Literature Review:Resistance to Change
Literature Review: Resistance to Change
Introduction
This literature review covers three peer-reviewed articles concerning organizational change. The Mento et al. paper (2002) – intended as a guidance document for individuals leading such a change process – draws on three theoretical models of the organizational change process to produce a framework that also takes into account the actual change process existing in a major company. The Barnard & Stoll paper (2010) is itself a literature review, drawing on available evidence to look at the change management process. That paper also looks at existing research on sustainable change and concludes with suggested options for further research. Beer et al. (1990) – in the third article reviewed – set out the reasons why many organizational change programs do not succeed, and suggest that a different approach is needed. This literature review examines the views outlined in the three reviewed articles and discusses the principal issues involved, i.e. that top management-driven change is not the right approach, and that minimizing resistance to change is vital for its success.
Referring to the 1995 change management model proffered by Kotter, Mento et al. note that after studying many organizations where efforts to change had failed, Kotter’s arguments were based around the concept of ways to avoid the same errors in attempting organizational change and – importantly – being aware that errors made in any single phase of change can have serious adverse consequences to success of the planned changes. Furthermore, the process requires continuous monitoring as the plans progress. Mento et al. refer to the technique of Mind Mapping (p.46) as a valuable tool used to enhance creativity and productivity, though conceding that three years of actual experience with change management in the organization of a Defense Contractor caused the theoretical aspects of the Mind Map to be modified in the light of actual practice (Mento et al. 2002).
The literature review compiled by Barnard & Stoll (2010) notes that although many organizations perceive change to be necessary, the majority of the implemented programs fail to achieve their objectives. Recognizing (like Mento et al.) that the process is multi-stage in nature, the authors nonetheless point out that the plethora of sometimes conflicting theories is confusing, that it is a mistake to assume that change can be managed using a top down approach, and that it should instead be a learning process, in which the organization is prepared to adapt and respond to ongoing changes in its internal and external environment (Barnard & Stoll 2010).
Beer et al. (1990) are also opposed to the concept that change should be driven by senior management with company-wide initiatives, suggesting instead that the hierarchical approach in business organizations is progressively giving way to a structure where responsibilities are delegated and teams operate in a task-driven structure. The authors accept that senior managers are aware of the need for change to remain competitive, but that they lack the understanding of the process needed to bring about the necessary change. In the opinion of the authors (supported by the findings of a study), the company-wide, top down approach is a major obstacle to the achievement of organizational change (Beer et al. 1990).
Overcoming Resistance
The traditional top-down implemented programs for change are almost certain to meet resistance from stakeholders – including employees who are excluded from the decision-making process but are required to work to the changed systems or procedures. In contrast, as noted by Beer et al., involving all stakeholders in the planning for change, and implementing the changes on a task-orientated basis rather than changing employee titles or systems, is much more likely to succeed. Full involvement at all levels of the workforce is the way forward and will encounter greatly reduced levels of resistance to change. However, as Beer et al. point out, not every individual worker can be fully involved in the process nor be able to appreciate its full advantage, but managers can and should foster support for the process. Having everyone “on board” for a major organizational change program is important.
Barnard & Stoll share the above-mentioned view that full involvement of all the workforce is important to avoid instinctive resistance to change. In addition, management must provide support in the form of information to help workers overcome their natural resistance following the announcement of the planned changes. The authors refer to a study which showed that various factors affected the level of resistance, one of which was trust in the management and the degree of communication between management and the workforce. However, others suggest that because all situations are different, the context should determine the most appropriate approach to deal with resistance (Barnard & Stoll 2010).
That overriding need to persuade stakeholders to accept the planned change and to support it during its implementation is emphasized by Mento et al. as part of a 12-step process which is referred to as a framework for change. They mention alternative individualized approaches, using terms like “the hammer, the carrot, the challenge and the prestige” (p.51). Because consensus support for change is so important to minimize resistance, those motivational initiatives must be continued throughout the change process (Mento et al. 2002).
Conclusions
Having read and reviewed the referenced literature, there is clear evidence that the once traditional top-down approach to organizational change has become outmoded and in many actual cases failed in its objectives. Instead, the modern approach is to involve all stakeholders at all stages of the process, and to view the change required as task-orientated rather than a company-wide implementation. Not only has that approach been found to be far more likely to succeed, but critically – if accompanied by good communication and support by management – it also drastically reduces workforce resistance to change.
References:
Barnard, Matt & Stoll, Naomi. (Oct. 2010). “Organisational Change Management: A rapid literature review.” Centre for Understanding Behaviour Change. Retrieved from: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cubec/migrated/documents/pr1.pdf
Beer, Michael, Eisenstat, Russell, A. & Spector, Bert. (Nov.-Dec. 1990). “Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change.” Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/1990/11/why-change-programs-dont-produce-change/ar/1
Mento, Anthony, J., Jones, Raymond, M., & Dirndorfer, Walter. (Aug. 2002). “A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice.” Journal of Change Management; Aug 2002; 3, 1; ABI/INFORM Global. Retrieved from: http://rolflovgren.se/RL-MDH/Kurser/KPP306/mento.pdf
