Order Number |
636738393092 |
Type of Project |
ESSAY |
Writer Level |
PHD VERIFIED |
Format |
APA |
Academic Sources |
10 |
Page Count |
3-12 PAGES |
Change management experts have developed a long list of reasons people do not embrace change. Some people resist change because of their personality and values.17 Aside from these dispositional factors, however, employees often lack the motivation or commitment
^connect’
Are you ready for change? Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com to
identify conditions that are holding back your readiness for a specific change initiative.
to change when they believe the change will fail, is the wrong action for the situation, or will be costly to them personally.18 This cost might be in the form of lost rewards and status, or it might represent negative consequences if they attempt to support the change. Another reason for resistance is the person’s inability (or perceived inability) to change due to inadequate skills and knowledge. A third reason is that employees lack role clarity about the change. This lack of role clarity occurs when people misunderstand or magnify what is expected of them in the future. These three factors—motivation, ability, and role (mis) perceptions—are the foundations of the six most commonly cited reasons people resist change, which are summarized here.19
Direct Costs Employees lack commitment to (or even compliance with) a change initiative when their personal cost-benefit analysis calculation is negative rather than positive. They might believe the benefits for them (and possibly for the organization) are trivial (i.e., some pain for little gain). They might anticipate benefits from the change but also believe that they will be worse off overall. For example, the Malaysian government has introduced sweeping changes in which managers are expected to delegate more power and responsibility to staff. However, many government managers believe these reforms will give them less power and prestige, so they have hindered the change by delegating responsibility slowly.
Saving Face Several years ago, Rob McEwan, CEO of Goldcorp and USGold, decided to post the mining company’s confidential geological data online and offer a handsome reward to anyone who could help find more gold on the property. The Goldcorp Challenge was a huge success, but the firm’s geological staff complained just before the event was launched. “We have real concerns,” they told McEwen. “You’re going to ask the rest of the world to tell you where we’re going to find gold in our mine, and we think they’re going to think we’re really dumb and that you don’t have any confidence in us.”20
Goldcorp’s geological staff resisted the global challenge because it threatened their self-esteem. Although McEwan eased those concerns, employees often continue to quietly attack changes that did not originate from them. Due to this “not-invented-here” syndrome, staff sometimes deliberately inflate problems with changes that they did not initiate, just to “prove” that those ideas were not superior to their own. This form of resistance is widespread, according to change experts. Says one consultant, “Unless they’re scared enough to listen, they’ll never forgive you for being right and for knowing something they don’t.”21
Fear of the Unknown All change includes some degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty puts employees at risk. Their knowledge and skills might become obsolete; their
Ray Davis, CEO of Umpqua Bank, warns that employees tend to fall back into their old ways unless the change is reinforced through systems and structures. “When you are leading for growth, you know you are going to disrupt comfortable routines and ask for new behavior, new priorities, new skills,” says Davis, whose Oregon-based bank is regarded as one of America’s most innovative financial institutions. “Even when we want to change, and do change, we tend to relax and the rubber band snaps us back into our comfort zones.”23
438
Part Four Organizational Processes
437
Chapter Fifteen Organizational Change
valued work space, perquisites, or even social relationships might be disrupted and removed. Thus, people resist change out of worry that they cannot adjust to the new work requirements or that they will produce unknown costs. Overall, this uncertainty is usually considered less desirable than the relative certainty of the status quo.
Breaking Routines People typically resist initiatives that force them out of their comfort zones and require them to invest time and energy in learning new role patterns. Indeed, most employees in one Australian survey admitted they don’t follow through with organizational changes because they “like to keep things the way they are” or the changes seem to be too complicated or time wasting.22
Incongruent Team Dynamics Teams develop and enforce conformity to a set of norms that guide behavior. However, conformity to existing team norms may discourage employees from accepting organizational change. This form of resistance occurred at electronics retailer Best Buy when it introduced the results-only work environment (ROWE). ROWE evaluates employees by their results, not their face time, so employees can come to work and leave when they want. Yet coworkers often responded to deviations from the standard work schedule with half-humorous barbs such as “Forgot to set your alarm clock again?” These jibes supported the old employment model but undermined the ROWE program. Best Buy’s consultants eventually set up sessions that warned employees about these taunts, which they called “sludge.”24
Incongruent Organizational Systems Rewards, information systems, patterns of authority, career paths, selection criteria, and other systems and structures are both friends and foes of organizational change. When properly aligned, they reinforce desired behaviors. When misaligned, they pull people back into their old attitudes and behavior. Even enthusiastic employees lose momentum after failing to overcome the structural confines of the past.
440
Part Four Organizational Processes
439
Chapter Fifteen Organizational Change
Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing
According to Lewin’s force field analysis model, effective change occurs by unfreezing the current situation, moving to a desired condition, and then refreezing the system so it remains in this desired state. Unfreezing occurs when the driving forces are stronger than the restraining forces. This happens by making the driving forces stronger, weakening or removing the restraining forces, or both.
The first option is to increase the driving forces, motivating employees to change through fear or threats (real or contrived). This strategy rarely works, however, because the action of increasing the driving forces alone is usually met with an equal and opposing increase in the restraining forces. A useful metaphor is pushing against the coils of a mattress. The harder corporate leaders push for change, the stronger the restraining forces push back. This antagonism threatens the change effort by producing tension and conflict within the organization.
The second option is to weaken or remove the restraining forces. The problem with this change strategy is that it provides no motivation for change. To some extent, weakening the restraining forces is like clearing a pathway for change. An unobstructed road makes it easier to travel to the destination but does not motivate anyone to go there. The preferred option, therefore, is to both increase the driving forces and reduce or remove the restraining forces. Increasing the driving forces creates an urgency for change, while reducing the restraining forces lessens motivation to oppose the change and removes obstacles such as lack of ability or situational constraints.
RUBRIC | |||
Excellent Quality
95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed. |
Literature Support
91-84 points The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed. |
Methodology
58-53 points With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached. |
Average Score
50-85% |
40-38 points
More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied. |
83-76 points
There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration. |
52-49 points
The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached. |
Poor Quality
0-45% |
37-1 points
The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied. |
75-1 points
There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references. |
48-1 points
There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached. |
Place the Order Here: https://standardwriter.com/orders/ordernow / https://standardwriter.com/