The purpose of this work called: Resistance to change in work teams consisted of:
- Carry out a work that addresses a topic of importance to the subject. That the result arises from the interaction and integration of each of the members of our team and that it is not the sole sum of individual contributions. Collect data outside our specialty and achieve with them a true teamwork. Consolidate our team achieving greater flexibility and participation that promotes growth, change and learning both individually and in groups. Really understand what it means to work in a team and fundamentally be able to complement each other with each of its members. Being able to organize in such a way that it is possible to carry out such teamwork in an efficient way.
Regarding the structural form adopted to carry out the work, we consider it necessary to divide it into two parts. In the first one, we will talk about change, because we understand that in order to understand resistance to it in work teams, it is necessary to be clear about what it represents. The second part will focus on resistance itself, starting from the basis of why this concept is generated until it is brought to life. The levels of analysis proposed throughout the work will be individual, group and organizational because these three aspects influence a work team.
Methodology
Given the need to carry out the final work, whose theme is "Resistance to Change in Work Teams" we find certain advantages and disadvantages due to the large number of members (9) that make up "El Gran Deté".
By understanding this situation, it seemed to us that it was essential to carry out a successful investigation, define and create a work methodology that meets our needs.
For this reason we decided to work in the following way:
Collecting data and information: Search individually as much data and information on "Resistance to Change in Work Teams" on the Internet, books, magazines and videos.
Preliminary Selection: Select the best material, discarding duplicates and low academic level, consulting the coach and professionals.
Analysis: Analyze in depth the selected material, which implies summaries with comments on what is read individually.
Comprehensive Knowledge: Exchange via email between all members of El Gran Deté of the material processed by each one.
Work Structuring: Team building of the work structure, taking as pillars the concepts of Change and Resistance to Change.
Written Development: Typing of the work in group meetings, dividing the tasks into small subgroups, maintaining their coordination through dialogue.
Control: Rereading, control and correction of the elaborated in group form.
Conclusions: Oral presentation of the deductions of each one of the members to later agree on a group and final conclusion.
Some phrases…
"If you really want to understand something, try to change it." Kurt Lewin.
Everything that man can do for himself, even he does not know. A certain time scale and an intangible and ghostly thing called change are beating in it. Losen Eiseley
"We must always keep within ourselves the possibility of change, we must never be prisoners of the decisions of the past." Nathaniel Branden
Everything has changed except our way of thinking. Albert Einstein, 1945
"Using a simple framework we can begin to understand the world and we can change the framework as the world changes." John naisbitt
«Nothing is more difficult to handle, more risky to carry out or more uncertain, than to be a leader in the introduction of a new order of things» Nicolás Machiavelli
Introduction
Organizational change is sometimes difficult and expensive. Despite the challenges, many organizations successfully implement the necessary changes. Adaptable and flexible organizations have a competitive advantage over rigid and static ones. Therefore, change management has become one of the main focus of effective organizations around the world. In many respects effective change management means understanding and employing concepts from organizational analysis.
Changes occur in advanced societies as well as in developing countries that have significant repercussions on organizations. Many organizations had to undertake a radical, sometimes complete reorientation of the way they do business.
Today's organizations face a dynamic environment of increasingly accelerated changes every day, which requires constant adaptations from them and their staff.
We are on the threshold of a global revolution, which has dramatic repercussions fundamentally in jobs, businesses, administration and the structure of organizations.
There are extremely important pressures that companies face for change. They are:
Globalization of markets . Organizations face global competition on an unprecedented scale. Increasingly the main participants in the world economy are international or multinational companies. The emergence of these global organizations creates pressure on national companies to redesign and, in turn, internationalize operations. There are global markets for most products, but in order to compete effectively, companies often transform culture, structure, and operations.
The diffusion of information technology and computer networks. Coping with international competition requires flexibility that is often lacking in traditional organizations. Information technology allows many organizations to develop the necessary flexibility.
Changes in the nature of the workforce employed by organizations. The workforce is increasingly educated, less unionized, and characterized by changing values and aspirations. Although changing values and aspirations do not diminish motivation to work, they affect the rewards people want from work and the balance they seek between work and other aspects of their lives. Furthermore, certain factors, such as a greater number of young people who decide to marry late, an increase in the divorce rate, a greater number of single mothers or single-parent families, condition the composition of the labor force.
Although all these organizations are obliged to change, it does not mean that this transformation can be carried out in a harmonious and efficient way, since they generally generate great resistance towards them.
Different definitions of change
Move from «A» to….. »B».
Move a person or an object to a different point.
Go from a passive attitude to an active attitude.
«Give up one thing for another. Replace one thing with another. Turn into. Modify". (the little Illustrated Larousse, 1995. Ed. Larousse, Mexico, pp. 184-185).
"Change is a difference that occurs over time." (Gilbreath, Robert D. The Strategy of Change, Ed. McGraw-Hill, Bogotá, 1989, p. 5)
Change is a process through which one passes from one state to another, generating modifications or alterations of a quantitative and / or qualitative nature of reality.
Now, the basis of all changes is really found in man himself, nothing happens without a personal change, and today's organizations are aware of this and seek change in the essence of the human being.
Organizational development (DO)
Organizational development is a planned and systematic process of organizational change based on research and theory from behavioral science. DO's goal is to create adaptable organizations, capable of repeatedly transforming and reinventing themselves, as needed, to remain effective. As a field of behavioral science, DO draws heavily from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The DO draws on information from personality theory, learning theory, and motivation theory and from research on group dynamics, power, leadership, and organizational design.
