RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

In what way change agents can contribute to change resistance?

Change agents can contribute to change resistance in many ways.  Change agents view resistance to change as one of the most difficult aspects of their responsibilities. Is it true? Change is a necessary factor of success but change agents misunderstand it and apply it with intention to control the recipient. Due to lack of effective planning, change is resisted at all levels, depending where it is aimed at. There are two opposing participants of change, namely, ‘the change agent’ and the ‘change recipients’.

There are many ways change agents can contribute to change resistance. It is better to explain this by applying both academic theory and practical experience. The change agents, in many cases, contribute to the resistance by imposing the conditions of change on the recipients, without proper consultation, education and communication. Corporate strategic implementation fails as a result of “inactions and reactions” (Beer, Eisenstart & Spector, 1990) on the part of the change agents inability to consult the Change recipients, so as to get them involved from the designing stage. Change agents fail to share the common vision of the benefits of change with the recipients. Change agents used to give instructions to recipients without planning to education them before change takes place. It may be viewed by the change agents that recipients resist any change, but this is not true as Professor Ford rightly pointed out. Like any other strategy to achieve the objectives and the fundamental purpose, change needs to be thought through, planned and documented effectively at every stage.

The change agents may contribute to change resistance:

The change agent needs to learn on how to implement change. Change supposed to be a continuous process. It does not need to be lagging behind other corporate strategies. Some change agents see change as a cultural issue and others see it as an individual behavioural factor, but in general, it may seen as a corporate strategic tool to manage and to respond to environmental changes and it must be continuous. The change agent, seeking a smooth implementation of change may contribute as follows:

  • identify the need for a change and the benefits of change
  • identify the affected recipients
  • understand the factors that may contribute to the resistance, such as culture, level of education and understanding, emotion as a result of shock and expectations, etc
  • design mode and language of communication
  • communicate the need for a change to the intended recipients
  • communicated the benefits as the accrual of change
  • design a system of managing the affected recipients so as to encourage them to participate as after all, change may not be a bad thing but to be seen as a positive necessity for the growth and expansion of the organisation to compete effectively within its environment.

It is said that “the contribution of change agents to resistance goes beyond the labelling that results from their own sense-making to breaking agreement and violating trust, misrepresentation and other communication breakdowns, and their own resistance to change” (Ford, 2008).

In my acknowledgement to the above quotation, one of the most important factors of effective change is to change the change agent. Ford said that “change agents portrayed as undeserving victims of the irrational and dysfunctional responses of change recipients” (Ford, 1995). Change agents need to be educated to understand the fear and emotion of the recipient. The change recipients need to be forewarned, up-dated and communicated to on the need and benefits of change. The change agents need to understand the fear and needs of the recipients, as in some cases, change lead to lose of job, benefits, freedom, money, etc. The change agents may stop portraying themselves as victims. While there are some elements of truth in the change agent’s conception of resistance by the recipients, the obvious contributing factors to resistance are ‘misunderstanding and lack of effective communication’.

There have been arguments for and against the change agent’s conception of resistance, such as “resistance is an interpretation assigned by change agents to the behaviours and communications of change recipients, and the interpretations are either self-serving or self-fulfilling” (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). The above quotation represents misunderstanding and lack of trust on the part of the change agent as he labels the recipients without offering the olive hand of ‘partnership and co-operation’ for the achievement of the fundamental purpose of change. It is viewed that if the recipients of change are co-opted as partners, change will enjoy a harmonious application where both the change agent and the recipient share the success and rewarded equally, after all, the purpose of any change is to position an organisation to be competitive, ensure growth and expansion, and to be profitable.

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) agreed that “resistance is portrayed as unwarranted and detrimental”, “lack of interaction and relationships between change agent and recipients”. This demonstrates that if the change agent learns to improve the relationship and interact appropriately by sharing the vision, and co-operates with the recipient as a partner, the stereotype and misconception will ease, thereby, leading to recipients initiating change in partnership with the change agent rather than resisting change.

