforts of change. Hence, the ability of any

management to attain maximum gains from organizational change hinges on how successfully it

creates and maintains an environment, which reduces the behaviour of resistance and inspires

support and acceptance. Based on Kotters claim, it is apparent that he fails to understand the

datum that resistance will always be present in intricate change efforts, and that resistance is a

natural and good thing, not an unhealthy one, hence, resistors should not be eliminated, but co-

opted into the process of change. Kotter also fails to recognize that working with resistors

adeptly will always result into increased results. Lastly, resistance should not be overcame or

done away with; rather, it ought to be nurtured, utilize it, as well as benefit from it.

Diverse change sources exist, and the global environment of business is evolving rapidly

than ever. Change has always been an element of the life of organizations; however, in todays
 Organizational Change 4

business world, companies constantly must reshape their concepts simply to survive.

Furthermore, it is not adequate to merely focus on present operations improvement. Furthermore,

to attain extended success, the management and the employees have to accomplish process

radically differently to safeguard a competitive edge in the business world. Thus, rather than re-

engineering processes and restricting the company, the change leader ought to focus on market

re-engineering and transforming the firm in appropriately planned manner and should always be

in secure position to encounter any unexpected change as well. The sources of change that can

affect a company could be service issues and internal quality, environmental issues, buyer

pressure, conditions of world politics, cost cutting and efficiency, and energy consumption.

Others include supplier activity, new regulations, economic situation, and profitability, decreased

or increased product range, competitors activity, dependability or decreased market share. In

such cases, managers must undertake sufficient steps towards organizational transformation

(Strebel 1996).

Change triggers challenges for everyone. It also causes anxiety and stress, and

opportunities, as well as likelihood for optimism. Furthermore, the style of management and

structure of the organization have a crucial effect by forming an environment that is supportive

of change. Hence, experienced leaders comprehend that change in an organization is a traumatic

affliction for any company and its personnel. Resistance is an integral part of the process of

change; hence, plans for organizational change must anticipate, as well as manage change.

Furthermore, it is commonplace some individuals in an organization will resist change, which

affects them. Moreover, the more the change is perceived as threatening and radical, the more the

organization should expect resistance (Piderit 2000).

 Organizational Change 5

Resistance arises from many diverse places and a comprehensive approach to change

comprises of three focal area. The first area is the content (which denotes what is altering or

changing, for example, systems, technology, and structure). The second area is the process

(refers to the planning, designing and implementation of the change). Lastly, the third critical

area encompass the people (in this case the individuals that are participating or are affected by

the change). Therefore, resistance to change by employees can be caused by any of the critical

three aspects, either from undesirable reactions to the change direction (content), how the

organizational change is being conducted (process), or peoples natural reaction to organizational

change. A leader must be establish which of the three critical areas is triggering resistance to

change because how the resistance is resolved hinges on what is causing it (Morgan 1997).

Employees resist change if they observe that the change direction is wrong. In this form

of resistance, employees do not acknowledge the change because perceive it as bad for the

company or personally. Hence, this type of employee resistance is salubrious, as well as can be a

good for the company. The change could be wrong or the resistors could be knowing something

that leaders of the change do not know. For example, employees are interact with clients or

companys operations more often than anybody else and could possess crucial information that

the leaders of the change cannot possibly have. Hence, there is need to talk to resistors in a

company to establish reasons for their resistance and the solutions they possess for change

improvement (Maurer 1996).

Employees cannot resist change simply because they disagree with the process through

which the novel change is being planned, designed, as well as implemented. For example,

resistors can resist change even though they acknowledge the direction of the change. Several

instances can contribute to employees resistance to the change process. First, employees can feel
 Organizational Change 6

that they are not included in the change process or that their interests are not represented.

Secondly, employees can perceive that they are uninformed about the change process or it is not

adequately communicated. Thirdly, employees can be weighed down by the number of activities

incorporated into the process of change that take up the resources and time necessary to

accomplish their actual work. Lastly, employees can resist the change process because of lack

of expertise or inadequate training (Kirkman 2000).