Among the basic principles that characterize this approach, the following stand out:
DO seeks to create self-directed change that people commit to.
DO is an organization-wide change effort.
OD typically insists on solving immediate problems and long-term development of an adaptable organization alike.
DO cares more than other approaches in a collaborative process in data collection, diagnosis and action to arrive at solutions to problems.
DO has a dual emphasis on organizational effectiveness and human satisfaction through work experience.
The strength of the approach rests on:
His careful diagnosis of the current situation of the organization.
Employee participation in the change process. That is, effective change only occurs in the group if those who participate understand the current situation. Furthermore, employee participation is capable of stimulating change for at least two reasons. First, people are more likely to implement and support a change they have helped create. Second, once managers and employees have identified the need for change and shared the information widely, it is difficult for people to ignore the need. Therefore, the pressure for change comes from within the group or organization. This internal pressure is a particularly powerful force for change.
Different approaches to change
The systems approach to the organization provides a useful way to think about organizational change. The change systems model describes the organization in the form of six variables that affect each other reciprocally, that is, they are interdependent, they are: people, culture, task, technology, design and strategy.
The people variable applies to the people who work for the organization, including their individual differences, personalities, attitudes, perceptions, attributions, etc.
The culture variable reflects the shared beliefs, values, expectations and norms of the members of the organization.
The task variable includes the nature of the job itself.
The technology variable encompasses problem solving methods and techniques and the application of knowledge to various organizational processes.
The design variable is the formal organizational structure and its communication, control, authority and responsibility systems.
The strategy variable encompasses the planning process of the organization.
An advantage of this systems approach is that it helps managers and employees to think about the mutual relationships that exist between these six variables. The systems approach reminds them that it is not possible to change part of the organization without changing it all.
We can take the systems theory to group analysis. When defining a team as a group of people who interact in search of a specific purpose, it is evident that any modification in one of its components will modify the entire team. The six variables listed above are also applicable since it is feasible to perceive the organization as a large team made up of sub-teams (HR, Administration, Sales, etc.).
The contingency perspective does not recognize a single, isolated approach to change, but rather maintains that no approach will be effective under all circumstances. This theory leads directly to the need for an accurate diagnosis of organizational functioning and problems. Before changing something effectively, you need to understand it.
Therefore, an accurate diagnosis of organizational problems is absolutely essential as a starting point for planned change. In the organizational diagnosis, four basic steps must be followed:
Recognize and interpret the problem and assess the need for change.
Determine the organization's readiness and capacity for change. Any planned change program requires a careful assessment of the capacity for individual and organizational change. Two important aspects of an individual's readiness for change are the degree of employee satisfaction with the status quo and the perceived personal risk of changing it.
Identify administrative and workforce resources and their motivations for change
Determine a change strategy and goals to achieve.
Taking into account that the size of a team is much smaller than that of an entire organization, this approach is applicable because in a small group it is easier to collect data and information for the correct design of a diagnosis and a subsequent strategy. exchange. That same information can be shared by all team members and the determination of the team's capacity for change is also facilitated.
Stages of the Strategic Change Process
Taking into account the previously developed theories (Systems Theory and Contingency Perspective Theories) it must be concluded that the change must be planned in a series of phases, actions and strategies that result from the deep analysis of the total system.
A planned change in an organization is the set of intentional and goal-oriented change activities.
The stages of the strategic change process are as follows:
Recognition and analysis of the need for change.
It requires the conjunction of perception and power synthesized in the leader who assumes his critical role of strategic innovator. The N ° 1 effective, the one who wants and can. The process begins with a "click": the moment in which the intuitions, the data and the signals that show the need for a change are combined with each other and decisively tip the balance. The decision to change is always made alone; before and after the intimate decision the process is usually group. But the turning point is personal and goes through the driver with power and conviction to make the change.
The focuses in the dynamics of the process are three: perception, power and realism.
The perception is an inner feeling, an impression embodied in our senses to outside stimulus that makes us suddenly see something before the earlier time were unclear.
The knowledge is intertwined with the perception. It is not necessary that the specific knowledge is concentrated in him that promotes the rupture, but the role of the leader is that of the orchestrator who knows who to turn to and where to ask.
The power is the crucial ingredient of rupture in conjunction with perception and realism can generate the dynamics of the process.
Power without perception of change does not produce rupture and perception without power cannot materialize.
The realism can be located in the current situation and project themselves into the most likely scenario, reasonably foreseeing alternative scenarios.
The competitive keys of this stage are the paradigms, the external and internal changes and the present and probable impacts of said changes in our organization.
The paradigms are the assumptions, visions, models, consciously or not, we consider at the time of analysis and decision making.
The changes to be considered are both external and internal to the institution and the team. External changes make to contexts, markets and settings. Internal changes make to resources, organization, culture and power.
Lastly, the impacts to be considered are both those derived from external changes and those likely to arise from internal changes.
Definition of change
It is the stage of the conception of change. It requires knowledge, imagination and method focused on one person. The person is the leader, the manager who, having the power to promote change, has reached an intimate conviction about its need and has assumed the tangible and intangible costs of the decision.
At this stage the focuses of the process dynamics are vision, sensitivity and consistency.
The vision covers the inherent aspects such as those external to the institution and / or team. Externally, stability, deregulation and openness mean both risks and opportunities for the development of the organization that influences its members.
In the internal aspect, a balance must be achieved between tangible and intangible results.
Vision must be exercised within a framework of sensitivity. It is necessary to know the inclinations, the interests and the intimate springs of the leader and of each one of the members of the team that are decisive to implement and sustain the changes.
