Introduction
The need to carry out a process of organizational change requires the use of various analysis procedures, where obviously cannot be ignored, among other aspects: the comparisons between the present and the previous moment, the criticisms and reflections on the development and the results obtained in each stage of change as well as similar experiences from other organizations.
One of the most strongly documented results of studies of individual and organizational behavior is the fact that organizations and their members resist change. In a sense, this is positive. Provides stability and predictability in behavior. If there were no resistance, organizational behavior would have the characteristic of being randomly chaotic. Resistance to change can also be a source of functional conflict. For example, resistance to a reorganization plan or a change in a product line can stimulate a healthy debate about the merits of the idea and result in a better decision. But there is a definite downside to resistance to change. It hinders adaptation and progress.
Resistance to change does not necessarily arise in a standardized way. Resistance can be overt, implicit, immediate or deferred.It is easier for management to deal with resistance when it is open and immediate. For example, a change is proposed and employees respond quickly by filing complaints, delaying work, threatening to go on strike, or the like. The greatest challenge is managing implicit or deferred resistance. Implicit resistance efforts are more subtle - loss of loyalty to the organization, loss of motivation to work, more mistakes or blunders, greater absenteeism due to "illness" - and therefore more difficult to recognize. Similarly, deferred actions blur the link between the source of resistance and your reaction to it. A change can produce what seems like only a minimal reaction the moment it starts,But then resistance comes to light weeks, months, or even years later. Or a single change that in and of itself may have little impact becomes the final straw.The reaction to change can build up and then explode into some response that seems totally out of proportion to the action of change that follows. Of course, the resistance has simply been deferred and stored. What emerges is a response to an accumulation of previous changes.
Development
The sources of resistance for analysis purposes, we have categorized into individual and organizational sources. In the real world, fonts often overlap.
Individual resistance
Individual sources of resistance to change reside in basic human characteristics such as perceptions, personalities, and needs. The following summarizes five reasons why individuals may resist change.
Habit. Every time you go out to eat, do you go to a different restaurant? Probably not. If you are like most people, you will find a couple of places that you like and will return to them more or less often.
As human beings, we are creatures of habit. Life is complex enough; We don't need to consider the full range of options for the hundreds of decisions we have to make every day. To handle this complexity, we all rely on habits or programmed responses. But when faced with change, this tendency to respond in our customary ways becomes a source of resistance.. So when your apartment moves to a new office building on the other side of town, it means that you probably have to change a lot of habits: wake up 10 minutes early, take a new set of streets to get to work, find a new place. parking, adjusting to the layout of the new office, developing a new meal routine, and so on.
Economic factors. Another source of individual resistance is concern that changes will lower their own income. Changes in job tasks or established work routines can also raise financial fears if people worry that they won't be able to perform new tasks or routines according to their old standards, especially when pay is closely tied to the productivity.
Security. People with a high security need may resist change because it threatens their sense of security. When Sears announces plans to lay off 50,000 employees or Ford introduces new robotics equipment, many employees at these companies may fear their jobs will be in jeopardy.
Fear of the unknown Changes replace ambiguity and uncertainty with the known. It doesn't matter how much you may have disliked going to college, but at least you knew what was expected of you. But when you get out of college and venture into the world of full-time employment, regardless of how much you want to get out of college, you have to trade the known for the unknown.
Employees of organizations feel the same rejection of uncertainty. For example, if the introduction of ACT means that production workers have to learn statistical process control techniques, some may fear that they will not be able to learn them. Therefore, they may develop a negative attitude towards ACT or behave dysfunctional if they are required to use statistical techniques.
Selective information processing. Individuals shape their world through their perceptions. Once they have created this world, they resist change. So individuals are guilty of selectively processing information in order to keep their perceptions intact. They hear what they want to hear. They ignore the world-defying information they have created. To return to production workers who are confronted with the introduction of ACT, they may ignore the arguments of their bosses that explain why knowledge of statistics is necessary or the potential benefits that change can bring.