Leaders who manage organizations through a style of control and command can trigger

resistance because of miscomprehension of the impact of the plans of the change process have on

individuals tasked with the role of change implementation. Hence, such leaders often build

efforts of change, which are fraught with low engagement, inadequate communications,

insufficient training, and reduced local control. Often, this form of resistance transpires when

senior management depend on external consulting companies to formulate their solution to

change, the subject of what must change. Hence, doing this is not innately wrong; however, these

firms that competent with change content usually do not understand the people and change

process dynamics. Thus, the majority of their practices cause resistance without comprehending

this (Kegan and Lahey 2001).

Having senior leaders and external consultants formulate change whiles isolating the rest

of the company is a good example of a resistance trigger. In such cases, the team designing the

change is staffed with senior leaders only; the representation of key levels of the organization is

inadequate. Furthermore, these teams do not communicate any information to the company until

final solutions are attained activating peoples fear, and the change is repelled before it is

communicated to the rest of the company members (Bridges 1991).

 Organizational Change 7

John Kotters statement with regard to change does not seem to keep peoples impacts

and the elements of the process in mind. The change content has to be planned while bearing the

impact it has on people in mind. To ensure that the change process is accepted and supported,

change leaders must include employees in the teams for change project. Change leaders can

create advisory employees team that provide input into the team about the design, execution, and

peoples impacts of the change (Coetsee 1999).

At the beginning of any novel change intervention, a blend of negative and positive

opinions must occur, that accompany strong emotions, which results in formation of groups

aligning with each faction. A leader cannot avoid resistors or afford to get rid of them as Kotter

suggests; however, one can manage resistors behaviour through redirecting their reasoning. A

change in reasoning will lead to the desired conduct associated with the novel direction.

Avoiding change resistors can be detrimental to the organization as mentioned before as failure

to undertake any action will only undermine the efforts of the new change. Hence, John Kotter

fails to understand that a change leader needs to be an accord builder through pulling together

major individuals, stakeholders, as well as resistance factions to include their support in the

initiative of change. Therefore, to create this accord, the leader of change has to lucidly

communicate a persuasive vision for the organization, which refocuses habits, direction, and

everyday work operations. Additionally, the leader of the change has to be convincing and

describe the consequences and challenges, which will inevitably emerge if the organization does

not implement the required change (de Jager 2001).

Change readiness is the degree to which a person or people are cognitively motivated to

embrace, accept, and adopt a certain plan to purposely change the status quo. Readiness is the

perceptive precursor to the conducts of either support for or resistance to, an effort of change. At
 Organizational Change 8

its basis, readiness to change entails a transformational of peoples perceptions across a set of

personnel. In Kotters statement, he fails to recognize that it is the individuals who are the actual

source of, as well as drive for change because they can either resist or embrace change. Refusing

to co-opt resistors into the change process can inhibit others readiness to accept change.

Readiness is believed to be a key precursor to effectual organizational change since members of

the company seek to uphold a status quo, which offers them a feel of psychological control,

identity, and safety. Thus, Kotter must understand that resistance to change is a common reaction

of individuals to organization change because of psychology and past experiences of people.

Hence, rather than getting rid of resistors, Kotter should advocate for the management of

resistance where resistance to change must be controlled in a planned and well manner

throughout the processes of change for an efficient transformation. A firm must change on a daily

basis to remain competitive with the minimal internal resistance.

Blaming resisters or getting rid of them is pointless and can result into a harmful

managerial behaviour. As indicated before, employees resistance is more a social and

psychological reaction against the psychological changes mostly rather than technical changes;

namely, a change in the relationships of employees, which corresponds to procedural changes.

Old classical concepts proposed that the management and executives can undertake strict

measures to handle employee attitudes, make resistance signs as a warning, stress novel

standards, and shift attentions to work performances and assignments. However, these temporary

measures may delay the emotional reaction for a moment, but it can be deleterious when the

process of planned change initiates (Dent and Goldberg 1999).