The third focus is the consistency that makes the product produced in defining the change, in its design. The new profiles conceived must not only be internally consistent but must also be consistent.
At this stage the center is the client, in whom vision, sensitivity and consistency are concentrated. This means that the shift towards sustainable competitiveness is necessarily individualized. Only the obsessive focus on each client allows building competitiveness in an internationally competitive market.
In this stage the competitive keys are internationalization, emulation and complementation and business combinations.
The internationalization means recognizing in its real complexity and importance of the international dimension of the economy and business and incorporate it into the strategies of organizations is represented in turn in each team.
The emulation reduces time and costs. To emulate is not to imitate; is to study, adapt and overcome; true emulation is innovative, not imitative, since no two cases are ever the same.
If emulation is the recognition of other people's experiences, complementation is the recognition of one's own limitations. Competitors are adversaries with whom you compete, but you can also find points of collaboration to develop common activities.
Change implementation
After recognizing and defining the change, we must focus our feelings and ideas on the difficult but fascinating stage of events. We then move from the strategic break to the terrain of the change break.
The implementation of change is the implementation of new ideas, the translation of the "dream" of a few to the reality of an institution.
The focuses on the dynamics of the process during the implementation of the change shift towards determination, feasibility and persistence.
The determination is the other vision. Together they constitute the conditions of the driver. Determination is the leader's courage to bear the costs of change, and at the same time, the strength to carry it forward, despite all the problems. To be effective, determination must be mobilizing, it must be transmitted in such a way that others believe it, understand it, incorporate it into their own attitude.
The viability of the change process has several components that can be isolated but which, in practice, work intertwined with determination and persistence. They are the commitments, the skills, the versatility and the focus.
In the commitment, what must be taken into account is that the dream of a few of creating a change is transferred to the desire of the entire work team that must carry it out.
The powers make specific capabilities to implement new processes or changes in existing. Nobody can do what they don't know.
The versatility is not fickleness but flexibility to changing external and internal realities to the institution and / or team. It also involves the power of anticipation.
The focus considers the fact that it is important to concentrate on certain activities to avoid dispersion of efforts.
A process of change where commitments are balanced, competencies developed, defined focuses and active versatility is a viable process.
Without persistence there are no results. Although the results require a period of maturation, waiting is not enough; it is necessary to go out to find them and insist on the appropriate measures for their achievement.
The axis or center of the process during the change implementation stage is the capacity for transformation and response by another. The capacity for transformation is demonstrated by achieving effective changes, while the capacity for response is the ability to adequately solve operational problems that arise.
The dominant competitive keys in the change implementation stage are innovation, quality and timing. A good interrelation of these three is what makes it successful.
Active support of change.
It involves moving from one-off changes to a "state of change" where the team is prepared to accept changes as a permanent process.
At this stage the focuses of the dynamics of the process are the balance of commitments, monitoring, and plasticity.
The balance of the commitments has already been indicated as a necessary ingredient of the viability of the process in the implementation stage.
The monitoring is active and permanent link between the different members of the team against the organization and its context. It tries to detect the signals that can anticipate relevant impacts for the results of the teams, which affect the total development of the institution.
The plasticity is the ability to change not only strategies but also the same organization.
The center at this stage shifts from the responsiveness of implementation to the capacity for initiative. This is so because the central issue is no longer how to implement change in a given moment, but how to manage changes over time.
The competitive keys to actively sustain change are leadership, processes and skills.
The driving must be essentially strategic and watch the people, technology, innovation, coordination in an internationalized framework, monitoring and subsequent adjustments.
The processes affect information systems and administrative and operational processes in general. A flexible organization must be generated by its design and its effective behavior.
The capacities and competences constitute the instruments for the effective achievement of sustainable competitiveness; It is about the skills necessary to carry out the activities that are the key to the assumed entrepreneurial and management profile.
The keys must act in an interrelated way both with each other and with respect to the keys of the previous stages: efficient processes, strategic management and effective competences positively feed each other and generate the conditions to reactivate the competitive keys of the previous stages: internationalization, emulation, complementation, quality, innovation and timing. But the successful achievement of the keys to sustainability depends on the previous achievement of the keys of the previous stages since the competitive keys form a chain among themselves that incorporates new elements as the change process advances.
Conflict versus Change
Organizations are social environments where Conflict as well as Change are inevitable.
Conflict can be a serious problem for any organization, but also the opportunity to fine-tune interactions and generate a more creative and productive dynamic in it.
Not all conflicts are bad, some are useful to identify or clarify aspects that require correction. Conflicts have their negative side but they can also have a positive side, it all depends on how they are handled.
Now, change is the only constant in the world we live in, but all change generates uncertainty and fears in human beings, which are often reflected in behaviors of resistance, which slow down and even temporarily paralyze the development of organizations.
Therefore, we must know how to introduce changes so that people adapt better and sooner to them and how to train people to be prepared for the demands of the fast-paced environment that we have had to live in.
The organizational climate or environment is the product of the way in which a series of factors are mixed, influenced and affected, some visible and others hidden that make up the dynamics of the organization.
When the environment of an organization is examined, it is like studying an iceberg (floating iceberg), everything that is seen is very important, but much more what is not seen, that which is hidden under the surface, deserves our attention because that is where problems generally arise.
To study the organizational climate, scientists have dedicated themselves in recent years to investigating the informal, not visible aspects of the Organizational Iceberg, with some difficulties because it is not as simple as thought, one of the limitations is precisely the Conflict, that condition that It occurs when the objectives, goals, methods or behaviors of two or more parties are in opposition at the individual level or at the organizational level.
