REACTIONS TO ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE
Adrian Furnham
There is a wonderful prayer from the monastic office of compline: “Protect us, Oh Lord, through the silent hours of this night that we, who are fatigued by the chances and changes of this fleeting world, may repose among thy eternal changlessnesss” The word change is both boring and anxiety provoking: the former because you keep hearing it; the latter because it usually means pain of one sort or another.
Inevitably, organizations are most concerned with resistance to change, which will be manifest in everything from strikes and sabotage, to a drop in motivation and morale, to no participation in, and commitment to, change initiatives. The clever ones anticipate anti-change agents and try to “push through” change as effectively as they can.
Organisational change causes powerful emotions from a sense of liberation to depression and humiliation. People’s support of, or resistance to, change ¬depends heavily on how they answer the following questions:
• Will this change cause me to gain or lose something of value?
• Do I understand the nature of this change?
• Do I trust the initiators of this change?
• Do I agree with the advisability of this change?
• Given my personality, personal values, and attitudes, how do I feel about this change?
How they answer these questions may lead to one of seven responses
.
• Quitting The most extreme reaction an employee shows to a change is to leave the organization. For example, following the introduction of a major organisational change, such as a merger or a transfer in job assignment, many workers leave because they believe the change is so obnoxious that staying would be intolerable. Sometimes organization members depart even if the change is a good one, because they find it personally difficult to cope with the change. Early retirement is a convenient and ¬acceptable way to “let people go” who are unhappy with organisational change. Some prefer generous voluntary severance payment though it is not always voluntary. Although leaving an organization may be the most ¬extreme reaction to change, it is not necessarily the most damaging one to the organization. Indeed, things probably proceed more smoothly if the most adamant ¬opponents of a change leave rather than stay to fight it. Dare one admit that some changes, like restructuring are designed specifically to encourage (certain) people to leave
• Active resistance Workers who actively resist a change may try either to prevent it from occurring or to modify its nature. At its extreme, active resistance sends the message “No, I will not do this”. Active resistance often goes beyond personal defiance and includes attempts to encourage others to resist the change. Many organisational changes have been scuttled by active employee resistance. A strike is a good example of group-orientated active resistance, though these days there are all sorts of clever ways to drum up support for ones cause and disrupt the whole change process.
• Opposition This is somewhat less extreme than active resistance. Usually somewhat passive in nature, opposition behaviour might result in no more than simple “foot dragging” to delay implementation or to bring about a scaled-down version of a proposed change. Opposition is a tactic commonly used by those who control resources that are necessary for the change to be made. By withholding essential resources, people can slow or modify a change quietly without having to make their dislike for the change known ¬actively or aggressively. This is preferred approach of the pusillanimous passive-aggressive worker
• Acquiescence Opposition reactions tend to occur when those affected dislike a change and engage in passive resistance to delay or modify it. Sometimes, however, those opposed to a change feel powerless to prevent or alter it and they allow the change to occur without interference. This acquiescence to an unwanted change may arise from an impending sense of its inevitability – like death or taxes. People put up with the ¬inevitable as best they can, shrugging their shoulders, gritting their teeth, and steeling themselves to face the inevitable. They hardly welcome the change but understand its inevitability. It is the stoical way.
• Acceptance/modification Employers who demonstrate an acceptance/modification response accept a change to a certain extent but have some reservations about it. For example, suppose a manager has been told that her employer intends to move the company’s headquarters to another European capital. She supports the idea of moving operations because local taxes and other restrictive ordinances are hurting the company’s ability to compete in the marketplace. On the other hand, she is worried that the change may alienate many of its major customers and adversely affect supply and delivery systems. At a personal level, she would rather not move her family too far from friends and relatives. One option available is to try to persuade her employer that there are sound reasons for finding a different site in the same country. Acceptance/modification responses to change usually can be characterized as bargaining over ¬details (albeit, perhaps, important ones), rather than over principles.
• Acceptance This type of reaction is likely when people are either ¬in¬different towards the change (that is, they do not actually dislike it), or they agree with it. Acceptance reactions to change are characterized by passive luke-warm support. If asked whether they like the change, for example, workers might agree that they do – but they are unlikely to volunteer such information. If asked to participate in the change, they will cooperate – but they probably will not initiate participation. They may see change as inevitable or that their jobs ultimately depend on it. It is often the logical head and the passionate heart: the former is logical and reasonable and knows the situation. The latter wishes to continue without the change.
• Active support In this situation, organization members choose to engage actively in behaviours that increase the change’s chances of success. ¬Active supporters often initiate conversations, explaining why they support the change and think it is a good idea. They embrace, welcome and even rejoice in change. The are usually young or have a lot to gain….or are somewhat naïve!
All people tend to become satisfied with the status quo. Insecurity ¬develops when changes occur. Sometimes this insecurity is caused by economic factors. Lower-level workers fear that automation will result in ¬un¬employment. Higher-level employees might view change as a threat to their status and eventually to their economic wellbeing.
The following is a checklist of factors that account for why people don’t change, although it may be in their best interests, resisting for various reasons:
• Because of ignorance Often, concerned individuals are simply not aware of the changes taking place.
• By default Sometimes people may reject a change, even though they are aware of another better technique, with little justification except a desire not to learn to use a new method.
• On the basis of the status quo Change is rejected because it will alter the way in which things have traditionally been done.
• Because of social reasons A manager may refuse to change because of a rationalization that the people within and society outside the organization will not accept it.
• On the basis of interpersonal relations Because friends and even competitors have not accepted the change or are threatened by it.
• Through substitution Another process or technique is selected in favour of the proposed change, because it seems easier, safer and less threatening.
• Because of experience People reject a change when they try it but do not like it, or do it badly, wrongly or half-heartedly, thus self-fulfilling their prophesies.
• Through incorrect logic People may reject a change on supposedly “logical” grounds without having well founded reasons. Collective rationalization is strong when passion is involved.
In short people resist change through habit and the inconvenience of having to do things differently. Fearing the unknown, insecurity or indeed economic ¬implications (having to work harder) are main causes of individuals resisting change. All organizations are in a state of equilibrium as a consequence of various forces, some pushing for change and others resisting it. Managers have to attempt to identify all the salient forces for and against change, and next identify those that seemed controllable. Once the most important controllable forces are identified, they could attempt first to unfreeze the organization by reducing the forces holding the behaviour in the organization as stable; next to change structures and procedures; and then to refreeze by stabilizing the organization at a new state of equilibrium.
View Adrian Furnham's profile