Various strategies exist that can help co-opt resisters into the change process rather than

getting rid of them entirely. First, a change leader should speak about loss, as well as involve
 Organizational Change 9

those with a lot to lose. The change leader can target these people to work closely with him or

her during the process of implementation. Secondly, a change leader should try to co-opt the

resistors into the change process. Change can encompass hiring external talent and helping

fruitless team members attain a high level of accountability. At times, it appears like the best

solution kick out resisters as Kotter suggests in his statement, but when encountered with

organizational change, it is habitually not a feasible option. The change leader is instead tasked

with the challenge to leverage the teams talents and skills to guarantee they are in the

appropriate positions. Hence, the change leader can have resistors on board through offering

order, protection, and direction (Hultman 1995).

Thirdly, one practice of exemplary leaders is enable others to act. Hence, one method of

leading change is by dividing the process of change into actionable tasks and creating prospects

for resistors to take part in them and be responsible for process of change. Fourth, use of

emotional intelligence components is an effective strategy to win over resisters to change. One

such component is self-awareness and a crucial hallmark of self-awareness is humour. Use

humour effectively can help build rapport, help people connect with one another, and reduce

tension. Lastly, celebrating success is a focal strategy in winning resisters. This can be attained

by being clear regarding what success denotes and defining milestones. A change leader should

learn what his or her team values so that the appreciation and celebration can have a positive

impact. There should be a recognition plan for every milestone (Hultman 1995).

Conclusively, resistance from employees should be perceived as a crucial source of

improving the clarity and quality of vision. Kotters statement that resisters should not be co-

opted into the change process, but instead should be kicked out is misguided. Various reasons for

resistance exist and should all be taken into account when dealing with resistance in a company.
 Organizational Change 10

This discussion has established that employees resist change because of the dread of doubt and,

therefore, they seldom want to alter the status quo. Furthermore, change failure is caused by

improper strategies of change and people resistance. Resistance is inevitable in todays global

business, and companies should learn to co-opt resisters successfully rather than kicking them

out.
 Organizational Change 11

References

Bridges, W 1991, Managing transitions: making the most of change, Reading, MA: Wesley

Publishing Company.

Coetsee, L 1999, From resistance to commitment, Public Administration Quarterly, pp. 204-

222.

de Jager, P 2001, Resistance to change: a new view of an old problem, The Futurist, 24-27.

Dent, E and Goldberg, S 1999, Challenging resistance to change, Journal of applied behavioral

science, pp. 22-44.

Folger, R and Skarlicki, D 1999, Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment,

Journal of Organizational Change Management, pp. 35-50.

Hultman, K 1995, Scaling the wall of resistance, Training & Development, pp. 15-22.
 Organizational Change 12

Ford, JD and Ford, LW 2009, Decoding resistance to change, Harvard business review, pp.01-

08.

Kegan, R and Lahey, L 2001, The real reason people won't change, Harvard Business Review,

pp. 85-92.

Kirkman, B 2000, Why do employees resist teams? Examining the "resistance barrier" to work

team effectiveness, International Journal of Conflict Management, pp.74-93.

Kotter J 2011, March 13, John Kotter - Resistance to Change [Video file], Viewed on 7th January

2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdroj6F3VlQ

Maurer, R 1996, Using resistance to build support for change, The journal for quality and

participation, vol.19, no. 3, pp.55-67.

Morgan, G 1997, Images of organization, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.
 Organizational Change 13

Piderit, SK 2000, Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence, A multidimensional view

of attitudes toward an organizational change, Academy of Management, vol. 25, no.4,

pp.783-94.

Strebel, P 1996, Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, pp. 86-92.

Waddell, D and Sohal, AS 1998, Resistance: a constructive tool for change management,

Management Decision, vol. 36, no. 8, pp.541-548.