Resistance to change
Spring has quietly made its debut leaving the cold winter breezes behind. Reminding us once again of the simple lesson that nature gives us about change and growth. Some people welcome the change of seasons, while others resist it. Those who resist the change of seasons have great difficulty with seasonal diseases. We all know that we cannot stop the change of seasons, but we can cope with our relationship with the change itself. Resistance to change can be overcome.
The introduction of changes initially causes resistance, often considerable. This occurs when it comes to modifying certain daily habits (time or food, for example), or promoting new methods of work or organization. The transition turns out to be always difficult.
What is the reason for this very general phenomenon of resistance to change? How to overcome it? These questions become relevant in a time characterized by an acceleration of change in all social domains and sectors.
Our daily life is governed by a set of customs, habits and models that affect both the way of eating and dressing, as well as working or even establishing relationships with others. Resistance to change may come first and foremost from the coercive character that change often has. The citizen, the worker, the user, are subjected to new operations without having been informed, in general, or consulted. They then have the impression that a higher power manages them at will, regardless of the way in which they had adapted to the previous system, nor the suggestions that over time they had been able to present.
Furthermore, a phenomenon of inertia and rigidity tends to slow down the effort required to carry out a new adaptation. In this sense, it is inevitable that age or a state of fatigue reinforce the resistance caused by change. The current modes of behavior have been the result of learning and adaptation to the physical or social environment. Anything that changes the usual appears difficult and dangerous. This resistance also includes a loss of prestige in the event of failure or even lower performance. The individual feels a risk of devaluation, both in relation to others and in relation to the image he has of himself.
People who resist change tend to have some emotional wear, as a result of the tensions, restlessness and anxiety that affect an individual's personality during a period of change.
The fact is that every change brings with it a certain degree of awareness of people regarding their previous experience in similar situations. If the previous experience was successful, the predisposition of the people will tend to be positive. Otherwise, people will experience a sense of threat, danger and uncertainty about their future.
Primary forms of resistance to change
Resistance to change can manifest itself in various ways and at different levels of analysis, whether individual, group or organizational. In this way we can mention eight primary forms of resistance that occur in the aforementioned levels of analysis, they are:
Confusion: When this is present, it is difficult to visualize the change and its consequences.
Immediate criticism: Faced with the simple suggestion of any change, a denial towards it is demonstrated, regardless of the proposal.
Denial: There is a refusal to see or accept that things are different.
Hypocrisy: Demonstration of conformism towards change when in fact internally you disagree.
Sabotage: Actions taken to inhibit or kill change.
Easy agreement: There is an agreement if too much resistance on the change although there is no commitment in said agreement.
Deviation or distraction: The change itself is evaded, thinking that perhaps that way it will be forgotten.
Silence: There is no opinion formed on the subject due to lack of information.
Levels of Resistance to Change
Resistance generally falls into three categories:
Superficial: this can be overcome with normal reactions since it is not established deeply in individuals.
Moderate: it is the most common form of resistance that is based on emotional issues, fear of loss of what was obtained in previous years, among others. This resistance is often confused with superficial resistance.
Strong: it is the most difficult to deal with, it can lead to managerial battles or even abort the change plan.
Possible attitudes towards change and the resulting behavior:
| Acceptance | · Cooperation and enthusiastic support.
Cooperation under the presence of the boss Acceptance Passive resignation |
| Indifference | Indifference
Loss of interest in work Apathy It only does what is requested Regressive behavior |
| Passive Resistance | No learning
Protests Strictly follow the rules Do as little as possible |
| Active Resistance | Delays or delays work
Personal withdrawal · He makes mistakes Deterioration or waste Deliberate sabotage |
Resistance to change comes from a variety of sources. Some identify with people, but others include the nature and structure of organizations. Managers and employees need to understand the reasons for the sources of resistance to change.
Types of resistance to change
Resistance to individual change: Among the most important sources of individual resistance to change are:
Perceptions. People tend to selectively perceive things that most comfortably suit their view of the world. Once people establish an understanding of reality, they resist changing it.
Personality Some aspects of the personality will predispose certain people to resist change, especially those whose thinking is very rigid and dogmatic.
Habits Unless a situation drastically changes, people may continue to respond to stimuli in their usual ways. A habit becomes a source of satisfaction for people because it allows them to adjust to the world and cope with it. The habit also provides comfort and security. Whether a habit becomes a major source of resistance to change depends, to some degree, on whether people perceive advantages in changing it.
Threats to power and influence. Some people in organizations may view change as a threat to their power and influence. Controlling something that other people need, such as information or resources, is a source of power in organizations. Once a position of power is established, people or groups often resist changes that they perceive to reduce their power and influence.
Fear of the unknown Facing the unknown makes most people distressed. Every major change in a work situation brings with it an element of uncertainty. The uncertainty is not produced only by the possible change itself, but also by the possible consequences of it.
Economic reasons. Money weighs heavily on people's minds and, of course, it is logical that they resist changes that could lower their income.
Organizational resistance to change:
The nature of organizations tends to resist change. Organizations are often more efficient when they perform routine tasks and are inclined to perform more poorly when they do something for the first time, at least initially. To ensure operational efficiency and effectiveness, organizations will create strong defenses against change. Not only that, change often runs counter to already vested interests and violates certain territorial rights or decision-making prerogatives that groups, teams, and departments have established and have accepted over time.