How can organisation use resistance to change as a change agent?

A good number of writers, such as Beer, Eisenstart, & Spector (1990), Kanter et al (1992), Schaffer & Thomson (1992), and Spreitzer & Quinn (1996) have identified that some of the factors affecting the implementation of change are due to “actions and inactions owing to the ignorance, incompetence and mismanagement” on the part of the change agent. For an organisation to use resistance to change as a change agent, it has to address the misconception and relationships between the change agent and the recipient. Implementation of change will be effective if the imbalances and ‘ineptitude’ of the change agent is properly planned for at the initial stage, and co-opted rather than ‘coerce’ the recipients into submission. The planning will include adequate training to deal with the ‘emotion and fear’ of the recipients. The management may apply the 8 step plan for implementing change (J P Kotter, 1995) as mentioned below:

  1. establish sense of urgency through careful examination of the market
  2. form powerful coalition of managers able to lead change
  3. create a vision to direct change and the strategies for achieving that vision
  4. communicate the vision throughout the organisation
  5. empower others to act on the vision by removing barriers, changing systems and encouraging risk taking
  6. plan for and celebrate visible short term performance improvement
  7. consolidate improvement, reassess change, and make necessary adjustment in the new programme.
  8. articulate the relationship between new behaviours and organisational success.

The Common Mistakes Managers Make:

In addition to the eight (8) step plan, the first point of establishing a sense of urgency, works for and against the realities and the purpose of change. To create or establish a sense of urgency is to increase ‘tension’ which may lead to solidification of resistance. Strategy is a continuous process and changes according to the environment. The change agent must not be ‘short-sighted’ as to be put in a position of ‘reacting’, rather than be ‘proactive’.  The introduction of “sense of urgency” demonstrates lack of vision and establishes that the change agent is ‘myopic‘.

Again, to “form powerful coalition of managers able to lead change” sounds like ‘confrontation’. The above factor is like creating ‘boundary within boundary’ which leads to opposition. To form powerful coalition is a language of the ‘civil service’ where ‘profit and customer satisfaction’ are NOT the ‘bedrock. The formation of a coalition breeds discontent and re-enforces the resistance from recipients. Here then, what is the best way forward?

The Sequential Steps to Overcome the Problems of Change:

  • To remove the authoritative rules that invites resistance. In response to Wick (1979) and Berger & Luckmann (1966), change agents cannot enact their environment neither can they construct their realities. The bane of success in managing change is ‘co-operation’
  • To work as a team and partners of change with the recipient. In opposition to some of the eight (8) step plan according to Kotter (1995), the change agents cannot coerce the recipients. In doing so, will solidify resistance. The enabling factors are ‘involvement and shared vision’
  • To involve the recipient from the point of initiation to the implementation stage. This will ease tension. Some managers destroy the implementation before it even began by creating tension through their action as a result of ‘ineptitude’
  • To plan ahead and establishes a system to manage emotion.
  • To continually communicates the reason and ultimate purpose of change. Communication and maintenance of good relationship between the change agent and the recipient shall begin from the conception of change, and acting as ‘forewarning’ that a change is needed. Forewarning the recipient that doing nothing is not an option, as it could lead to serious problem that may affect everyone. Begin from the point of conception to explain the benefits of change, and the ‘loss’ as a result of inaction. Recipients are human being and they will reason along with you when they realise that change is something good for everyone. They will not oppose you, they will co-operate with you.
  • To create an environment of partnership, shared vision, and enthusiasm within the system to enable the recipient have a sense of ‘involvement and collaboration’
  • To identify a ‘leader cum educator’ who operates at the same level as the recipient, acting as a ‘bridge’ between the change agent and the recipient. His duty is to explain where misunderstanding exists. He provides the shock absorbing springs.
  • To lead from the front and show examples as identified in a leader. A leader is not ‘bossy’, and not ‘authoritative’. A leader is sympathetic, caring, firm, intelligent, long-sighted, educative, and trustworthy.