Organizational resistance
By their very nature, organizations are conservative.1 They actively resist change. You don't have to look far to see evidence of this phenomenon. Government agencies want to continue doing what they have been doing for years, whether the need for their services changes or remains the same. Organized religions are deeply rooted in their history. Attempts to change ecclesiastical doctrine require great perseverance and patience. Educational institutions, which exist to open minds and challenge established doctrine, are themselves highly resistant to change.Most school systems are using essentially the same teaching technologies today as they were 50 years ago. Also, most commercial enterprises appear to be highly resistant to change.
Six main sources of organizational resistance have been identified, 2.
Structural inertia. Organizations have built-in mechanisms to achieve stability. For example, the selection process systematically chooses certain people to enter and certain people to leave. Training and socialization techniques reinforce the requirements and skills for specific roles. Formalization provides job descriptions, rules, and procedures that employees must follow.
The people an organization hires are chosen for their fit; they are then modeled and directed to behave in certain ways. When an organization is faced with change, this structural inertia acts as a counterweight to maintaining stability.
Limited focus of change. Organizations are made up of several interdependent subsystems. You cannot change one without affecting the others. For example, if management changes technology processes without simultaneously modifying the organizational structure to match, the technology change may not be accepted. So the limited changes in the subsystems tend to be nullified in the larger system.
Group inertia. Although individuals may wish to change their behavior, group norms can limit them. For example, a union member may be willing to accept changes in their position suggested by management. But if union rules establish resistance to any unilateral change the administration wants to make, he may object.
Threat to ability. Change in organizational patterns can threaten the expertise of specialized groups. The introduction of decentralized personal computers that allow administrators to access information directly from a company mainframe is an example of a change that many information systems departments strongly opposed in the early 1980s. Why than? Because decentralized end-user computing was a threat to the specialized skills of people in centralized information systems departments.
It threatens already established power relations. Any redistribution of decision-making authority can threaten long-established power relationships within the organization. The introduction of participatory decision making or self-managed work teams is the kind of change that is often viewed as a threat by supervisors and middle managers.
Threat to already established resource allocations. Those groups in the organization that control a lot of resources often see change as a threat. They tend to be happy with the way things are. For example, will the change mean a reduction in your budget or a cut in your staff? Those who benefit the most from current resource allocations often feel threatened by changes that may affect future allocations.
How to overcome resistance to change
Six tactics have been suggested to use as agents of change when dealing with resistance to it.3 Let's review the tactics briefly.
Education and communication. Resistance can be reduced by communicating with employees to help them see the logic of change. This tactic basically assumes that the source of the resistance lies in misinformation or miscommunication: if employees receive all the data and clear up any misunderstandings, the resistance will end. Communication can be achieved through one-on-one talks, memoranda, group presentations, or reports. Do they work? Yes, as long as the source of resistance is inadequate communication and management-employee relationships are characterized by mutual trust and credibility. If these conditions do not exist, the change is unlikely to be successful.
Facilitation and support. Change agents can offer a range of supportive efforts to reduce resistance. In situations where employee fear and anxiety is great, employee counseling and therapy, training in new skills, or a paid authorization can facilitate adjustment. The downside to this tactic is that, like the others, it takes time. It is also expensive, and its implementation does not offer a certainty of success.
Negotiation. Another way for the trader to deal with potential resistance to it is to exchange something of value for a reduction in resistance. For example, if the resistance is focused on a few empowered individuals, a specific reward package can be negotiated that will meet their individual needs. The tactic of negotiation may be necessary when resistance arises from a powerful source. However, the potentially high costs it causes cannot be ignored. In addition, there is the risk that once an exchange agent negotiates with one party to avoid resistance, the possibility of being blackmailed by other individuals in positions of power opens up.