The most important sources of organizational resistance to change are:
- Organizational design: Organizations need stability and continuity to function effectively. The term organization implies that individual, group and team activities show a certain structure. People assigned functions, established procedures for doing work, appropriate ways to obtain necessary information, and the like. However, that legitimate need for structure also leads to resistance to change. Thus, in rigid structures, new ideas are more likely to be eliminated because they threaten the status quo. More adaptable and flexible organizations are designed to reduce resistance to change created by rigid organizational structures. Organizational culture: Organizational culture plays a fundamental role in change.Cultures are not easy to modify and may become the main source of resistance to change. One aspect of effective organizational culture is the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities for change. An ineffective organizational culture (in terms of organizational change) is one that rigidly socializes employees into the old culture, even in the face of evidence that it no longer works. Resource limitations: Some organizations want to maintain the status quo, others would change if they had the resources to do so. Change requires capital, time, and skilled people. At any given time, the directors and employees of an organization will have identified changes that could or should be made,But some of the desired changes may need to be deferred or abandoned due to resource constraints. Fixed Investments: Resource limitations are not restricted to organizations with insufficient assets. Some wealthy organizations will not change due to fixed investments in capital assets that cannot be easily modified (equipment, buildings, land). Interorganizational agreements: In general, agreements between organizations impose obligations on people that can limit their behaviors, and thus, limit the alternatives for change.Some wealthy organizations will not change due to fixed investments in capital assets that cannot be easily modified (equipment, buildings, land). Interorganizational agreements: In general, agreements between organizations impose obligations on people that can limit their behaviors, and thus, limit the alternatives for change.Some wealthy organizations will not change due to fixed investments in capital assets that cannot be easily modified (equipment, buildings, land). Interorganizational agreements: In general, agreements between organizations impose obligations on people that can limit their behaviors, and thus, limit the alternatives for change.
Group resistance to change: Finally, we cannot fail to mention the sources of resistance at the group or work team level. From all the bibliography we consulted, we did not find a specific distinction regarding this level of analysis, but we believe that the sources mentioned, both at the individual and organizational levels, constitute possible resistance factors in teams.
Thus, we see that the different ways in which team members perceive reality can become sources of resistance, since, once the group forms a vision of their reality, it is extremely difficult for them to change it.
To organize their daily tasks, teams try to routinize their tasks, in order to gain comfort and security. This creates habits in the group that become possible sources of resistance to change.
Some groups within the organization have certain bases of power and influence that were won over time. Faced with a situation of change, these groups feel threatened, seeing as probable the loss of said acquired power, which can become a barrier to change. In addition, the uncertainty that equipment changes often generate contribute to the emergence of resistance.
The customs, values, ways of thinking that the group shares and that it was acquiring in its internal adaptation process, can create barriers, since, in certain teams, basic assumptions (third level of culture mentioned by Edgar Shein) can reach be deeply rooted in the unconscious of its members.
Finally, one of the possible sources of resistance at this level may be the resources that are available. If the change involves reducing them, the team is likely to resist.
Typical reactions to resistance
We observe that in the presence of a change, both individuals and groups can react in different ways, such as:
- Use the power that is available to cope with change (this will only generate more resistance) People who are in favor of change, can manipulate those who oppose it Reason for change Ignore resistance (but it will not disappear) Make deals or agreements to try to eliminate the resistance or to increase it (if the resistance is weak, and the deal is good, maybe this will work). "Kill the messenger", that is, those people who Drive change Give up quickly (and have mediocre success if there is one).
How to overcome resistance to change
To overcome resistance to change, the following six tactics can be used as agents of change:
Education and Communication:
Raising awareness of change through empowering people and communicating with them openly can help them see the logic of change and gain mutual trust and credibility. Effective communication reduces gossip and unfounded fears. Those who carry out the change need to build a clear vision of where the team needs to go in order to survive and be successful, and at the same time share it and convey why the team should take that direction. By giving team members as much information as possible and by providing them with alternatives so that each one can choose their destiny, they will gradually become accustomed to changes and will realize that they can survive in a changing environment.
Participation:
There is evidence that one of the best ways to help implement change is to involve the affected system directly in the decision-making process. The more the system participates in decisions made about how to handle change, the less resistance there is and the more stable change can be. It is difficult for people to resist if they have participated since the origins of the transformations.
Facilitation and support:
Change agents can offer a wide range of support efforts. Fear and anxiety decrease when people get immediate benefits. The downside to this tactic is that it is expensive and there is no guarantee of success. When those affected feel that those leading the change are interested in their concerns, they will be more willing to provide information that will jointly help overcome the barriers to change.
Manipulation and Cooptation:
Manipulation refers to disguised attempts to gain influence by providing false information. Cooptation is a form of both manipulation and participation. An attempt is made to bribe the leaders of a resistance group, giving them a leading role in deciding to change. These maneuvers are risky and compromise credibility.
Negotiation:
Some value is exchanged in exchange for the decrease in resistance. In this negotiation the risk is to fall into blackmail, which would be negative for those who want to carry out the change, as their efforts are misinterpreted.
Coercion:
The application of threats, punishments or the direct force of power over people who resist change. This is perhaps the most risky of the strategies, since its results are generally negative, hardening resistance and creating a feeling of resentment in those affected to change that is even more counterproductive than the original resistance.