To Plan for a change and its implementation may include the above mentioned factors so as to achieve the desired objectives. Some of the Kotter’s 8 step plan of creating urgency and forming a coalition of managers when dealing with change create problems and add to re-enforce resistance.

In addition to the above factors, it is important to discuss the management of emotion separately, as it has far reaching consequences.

Managing Emotion:

Emotion is described as “Affect” by Professor Barsade of Wharton University. The neglect of managing emotion is what leads to resistance of change. This is the major mistake managers make when implementing change in an organisation. Mismanagement of emotion leads to fear, and fear leads to resistance or submission. Resisting or submitting to coercion leads to confrontation or ineffectiveness and inefficiency.  “Emotional contagion as processes that allow the sharing or transferring of emotions from one individual to other group members, often occurs without conscious knowledge” (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).

Emotion is infectious and should be treated with care, skill and professionalism.  It takes one member of staff to sense insecurity and this will be transmitted like raging fire and engulf the whole employees with discontent. Inexperienced managers think or believe that they can coerce their staff members by enacting or constructing their reality. Good relationship simply takes co-operation. Do not get it wrong, emotion is good and it is equally bad.

There are two sides to a coin. A well managed emotion brings co-operation and positive result, and a badly managed emotion brings resistance and failure.  It is perfectly natural for one to defend his environment to intruders. The study of Biology tells us that the body does the same thing, ‘defend’. The first resolution to resistance is ‘negotiation’. This happens in organisation, and it also happens in the world ‘new order’. Force is only a result of failed negotiation. Change managers should stop putting themselves in positions of confrontation. It is bad for an organisation, and it is bad for management.

The Enabling Factors to Change Management:

Having discussed the resistance to change and the mistakes managers make during the implementation of change, I identify some of the enabling factors that promote good relationships between the change agents and the recipients. My view is that the key to successful implementation of change in an organisation is ‘co-operation and collective involvement’ as mentioned above and below:

  • Involvement of recipients at the initiation (conception) stage
  • Sharing the vision with recipients at the designing stage
  • Articulate the benefits through effective communication
  • Appoint the ‘bridge’ between the change agent and the recipient.
  • Create an enabling environment that enshrines co-operation and enthusiasm
  • Avoid enacting or constructing your environment to coerce the recipient
  • Forewarn the recipient at the conception of change
  • Establish a ‘feedback system’ to address imbalances
  • Watch out for early ‘signs’ of negative emotion.
  • Intensify communication with personal contact (care, sympathy, empathy, etc)
  • Always lead from the front and not at the back

Having highlighted some of the factors for and against the resistance to change, and having discussed at length the effects of co-operation and involvement on both part of the participants (the change agent and the recipient), I conclude that the management of an organisation planning for a change and its implementation shall endeavour to share their vision with the recipients, and to educate the change agents, so as to lead from the front and avoid strategies that coerce the recipients into submission. The management may initiate consultation and negotiation with the recipients, so as to engage their enthusiasm and expectations, and also plan to manage their emotion.

Bibliography:

Ford, Ford & D’Amelio (2008), Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story, Academy of Management Review

J D Ford (2008) Change agent’s contribution to resistance.

Ford, Ford & McNamara (2002), Resistance and the Background Conversation of Change, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 15

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) Resistance to change

Weick (1979), the social psychology of organizing, Addison-Wesley

Berger & Luckmann (1966) the social construction of reality, Anchor Books New York

Ford et al (1995) The positive side of resistance to change

Beer, Eisenstart & Spector (1990,) why change programs don’t produce change, Harvard Business Review

Kanter et al (1992) A different view on resistance to change

Schaffer & Thompson (1992), doing what works:  the success of change programs begin with results, Harvard Business Review

Spreitzer & Quinn (1996) Conceptual, transformational and transaction

J P Kotter (1995), leading change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review OnPoint

Barsade & Gibson (2007) Why does Affect matter in organization, Academy of Management Perspectives

 

Oguchi Martins Egbujor