Abstract
Change is said to be constant and may affect an organization either positively or negatively. Surprisingly, even when change is expected to yield positive results or will bring growth and development to the organization, employees still have the audacity resist it. This has brought about the conclusion that people always resist to change. Our organization is not an exception. In this respect, this report identifies a strategy which the organization may adopt to reduce resistance to change. The report will also explain why such a strategy will be effective and appropriate for the organization.
Introduction
The organization should seek to understand the individual concerns about the intended changes. This makes them understand how they will be affected by these changes. For example, an employee may be interested to know whether his workstation will be shifted, whether there will be a pay cut, whether the department will be split or merged or whether the reporting structure will be changed. If change s connected to things which of care to people, the need for change may be facilitated. The organization will therefore link these changes with matters such as employees’ health, increased employment benefit, job security and other things which matters most in people’s life.
Strategy
The organization will cater for people’s nature to desire to keep away from loss. Under this strategy, the organization will explain in details what the employees are likely to lose if they protest the proposed changes. This will be explained in line with the things they are likely to gain once the changes are implemented. This information will be tailored to suit the expectations of the employees so that they can perceive the change as something that is not only beneficial to the organization but also important to them individually or severally. While discussing the proposed change, the stakeholders will be grouped into homogeneous basic opinions for easy communication for change.
Implementing the change will be communicated with urgency so as to take advantage of the stakeholders’ bias. This is because people tend to believe that they will be in a better position to handle the changes in future than now. To convince the stakeholders that there is a need for change, information about the proposed change will be communicated with consistency and accuracy to avoid chances of doubt. The proposed change will be reviewed by a special committee which will be responsible for implementation to ensure that it is well refined such that it becomes simple, compatible, better and adaptable.
Conclusion
This above strategy will reduce resistance as purposed. This is because it addresses personal concerns thus making the stakeholders feel secure. According to CREED (2009), linking change to with the issues which people care about can increase the perception on the need for change. This also makes the proposed change to be sticky such that the organization will not be compelled to make changes on the implementation of the proposed change. Preparing for change by telling people what the aught to lose if changes are not implemented is consistent with the negativity bias that makes people pay more attention to this which are scary and less present. According to Carey (1986), people will always have views on how the world should be. Aligning change with the expectations of people will help the stakeholders to own the changes thus easing the implementation process. It is also easier to introduce the change to people who have a uniform view point and therefore grouping them is inevitable. The people also perceive those things that are happening now as more urgent than those expected to happen in future (Webber, 2006).
References
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123‐1130.
The Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. New York.
Weber, E. (2006). Experience‐based and description‐based perceptions of long‐term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77(1‐2), 103‐120.