Conditions that decrease resistance to change in teams
We can appreciate that the creation of certain conditions in the teams can collaborate in the reduction of resistance within them, these are:
- Team members tend to change when they have participated in the decision to change Support change when they participate in planning Team members will change their attitudes by being convinced that the rewards will exceed the pain of change If the environment in which the group performs its activities is free from threats, resistance is likely to decrease If team members have the aptitude, knowledge and skills for change, there will be little resistance People tend to change if they trust the motives of those who induce them Resistance to change will be less if the members are able to influence each other in favor of change, they will change gradually according to the perception of success.
EXPERIMENT.
We will take as an example a study carried out in an industrial setting by two researchers, Coch and French.
The aim of the study is to appreciate the importance of psychosocial factors during the progressive introduction of new machines in a textile factory.
The experimental scheme included 3 work groups that had the same productivity before the change of machines.
In group G-0, called the control group, the company proceeds as usual, that is, when the day comes, the workers are explained how to use the machines, encouraging them to do their best, at the same time that they are announces that the new rules will be established by the competent services.
In experimental group G-1, after having explained the reasons for the technical change, the workers are invited to designate the delegates who will participate with the Methods Service in setting the standards after a testing phase.
In group G-2, all of this, together, is invited to collaborate in the establishment of the norms.
There are "three levels of participation in change": null, direct, indirect. It is observed what happens during the days after the introduction of the new machines, and especially the degree of temporary decrease in production and the recovery process, Regarding performance, a sharp decline was first of all found in all groups during the first days, but only the G-0 group, in which there is no participation whatsoever, did not manage, not even to continue, to recover the previous norm; while the other two groups (and especially the G-2) recovered this norm and soon exceeded it.
Regarding morale, discontent was found in the control group, which translates into the loss of two workers and in many complaints. In the experimental group G-1, morale was quite satisfactory, despite some discussions and concerns. In group G-2, morale was excellent and there is no problem.
As a conclusion of the experiment, it can be observed that the methods of change (information and participation offered or non-existent) are those that cause a significant difference between the attitudes and behaviors of individuals.
Lewin's Approach to Overcoming Resistance to Change:
Realistically, resistance to change will never completely cease. However, the leader and team members can learn to identify and minimize it, in this way, they can become more effective agents of change.
Many times people have difficulties to clearly understand situations of change. Part of the reason for this is that even the analysis of a change problem may be very complex when a large number of variables must be considered. Lewin (an early social psychologist) viewed change not as a fact, but as a dynamic balance of forces acting in opposite directions. His approach, called force field analysis, points out that any situation can be considered in a state of equilibrium resulting from the equilibrium of forces constantly pushing each other. Certain forces in the situation (various types of resistance to change) tend to maintain the status quo. At the same time various pressures for change act in opposition to these forces and push towards change.
To initiate change, someone has to act to change the current balance of forces:
With increasing force in favor of change;
With the reduction of the intensity of the resisting forces or the total elimination of them;
With the change in the direction of a force, that is, transforming a resistance into a pressure in favor of change.
Using force field analysis to understand change processes within a work team has two main benefits. First, the leader and the members are required to analyze the situation. As they acquire skills to diagnose the forces that press for change and those that resist it, members will be able to better understand the important aspects of any change situation. Second, an analysis of the force fields allows team members to know which factors are possible to change and which are not.
Often the most effective way to implement the necessary changes is to identify existing resistance and focus efforts on eliminating or reducing it as much as possible.
A prominent part of Lewin's approach to behavior change is carefully managing and guiding such change through a three-step process:
Defrosting This step includes reducing the forces that keep the team's behavior at its current level.
Action. This step takes team behavior to a new level. It includes developing various behaviors, values and attitudes through changes in the culture and processes that the team develops.
Refreezing. Stabilize the team in a new state of balance.
Group Conclusion
Resistance to change in work teams is one of the main problems that groups must face in order to survive in today's changing world. Organizations that manage to form groups of people capable of facing this dilemma successfully will achieve a competitive advantage.
This problem is not something that can be solved immediately, but requires continuous development that must involve all the levels analyzed in this work (individual, group and organizational).
Throughout the investigation we were able to observe the impact generated by the changes in the equipment, the different reactions to it and the ways to overcome the resistance it causes.
The changing conditions of the context do not allow individuals, groups or organizations to remain "resting on their laurels", the word innovation must be one of the most used in the business vocabulary, because in today's dynamic environment staying still implies going backwards.
Resistance to change is inherent to human beings, "we like to maintain the status quo, since it provides us with a stability that removes our fears, anguish and anxieties." But change happens no matter how hard you try to avoid it.
Is it possible to avoid the emergence of resistance in a process of change? We believe that in most cases it is impossible, although everyone is aware of the benefits that change can bring, resistance will always arise from different sectors. In this way, we conclude that the most convenient alternative to face a successful change process is to continuously work at the three levels the idea of change as a constructive way of operating, which ends up benefiting everyone and that not implementing them is simply detrimental to the individual, group and organizational development.
Individual Conclusions
My conclusion, regarding teamwork, will refer basically to two fundamental aspects. In the first aspect it has to do with the production itself of the team. Knowledge, work from general to particular, individual criteria and reasoning are greatly enhanced with the interaction of the members of a work team. We must not ignore the difficulties that inevitably arise, but ultimately and due to a maximization of the results obtained, there is a clear inclination in favor of creating work teams for any type of organization. On the other hand, the team must be made up of a reasonable number of members, this in my opinion, must be closely related to the common objective to be achieved.A bad team formation has direct consequences in time and costs, which in turn are reflected in the final results. The completion of the final work gave me as a main guideline the added value that a team includes in any type of group activity.
