Managing Organizational Change Process

Question: Discuss about the Managing Organizational Change Process. Answer: Introduction Organizational change is all about companies making a transition from their current state to some desired future state (Elkama, 2010). Todays business setting requires organizations to undergo transformations almost regularly if they are to maintain competitive advantage. Factors such as swiftly developing technology and globalization of markets coerce businesses to respond in order to endure. Change initiatives are often as a result of issues faced by an organization. However, in some instances, the organization transform under the impetus of enlightened leaders who initially acknowledge and then take advantage of novel possibilities dormant in the company or its circumstances. Notably, more and more assorted markets tend to have an array of expectations and needs that ought to be implicit if they are to succeed and be collaborators and customers (Starr, 2011). Therefore, the aptitude to administer change while abiding to cater to the desires of stakeholders is a very significant pr oficiency requisite by todays managers as well as leaders. Any trade in these days fast paced setting that is searching for the swiftness of transformation to dawdling is likely to be greatly dissatisfied. That is why businesses need to embrace change. Organizational alteration is significant in companies to permit employees to gain knowledge of novel skills, discover novel chances and practice their originality in manners that in due course help the institute through new thoughts and amplified loyalty (Burnes Tadnem, 2011). Organizations usually profit from amendments that result in novel ways of considering consumer needs, novel ways of delivering consumer service, novel products that are likely to lure new markets, and novel ways of strengthening customer interactions. Change is important in business as it allows organizations to meet the dynamic needs of its customers and at the same time create development opportunities. It also allows businesses to keep up with advancing technology and react to different economic conditions, such as w eak or stable economic development (Dolan Bao, 2012). Why change is resisted, and why resistance is problematic as something to be managed and an example from my own organization Recently, the organization I work for underwent an organizational change where new technology was being introduced. This transformation was met with some resistance because not only were some of the employees fearful of the future and grieving at the potential loss of their jobs, but they also lacked the capacity for dealing with the change. Furthermore, the senior management did not ensure an open line of communication where the employees were to be informed of what was to be expected of them following the transformation. The organization comprises of both the older and younger generations, where the former was somewhat used to the traditional way of doing things. Most of them did not possess the knowledge or experience of technology and therefore by introducing computer database system into the organization, the senior management was initiating resistance to change from these particular individuals. Organizational change does not come easy. From what has been observed many change efforts have failed to achieve their objectives. Senior sponsor of the organizational transformation often blame its failure on middle manager and employee resistance to change. Moreover, most senior executives tend to overestimate how much change they can force on the organization. They also fail to understand just how difficult it is to lead and implement change effectively (Douglas, 2011). Given the fact that alteration is an integral element of executive dynamics, staffs who oppose amendments tend to cripple a company. Resistance is a foreseeable reaction to any key change. Some of the main reasons why people resist change is because if the potential loss of power, increased demands, previous negative experiences, past resentments, feelings of bewilderment and uncertainty if how the change will impact jobs (De Jagar, 2001). For one to appreciate the thought of employee conflict, it is important to define what is meant by the term resistance. Confrontation to change simply refers to actions which are intended to safeguard a person from the effects of real or imagined transformation (Graetz, Rimmer Lawrence, 2011). The notion that employee resistance can be conquered cognitively suggests that negative beliefs or thoughts about transformation exist. Notably, individuals are not really opposing the transformation itself, but somewhat they may be opposing the loss of pay, loss of comfort, or loss of status. Workers oppose change because they are expected to learn something new. This is to say that most of them are afraid to leave the familiar behind. What some leaders may see as impolite or groundless opposition to alteration might be motivated by ones moral principles or their desire to safeguard what they feel is the best interests of the company. The main reason for organizational change failure is resis tance to change while the secondary one is the inability of leaders to address the issue of resistance (Luke, 2005). Table: Reasons why people resist organizational change in Percentage Denial Anger Confusion Depression Crisis Acceptance New Confidence Men 80 74 40 36 5 62 69 Women 78 60 55 37 3 67 71 Having workers who are conflicting to what is going to be altered from the start is a key hindrance and one that requires immediate and careful dealing in order to be victorious with the change management. Communication tends to solve all ills. However, a lack of it usually creates more of them. This is among the main reasons why change is resisted. It is important for employees to understand why there is need for change because if they are just thrown the idea that what they have been used to for a long time is going to be totally renovated, there will be much backlash. In addition, mutual mistrust between employees and management will often lead to the organization going into a downward spiral (Robyn Hardy, 2011). If organizations are regularly experiencing times where the future is unclear, there is a good possibility that employees will not react to change well. When the idea of change is brought up, it comes as a surprise, resulting in employees being caught off guard, which ma kes the situation worse. That is why resistance to organizational change is problematic as something that needs to be managed. The relationship between power and resistance in the context of organizational change Power is considered to be one of the core ideas of both the social sciences in general and organizational and management theory in particular (Elkama, 2010). It also refers to the ability to get a person to do something they would not normally do. Contemporary work on the idea of power means looking at the dynamics of resistance which come up within organizations. Acts of resistance on the part of managers call into question the legality of all aspects of modern management, constituting invisible acts of combined power which until recently have been only slackly organized (Robyn Hardy, 2011). Power and politics tend to pervade organizational life, partly because individuals have different interests, points of view and experiences. Moreover, power and resistance is at the heart of negotiation of meanings. Power and resistance are considered to be coproduced in that resistance is an adaptive reaction to power. The relationship between power and resistance has been theorized as a defining feature of organizing and organizations. The dominance of conceptions of companies as sites of rational action and decision making militated against unambiguous consideration of power as a constitutive feature of organizing, with its connotations of