Managing Change & Communication

BSMH 5093
Prepared by :
Nur Suraya Binti Hashim
(814448)
Prepared for :
Associate Prof. Dr. Vimala Sanjeevkumar

Article Review :
Managing Resistance to Change
The Author : Sharon L. Baker
(University of Iowa, School of
Library and Information Science)

Introduction
This article describes about
the reasons for negative
reactions to
change among the employees
in the Library.

THE PROBLEM WITH CHANGE

Inept management strategies can often cause the
normal unease associated with a change to accelerate
into more severe problems.
Human beings tend to resist change even when
change represents growth and development and will
lead to greater efficiency and productivity. (Fine,1986)
Several indicators of employee resistance to change
: increased absenteeism, increased employee
impatience, frustration, and sabotage. (Plate & Stone,
1974; Veaner, 1974)

Why Do Employees Resist Change?

1) General Uncertainty about the Effects of Change
Management should :
(a) Provide as much advance information about the actual change
as possible.
(b) Fully inform affected employees of the reasons behind the
change.
(c) do everything possible to clarify employees questions about
the change.
(d) Give employees time to reflect on how the proposed change
will affect them, the organization as a whole

(2) Uncertainty about Job

Performance
The managers need to follow two strategies
when introducing new tasks.
(a) Need to provide employees with exact
information about what the changed tasks will
be.
(b) Need to reassure their employees that they
will develop the skills to do these tasks

(3) Less employee participation

(involvement) in the change process
The strengths of encouraging employee participation
in change.
(a) Increasing employee knowledge about the
innovation thus lessening fear.
(b) Can be ego enhancing, intrinsically satisfying,
and
challenging, thus making workers feel
needed and
appreciated.
(c) Encouraging employees to believe that they
have
some control over a system that will affect
them.

(4) Fear of Change Due to Social

Consequence
Main way for new director:
# to be very careful during his first few months
on the job
to treat employees as if he likes each and
every one of
them and as if he recognizes the unique
contributions
that each is offering the library.

(5) Resistance because of Failure to

Prove Change is Needed
The implication:
# The management must do a good job
identifying and
publicizing areas where true performance
gaps exist if
they expect employees to feel that they have
valid
reasons for changing

(6) Failure to Commit Sufficient Resources to the Change

The failed to commit sufficient resources to planning
and implementing a large change and directly increased
employee resistance.
Suggestions
Fine (1986) suggests that:
(a) Giving the complete training for employees to be
more
experts in implementing changes.
(b) The managers must to be particularly sensitive to
this issue,
and to critically examine if they have
supported the innovation by providing all necessary
resources.

(7) Resistance Due to Failure to Tie Library Values to

the Change
The best way:
* If managers insist on hiring a collection evaluation consultant, they
need to explain that they are doing this to make sure that changes
efforts are really meeting user needs.
(8) Resistance Due to Failure to Create a Climate
Conducive to Change
The way to manage the resistance:
# Management allows employees little participation and in fact
does not encourage new ideas in any way.
# The managers need to both encourage and reward employee
efforts to learn and grow as this will reinforce receptivity to
change.
The implication:
# The employees feel confidence in their abilities to respond to
new situations and become more receptive to changed.

Points of View
Managing Resistance

SITUATIONAL approach

Managerial Skills

Conclusion
Corrective action can be used to manage resistance to change
by providing adequate information about change and being
generally sensitive to employee fears about change.
Other positive steps also can be used including convincing
employees that a real reason exists for the change and
committing sufficient resources to the change to ease the
transition process and alleviate employee frustration.
Managers should tie the change to improved patron service
and
should constantly work to create a climate where employees are
encouraged to explore new ideas and try them out.

CASE STUDY :
CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
By : Ajay Kr. Singh

SYNOPSIS OF CASE STUDY

### Fortune India Ltd. is a manufacturing company in Delhi. This
company has been operating almost thirty years ago. The
efficiency of the company's employees is very high due to the
fact that the same person is doing the job from quite some time.
### The Company has made changes in policies and procedures
which involve job rotation. Among those involved was Shyam
and his three subordinates.
### Two from subordinates want to change the job rotation
schedule. whereas one is not at all interested for the same.
### Shyam should manage the conflict situations that occur in
the company.

Question 1:
What conflict management
styles are represented by
each of the four
alternatives suggested
above by Shyam?

Question 2:
Which of the four approaches
should Shyam choose to
follow in this situation?
Why? Or should an
alternative approach be
taken?

Answer :

Approach 4
This approach is win/win situation
Highly value their own goals and relationships
Begin a discussion that identify the conflict as a problem and
seeking solution that satisfy both themselves and the other
person
It requires a high-degree of trust and reaching a consensus can
require a lot of time and effort to get everybody can synthesize all
the ideas.

Question 3 :
What special interpersonal
skills should Shyam need to
succeed in this problem
situation?

Effective
communication

Teamwork

Assertive
communication

Interperson
al Skills
Anger
management
Conflict
resolution

Interpersonal Skills

Question 4 :
Assume that you are the CEO
of the organisation and you
have to implement this
change. Prepare a model of
change which you think would
avoid such conflict when this
change would be implemented.