FEDERICO HURTADO
To comment on the experience gained from teamwork, I am going to start by highlighting that all the members of my team, which include myself, were very interested in the subject that had touched us from the beginning.
Each one, in turn, undertook to search as much information and bibliography as possible in order to begin to carry out the work.
We organize ourselves quite well. When we obtained this information, we realized that there was a lot of material that we had found and that it was necessary to carry out a debugging of it to start working.
Due to the number of team members (nine) it was difficult for us to combine a day and time to hold meetings in order to meet. We realized that it was convenient to share work and reading material. So it was that each of us made a summary about what we had read.
Between comings and goings we were able to find a day to get together and begin to carry out and structure the work. Prior to this, we commented on what each one had found and read. And little by little we gave shape to the work until we got to what it is today. I believe our effort and dedication are printed on these sheets.
As a final conclusion, I can say that I felt very satisfied with the team because there was commitment on the part of everyone, this being essential for the team to work efficiently. I also felt very comfortable with the people I worked with. We all had the same goal and I think we all did our best to achieve it in the best possible way. There was excellent integration and adaptation within the team. It was a different and beautiful experience.
ANDREA AVERBUJ
Beginning to write this last stage of the Final Practical Work of Conducting Work Teams, I could realize that it had come to an end and therefore it had been completely done. At that moment, I realized that when one reaches the moment in which he must conclude something, he takes stock of the tasks carried out in order to determine if in the long run, all the effort made was useful and some learning, experience could be obtained from him or lesson.
In my particular case, due to the type of work I am used to doing on a daily basis (I am referring to work aspects), I find it very pleasant to be able to carry out a task or work in a group way. This, in my opinion, in the field of job development, if done individually, would become tedious and fatal. When carried out in a group way, I consider that it is the way in which an approach (even approximate) to the unification of criteria can be achieved, due to the fact that several different points of view are established, which may or may not like, but what is they are sure to be heard.
In the Final Practical Work of Conducting Work Teams, it was made, in my opinion, a bit complicated to carry out it in the beginning, because the large number of team members made organization difficult (something important if you want work in a group); adding to it, that the lack of time and the rush did not help. As time went by, I noticed that the original problems were disappearing, by assembling patience to get ahead. The days passed, and progress was felt, but it was a class taught by the AccountantHéctor Fainstein (course holder and born bostero), who in a few words paved the way. I remember that he said that: «… working in a group does not mean that each and every one of the members of the group must carry out all the tasks all together, but rather that it is part of the organization of a team to be able to distribute tasks to specialized subgroups in different areas in order to achieve the same objective with greater speed and efficiency… ». It is worth clarifying that this will be valid if once the separation and implementation of the tasks have been made, an understanding and agreement is reached on them. In this way, we were able to put together the puzzle generated by all the tangle of information obtained individually.
Concluding with my personal opinion, about what being able to work as a team represented to me, I would say that it was a favorable experience, because the same group was the one that had to overcome the problems that were generated throughout the work (some of them of great magnitude) and carry on the work that seemed to be complicated. Likewise, I believe that in any teamwork conflicts can be generated and part of the work as such is to be able to overcome them. I consider that being so many members was a negative factor, due to the complication it brought when holding meetings and the time that had to be wasted on other matters. Despite this, I consider the experience to be very favorable.
ALEJANDRO DANIEL SCHUJMAN
During the course of the work we had to face a series of difficulties, led by the number of members of the group. This high number of members demanded a great effort from us in coordinating the meetings, it was almost impossible to agree on a day where all the members could attend, to overcome this problem we tried to carry out the first stage of investigation independently, but coordinated by means of e-mail, in which we informed ourselves of the titles that each one had. This gave us the opportunity to obtain a large amount of information, from different sources (internet, newspapers, magazines, books, among others). The difficult thing in the meetings was to agree on an idea, and even more to write it, so that someone was always "hanging", or else we rotated,but all together it was almost impossible.
The small paradox that was generated for us was that we had to face internal resistance to working in a team so large that it forced us to a non-standard division of tasks and to carry out an important part independently, which created insecurities in our work. work of people until that moment unknown in their majority.
In carrying out the work, no problems arose among the team members, which created a very pleasant atmosphere among all. Because of this and a series of things difficult to write, I think we were able to go from forming a mere group to that of a work team.
SEBASTIAN PICCOLINI
After having worked during this period of time with other people whom I knew in different ways ("Much, little and nothing") in this research work, I can say that I am extremely satisfied with the finished product.
In these weeks I felt totally challenged by the proposal of the research work. The desire to investigate a certain topic, meet with peers to coordinate with each other, see the difficulties of having excess material in our hands, see that all heads think and feel that all beings feel, having to understand all these variables together is quite a lot. complex and fascinating at the same time.
I think it was fortunate to have worked with very capable students and the most important thing that I emphasize is that we understood from the first moment that each one has different interests and desires and that they all relate, in this case, with the faculty in different ways. That is why I understand that the key to putting together this work was not only the methodology used, our desire or the intelligence of some; Rather, we respect everyone's time and needs, letting everyone participate in the way they want, having as much time as possible and putting "batteries" when they were really necessary.
Feeling part of a working team is very rewarding and seeing the results achieved gives me even more pleasure. I think that this job opened my brain a little more and I collaborate so that I can continue training in issues that I consider extremely important in today's workplace, such as teamwork.