Manipulation and cooptation. Manipulation refers to sneaky attempts to exert influence. Examples of manipulation are altering and falsifying data to make it appear more attractive, withholding undesirable information, and creating false rumors to get employees to agree to a change. If corporate management threatens to close a specific industrial plant if its employees do not accept a reduction in wages at all levels of payroll, and if the threat is actually a lie, management is using manipulation. However, cooptation is a form of both manipulation and participation. An attempt is made to bribe the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a leading role in deciding to change.The leader's advice is sought, not to come to a better decision, but to gain his support. Both manipulation and co-optation are relatively inexpensive and easy ways to gain the support of adversaries, but the tactics can backfire if the people who are targeted realize that they are being used or misled. Once discovered, the credibility of the change agent can collapse to zero.
Participation. It is difficult for individuals to resist a decision for change in which they have participated. Before making a change, the opposing people must be involved in the decision process. Suppose that participants have the ability to make a significant contribution, their participation can reduce resistance, gain their commitment and increase the quality of the decision to change. However, against these advantages are the disadvantages: the potential for a bad solution and a great consumption of time.
Negotiation. Another way for the trader to deal with potential resistance to it is to exchange something of value for a reduction in resistance. For example, if the resistance is focused on a few empowered individuals, a specific reward package can be negotiated that will meet their individual needs. The tactic of bargaining may be necessary when resistance arises from a powerful source. However, the potentially high costs it causes cannot be ignored. In addition, there is the risk that once an exchange agent negotiates with one party to avoid resistance, the possibility of being blackmailed by other individuals in positions of power opens up.
Manipulation and cooptation. Manipulation refers to sneaky attempts to exert influence. Examples of manipulation are altering and falsifying data to make it appear more attractive, withholding undesirable information, and creating false rumors to get employees to agree to a change. If corporate management threatens to close a specific industrial plant if its employees do not accept a reduction in wages at all levels of payroll, and if the threat is actually a lie, management is using manipulation. However, cooptation is a form of both manipulation and participation. An attempt is made to bribe the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a leading role in deciding to change. The advice of the leader is sought,not to come to a better decision, but to get your support. Both manipulation and co-optation are relatively inexpensive and easy ways to gain the support of adversaries, but the tactics can backfire if the people who are targeted realize that they are being used or misled. Once discovered, the credibility of the change agent can collapse to zero.
Coercion. Last on the list of tactics is coercion, that is, the application of threats or direct force on those who resist change. If the corporate management mentioned in the previous discussion is really determined to shut down an industrial plant if employees do not agree to a pay cut, then coercion would be the name that would best fit their tactics for change. Other examples of coercion are transfer threats, loss of promotion, negative performance reviews, and a very poor letter of recommendation. The advantages and disadvantages of coercion are roughly the same as those mentioned in manipulation and cooptation.
The politics of change
No analysis of resistance to change would be complete without a brief mention of the policy of change. Since change invariably threatens the status quo, it itself implies political activity.4
Internal agents of change are usually individuals with high positions in the organization and who have a lot to lose if it is carried out. In fact, they have reached their positions of authority through the development of skills and behavior patterns fostered by the organization. Change is a threat to those skills and patterns. What if they are no longer the ones the organization values? This creates the opportunity for other people in the company to gain power at their expense.
The policy suggests that the impetus for change may well come from individuals who are new to the organization (and have less investment in the status quo) or from executives who are somewhat removed from the main power structure.Managers who have spent their entire careers with a single organization and who eventually rise to a higher position in the hierarchy are often major impediments to change. Change itself is a very real threat to your status quo and your position. However, they can be expected to implement the changes to show that they are not simply caregivers. By acting as agents of change they can symbolically convey the message to the various groups with whom they have relationships - shareholders, suppliers, employees, customers - that they are above the problems and are adapting to a dynamic environment. Of course, as soon as you can guess, when forced to change, these long-time occupiers of positions of power tend to implement it at the first level.The radical change is too threatening.
