Resistance to organizational change: roles of change agents

Change

Ford, Ford and d'Amelio note that most change literature takes the view that resistance to change is irrational and dysfunctional. If this is the view that is taken by the actual change agents, it is not hard to see that the change agents themselves could be contributing to resistance to change. Resistance cannot always be interpreted as self-serving or irrational (two things that are contradictory, it should be noted). The first step is a change agent not becoming part of the problem is to recognize that there may be other, more logical motivations for resistance. This is not to say that resistance is never irrational or self-serving, but just that change agents cannot assume this to be the case. If they do make such an assumption, then their response to the resistance may only make matters worse. They may invalidate the opinions of those resistance the change, something that could only reduce organizational motivation and result in more employees becoming even more disaffected.

Ford et al. outlines some of the ways in which change agents contribute to change resistance, in part by failing to recognize properly the roles that both change agents and the rest of the organization play in the change process. The first way in which change agents contribute to change resistance is by breaking agreements and violating trust. Any organizational process is dependent on a certain level of trust between the different actors. Thus, broken agreements and other violations of trust inherently increase the level of resistance in the organization. Change agents cannot see themselves an infallible actors whose actions are beyond reproach. There needs to be a certain level of honesty and humility from the change agents in order to ensure that trust is maintained. The same goes for the rest of the organization -- it cannot violate trust either or the change agent will react negatively and the entire process will break down.

Communication breakdowns are another means by which change agents contribute to change resistance. For a change to be effective, the rationale for the change needs to be well-communicated, as does the role that everybody involved must play in the change process. Too often, change agents operate on the assumption that they have communicated everything perfectly, but that is not necessarily the case. Some of the effects of communication breakdown are as follows: the change is never properly legitimized; the change is misrepresented and there is no call for action. The first important because change works better when everybody in the organization is motivated to make the change. The change agent needs to ensure that this is the case. If the change is misrepresented, trust is going to erode. If there is no call for action, then the different people within the organization will not understand what role that they play in the change process. Without motivation and a clear role, most people will not be as receptive to disruptive change efforts.

Resisting resistance is another way that the authors identify as a way in which change agents contribute to change resistance. Basically, when the change agent meets with resistance, and resists this, that creates a cycle of resistance. Such a cycle can be difficult to break, leading to intransigence all around. Thus, resistance must be met with a little bit more humility, and not with the assumption that the change is irrational, as that may well start a negative cycle that will be entirely disruptive to the process.

2. Ford et al. argue that resistance can be used to improve the change process. They outline several ways in which this can happen. The first is that management first needs to accept the value of resistance. To avoid the cycle of negativity that begins with resistance is met with intransigence on the part of management, management needs to take the concerns of the other stakeholders seriously and engage in discussion about them.

Thus, management needs to see the resistance as an opportunity to engage people and find ways to do two things. The first is to make the change process better, because other stakeholders often have good ideas, too. The second is to bring the other stakeholders on board. The change process is not going to work without all of the stakeholders being on board. Resistance that is noticeable to management is good because it creates that opportunity for engagement, something more subtle resistance might not do. This situation is much better than if there are problems and the employees simply let their issues fester until well into the implementation and those problems explode.

It is important, then, overcome resistance through a process of engagement that allows all of the stakeholders to become more involved in the process. Control is an issue that drives resistance, so management at this point needs to let control go a little bit, in order that the process is shaped by others. Improving the engagement of others is essential to success of any change process, and this is something that management needs to recognize to ensure success.

Kotter recommends eight sequential steps to overcoming problems with organizational change. The first is to establish a sense of urgency. The organization would not be changing if nothing was wrong. So a sense of urgency must be created. Urgency creates motivation, and not just for management but for all actors if that urgency can be conveyed all around. The second step is to form a powerful guiding coalition. This should include a number of critical stakeholders, so that all the key stakeholders are involved in guiding the change process. This engagement should reduce problems in the future.

The third step is to create a vision, and the fourth step is to communicate the vision. All strategy benefits from having a vision, but change in particular. The different stakeholders may be comfortable, and the change shakes up their routines. Thus, they will resist unless they know why they are making the change. A vision is a great way to inspire people to embrace change, but only if it is communicated well.