LEANDRO D. SCHVARTZER
Having finished the investigation and come to the moment to observe what has been done, I find several things to highlight. It was possible to overcome the obstacles inherent to the work, such as coordinating among all of us being a large number of members, finding adequate information and processing it with criteria, choosing the most important thing to achieve a satisfactory result. Regarding the human group, they put the best of each one by making the best effort, getting together on weekends and informing us by email of what
that we did individually, thus ensuring that we all know what others were doing. Putting into practice what it is to work in a team was extremely important since I experienced an enriching experience, feeling what I was looking for when signing up for this matter, being able to see efficient ways for a work team to achieve what it sets out to do.
MARTIN LICHTMAN
The work was approached with great enthusiasm from the beginning. Not only because of the theme that was developed, but we were also interested in the fact that resistance to change is one of the current factors of discord between teams and groups.
The work began with a search for individual and specific information on each member of the team. The information collected in different books, magazines, internet, etc… by each one was put "on the table" so that all together we can analyze and evaluate what to emphasize.
After debugging the material, it was much easier to organize it like ours as a team, since having the specific information that it was what we were going to need was much easier to visualize what our objective was.
Anyway, and although we are perfectly organized, I personally think that nine people within the same team is too much. Not only because it is difficult to agree when we are all together, it is also difficult, and more so at this time of the year and each with personal issues, to find a common day and time to meet all of us. That is why we distributed the material so that each one could summarize and analyze what they read.
The day chosen was Saturdays at three in the afternoon. Little by little and week after week the work took shape. In volume and content. A good internal organization was necessary so that each one of us could put everything they had read and that together we could decide what to put in the work.
In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that within this work is the best of our efforts and that the responsibilities that have fallen to each one were assumed and fulfilled to perfection. Efficiency and effectiveness, fundamental factors for the formation, proper functioning and success of any team, were always present in our team. Regarding the social factor, of no less relevance than the previous ones, the only thing I can say is that an excellent team and a great group of people were formed. We did not experience any type of integration and / or adaptation problem and the relationship between all of us was, throughout this process, excellent.
There are not many opportunities that one has within this faculty to take subjects of this type and with this culture, so different from the rest of the subjects. That is why I want to say that I am more than happy to have gone through this experience. Actually, it is one of those subjects that in the end, one can look back and calmly say… it served me.
DARIO SCHAPIRO
From the beginning, various barriers arose that we had to overcome in order to carry out our task.
The first one was the number of people who are part of the team (nine). While this made certain tasks much easier, such as collecting data from different sources; also, at times it became an obstacle to overcome. Of course, every time we got to set a tentative meeting date, someone always had some other activity. This caused all of us to resign times and activities in order to meet and agree on the steps to follow to get the job done.
Another barrier we had to go through was physical space: since the team was large, it was difficult for us to find the appropriate places to work. Likewise, thanks to e-mail, we were permanently communicated and we passed on the information that each one was obtaining.
Also, it was difficult to reach a consensus when we discussed certain issues related to the way of approaching the tasks, which led us to establish a “democratic system” when making key decisions for the research.
Despite the aforementioned barriers, I think we were able to carry out the objective set at the beginning of the investigation, since the team gradually settled down, and each member developed the role in which they felt most comfortable.
I found it to be a very good experience, especially as I experienced all the concepts seen in class firsthand.
SOLANGE RIPOLL
Personally, having had the opportunity to approach this system of teamwork in order to interact together with the members that make it up in the search for a common goal, (elaborating this work), allowed me to study with greater depth and knowledge in the matter, the development of the methods and procedures that were necessary to adopt, to achieve with the greatest effort to produce a good result, and as far as possible, without defect.
In this job, more than an operator, I felt like a protagonist and where I noticed that as members we assumed from the first day that participation, dialogue, concern and performance were going to be the basic factors to successfully complete this task.. Of course, I do not want to fail to mention the excellent human predisposition to make the meetings as warm and comfortable as possible.
First of all, I believe that we knew how to manage resources well by observing that we did not have enough and constant time for the preparation of this work, since one knows well the limitations and obstacles that may arise, and even more. as in our case, where several of the 9 members have work-related responsibilities. Despite this, the few meetings we did have, we tried to be as long and productive as possible.
I also consider that having worked openly as a team and externally feedback from the media that we mentioned in our adopted methodology, made it not decline at any time as it was enriched by so much material obtained, and where yes or yes we had to establish slogans of work to try not to redound on the focus topics of this work.
Finally, regarding the "way of working", and I believe that it is indisputable for all of us who have the possibility of implementing this system on a daily basis, I must emphasize and today I am convinced that teamwork is the most effective to achieve continuous learning and to satisfy, as progress is made on it, the needs according to the objective that one intends to achieve, and where the creativity and innovation of the members play a fundamental role. I definitively believe that we must not resist; we must adapt to this new way of working, to this new process of change….
ROBERTO RIVERA
Bibliography
- Hhtp: /www.spin.com.mx/rjaguado/premis.htlmHttp: /www.neo-humanista.org/DPCC2/index.htlmHttp: /www.teclaredo.edu.mx/unidad6/resisten.htlm Overcoming resistance to change by Coch and Lester. Social Change in Aiken and Hage's Organizations. Resistance to Change in Oriolo's Companies. Harvard Business Review. Publication May-June 1996. Article Why do employees resist change ?. Paul Strebel.The Diagonals Of Business Change. Armando Bertagnini. Ediciones Macchi Organizational Behavior. Hellriegel – Slocum – Woodman, Thonson Editores. Human Resources Administration. Chiavenato Senior Management Magazine. August - September 1993 Team formation. Problems and alternatives. Willian G. Dyer.Total customer satisfaction. Total customer satisfaction and delight. Ruben R. Rico. Macchi editions.