The struggles for power within the organization will determine, to a large extent, the speed and magnitude of change. Long-time career executives might be expected to be sources of resistance. This, by the way, explains why boards of directors that recognize the imperative of rapid second-level change in their organizations often seek outside candidates for new leadership.'5
Conclusions
1. The need for change has been implicit throughout this text. “A casual reflection on change indicates that it encompasses almost all the concepts that are handled in the literature on organizational behavior. Think about leadership, motivation, organizational environment, and roles. It is impossible to think about these and other concepts without researching about change. ”6
2. If environments were perfectly static, if employee skills and capabilities were always up-to-date and incapable of deterioration, and if tomorrow were exactly the same as today, organizational change would have little or no relevance to managers. But the real world is turbulent, requiring organizations and their members to undergo dynamic change if they are to perform competitively.
3. Managers are the main agents of change in most organizations. By the decisions they make and their behavior when modeling roles, they can shape the culture of the organization in the face of change. For example, managerial decisions related to structural design, cultural factors, and human resource policies largely determine the level of innovation within the organization. Similarly, management decisions, policies, and practices determine the degree to which the organization learns and adapts to changing environmental factors.
Reference
1 KL Miller, “The Factory Guru Tinkering with Toyota,” Business Week (May 17, 1993), pp. 95-97.
2 RH Hall, Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987), p. 29.
3 D. Katz and RL Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley, 1978), pp. 714-15.
4 JP Kotter and LA Schlesinger, “Choosing Strategies for Change,” Harvard Business Review (March-April 1979), pp. 106-14.
5 See J. Pfeffer, Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992), pp. 7, 318-20.
6 PS Goodman and LB Kurke, “Studies of Change in Organizations: A Status Report,” in PS Goodman (ed.), Change in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982), pp. 1-2.
Bibliography
1. D. Katz and RL Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley, 1978), pp. 714-15.
2. Davis, Keith; John W. Newstrom. Human behavior at work. Eleventh edition. McGraw-Hill Interamericana. Mexico, 2002.
3. Deal, TA and Kennedy, A. "Corporate culture." Mexico. Ed. Inter-American Educational Fund, 1985
4. Dessler, Gary. "Administration in Organizations". Ed. McGraw Hill, Mexico, 1993
5. Goncalves, A. (2000). "Fundamentals of the organizational climate". Latin American Society for Quality (SLC)
6. Hodgetts M, Richard, and Steven Altman. Behavior in organizations.– Mexico: Ed. Mc Graw Hill, 1981.
7. JP Kotter and LA Schlesinger, “Choosing Strategies for Change,” Harvard Business Review (March-April 1979), pp. 106-14.Katz.D and Kanh.R Social psychology in organizations Trillas, México (1978).
8. Keith, Davis Werther (1995: 7)
9. KL Miller, “The Factory Guru Tinkering with Toyota,” Business Week (May 17, 1993), pp. 95-97.
10. Levy, A "Second Order Planned Change: Definition and Concepts" Organizational Dynamics (1986), p. 4-20.
11. Likert R (1961: 48) The Human organization.
12. Litwin, G. and Stinger, H., "Organizational Climate", Simon & Schuster, NY, 1978
13. Litwin and Stringer. ”Climate and motivation” (1971: 69).
14. Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality.Edith Holy Days. Chapter I. Part.
15. May, Elton. "Social problems of an industrial civilization", New Vision Editions, Buenos Aires, 1977.
16. Mintzberg H. The Structuring of Organizations Editorial Ariel SA Spain. (1991: 26).
17. Moberg and Brow W. D (1990). Theory of organization and Administration: comprehensive approach. Mexico: Editorial Limusa (Consulted Feb 2005).
18. Pedroso Rosales. Msc. Rigoberto Article “The Workplace Climate and its importance in organizational success.
19. RH Hall, Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987), p. 29.
20. See J. Pfeffer, Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992), pp. 7, 318-20.
21. PS Goodman and LB Kurke, “Studies of Change in Organizations: A Status Report,” in PS Goodman (ed.), Change in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982), pp. 1-2.