non-rational, political behavior (Dolan Bao, 2012). During the 1970s, a number of efforts were made to understand organizations as sites of power, most of which were relatively functionalist in orientation. Resource Dependence Theory was an addition to Open Systems Theory, exploring the notion of organizations as systems of resource interdependence. Similar to power, the dominance of the managerial approach made its usage quite rare. The dynamics of the power-resistance relationship was greatly ignored. Notably, the analysis of power requires a robust conception of resistance, but without reducing one to the other (Ford, Ford DAmelio, 2008). Furthermore, scho lars have also started investigating workplace resistance in more systematic and sustained ways, with efforts to look at the complicated dynamics of resistance processes and power. People perceive that the proposed organizational change will lead to a loss of power, self control and independence. They are fearful of reduced status. Managers who have such fear of loss of power often are in positions of influence and are therefore easily capable of disrupting how the action plan is implemented. Furthermore, they hinder change through their negative attitude and passive-aggressive behavior. The managers hope is that transformations in circumstances will make the initiative irrelevant or obsolete, or at the very least, introduce delay (Linstead, Fulop Lilley, 2009). The ethics of the managerial and of resistant positions Dynamic setting calls for regular transformation and to be victorious in todays taxing trade world, it is vital for organizations to often assess the requirement for starting transformations. Together with the current demands for alteration, significant questions about the principles in change administration must be acknowledged and addressed by those who initiate and implement the change (Muo, 2014). The ethics of modification has so far been identified as the missing element in a number of change models, because during the change process the models require forfeiting from employees, but do not indicate equal willingness to sacrifice from the managers or employers side. Once a transformation is initiated, some ethical issues tend to arise which need to be acknowledged and addressed by the practitioners and researchers. Individuals participating in an organizational alteration need to recognize the fundamental ethics, address them, and analyze them as they influence every transformat ion project. Notably, transformation situations usually need some ethical and moral investigation so as to effectively execute the change in organizations. As already indicated, managers and employees both feel threatened in terms of their positions and jobs, respectively, whenever there is need for organizational change. In turn, employees become resistant to change since their livelihood is on the line. It is important to keep message levels tremendously high throughout the change process (Jabri, 2012). Managers also need to understand that the change will not only affect their current positions in the organization, but will greatly improve and enhance performance among the staff. Management has to encourage workers that this particular modification is for the company to survive and correspond that it is realistic without any damaging effects on their jobs. Ethical issues also come about when leaders do not acknowledge that the values and goals which they are pursuing are irreconcilable with th e members of the organization. Therefore, the level of honesty adjoining the change process and the level of engagement of workers in alteration process is a practical step to stay away from ethical issues arising at the instance of change realization (Elkama, 2010). The implications of the managerial and of resistant positions for achieving an effective change management programme Since the mid-2000s, organizational change management and transformation have become stable features of the business setting. Many novel markets and labor pools have come up, innovative technologies have put once-powerful business models on the chopping block, and sponsor demand and capital flows have become less expected (Starr, 2011). Change administration is considered an essential skill for anyone in a management role. Being a firm and effective leader means being a successful change mediator. Applying change management allows companies to deliver outcomes on each change more effectively and build capabilities that grow the companys ability to handle more transformations at one time. For the organization to achieve an effective change management programme there needs to be open communication between managers and the staff. Managers need to monitor the effectiveness of the change management programme and make necessary adjustments. Change agents are responsible for good communication and the determination of whether or not actions are productive resistance. Resistance to change is often as a result of poor planning hence incorporating employee knowledge can improve the implementation of change programmes. Conclusion In todays rapidly evolving business market, companies are required to implement organizational change in order to keep up with the current trends. However, there is tendency to resist change due to fear of loss of jobs, positions, and comfort. Employees also resist change because there has not been an open line of communication present during the transformation. Understanding the most ordinary reasons individuals resist organizational change gives managers the opportunity to play their change strategy to tackle these factors. It is important for organizations to manage change and subsequent resistance so as to survive. Notably, employees may oppose changes without necessarily considering the possible advantages of the proposed changes. Employees are not the only individuals who may resist change. Managers may also resist the transformation for fear that it will minimize their power and status they already enjoy in the organization. Thus, there is need for effective change management and change management programme implementations. References Dolan, S.L., Bao, Y. (2012). Sharing the culture: Embedding storytelling and ethics in the culture change management process. Journal of Management and Change, 29. Pp. 10 23. Erwin, D.G., Garman, A.N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and practice. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(1). Pp. 39 56. Burnes, B., Tadnem, R. (2011). Leadership and change: The case of the greater etrical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108. Pp. 239 252. Graetz, F., Rimmer, M., Lawrence, A. (2011). Managing Organizational change. 3rd Edition. Milton, QLD: John Wiley Sons. Douglas, F. (2011). Between a rock and a hard place: Career guidance practitioner resistance and the construction of professional identity. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 11(3). Pp. 163 173. Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., DAmelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33. Pp. 362 377. Muo, I. (2014). The other side of change resistance. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(1). Jabri, M. (2012). Managing Organizational Change: Process, social construction and dialogue. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Robyn, T., Hardy, C. (2011). Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 27, issue 3. Pp. 322 331. Elkama, N. (2010). Power and Resistance in a multinational Organization: Discursive struggles over organizational restructuring. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26. Pp. 151 165. Linstead, S., Fulop, L. Lilley, S. (2009). Management Organization: A critical text. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Starr, K. (2011). Principles and the politics of resistance to change. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 39(6). Pp. 646 660.