UNDERSTANDING CHANGE RESISTANCE David Ng Foo Seong National Institute of Education Singapore

Organizational change has become a fact of life. We have already stated that change can either result in positive or negative outcomes. Because many changes are unpredictable in nature, changes within an organization can often signal the emergence of uncertainty as soon as they are proposed. While going through the uncertainty of organizational change, leaders often encounter various obstacles and resistance to change. resistance has come to mean anything and everything that staff do which are not in support of change Over the years, the word resistance has come to mean anything and everything (physical, cognitive, emotion, behaviour related manifestations) that staff do which are not in support of change (Anderson et al., 2001). Leaders often perceive resistance negatively, since they see staff members who resist as being uncooperative, stubborn and not good contributors to the growth of the organization. Thus, the label of resistance has been used in an all inclusive manner to the detriment of dismissing potentially valid staff concerns about proposed change. Indeed not all resistance is bad in the change process. Some resistance has valid concerns that will benefit the change process if these concerns are taken into consideration. There are many books in the market that have been written on the topic of resistance and change. This chapter will only look into some of the sources and causes of resistance that often plague organizational change. 1. Valid Concerns or Resistance?

In the practical literature about managing change, many authors have advocated that leaders ought to refrain from the assumption that staff will always be opposed to change. Indeed there are a wide range of reasons why staff members may oppose a proposed organizational change. For instance, the outward display of objection to a change by a staff may not be a sign of being uncooperative. It might simply be motivated by the staff members desire to act in accordance with his or her ethical principles.
26

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

27

Attribution syndrome objection = resistance, non-cooperation The tendency to categorize staff members objections to change as resistance simply may be a manifestation of attribution syndrome by a leader. The attribution syndrome is characterised by attributing the first logical reason for a cause. In attributing objections as resistance, the action immediately resolves ambiguity and gives a logical explanation why staff baulks at change. So, unconsciously, applying the formula objection = resistance, non-cooperation almost become automatic. When change leaders fall into the attribution syndrome, it is easy to simply assign blame to staff members and label them as being resistors and the cause for the failure of the change initiative. leader knows best era is probably over In another example, staff members vocal objections to a change initiative may not be motivated by selfishness or showing dissent. Their objections may be simply a way to try to get the leader to pay attention to issues that they believe must be addressed in order for the organization to move forward. In earlier discussions on challenging the assumptions of change, it is a folly to think that the change leader has all the expertise and knowledge. Staff members are professionals in their own rights, and leaders can no longer operate without input from staff. The leader knows best era is probably over, especially in complex and radical organizational change. in most cases dissents from staff are never voiced in front of leaders To label staff members who oppose change as resistors may be the most convenient way to assign a name for a difficult phase in the change process. It must be remembered that individuals rarely express resistant attitudes through acts of dissent or protest without considering the potential negative consequences for themselves. Threats to their opportunities for career advancement, pay increment, bonuses and even job security are real pressures that any staff member will face before speaking up about their objections to change. In fact, in most cases, dissents from staff are never voiced in front of leaders but only within their own social

28

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

network. Thus, frivolous expression of resistance seems unlikely, since individuals who engage in it could face severe penalties and are aware that they should tread lightly. In light of this understanding, change leaders must pay attention to determining the real cause of resistance and not just dismiss all objections as resistance. 2. When is Resistance Resistance?

It is easy to categorize all obstacles to change as resistance. However, in many situations, it is worth pausing to think through carefully before embarking on efforts to try to overcome erroneous perception of resistance. The following two examples serve to show staff members different responses to organizational change that will put a question mark on the label resistance. response represents an example of a change in attitude without needing any intervening efforts from the leader A departmental leader had just learned that staff members in his department will no longer need to submit plans to him before making curriculum changes. Instead, upper management has said that staff members should have the full autonomy to make incremental curriculum changes that they deemed fit to meet students needs. The leaders emotional response to the announcement was quite negative, because this would upset his planning cycle for the department. The announcement frustrated him and he was very reluctant to implement the change. He began thinking of ways to counter this change. However, after a few weeks, he noted positive responses from students to the change. Staff members are now able to make changes that benefited students without going through the bureaucratic cycle. This made him change his attitude towards the perceived disruptive change. Indeed students academic improvement would have positive effects on the department. Thus, this departmental leaders response represents an example of a change in attitude without needing any intervening efforts from upper management. The initial display of reluctance that would have categorized him as a resistor did not jeopardize the change effort in any way. On the contrary, if upper management had resorted to intervention, it would have been a waste of time and effort. A negative emotional response to a change initiative may not necessarily mean resistance that will last. In this example, another departmental head in a large organization was involved in a restructuring exercise in his organization. After sitting in many

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

29

meetings and participating actively in the process, her initial reaction to the restructuring was very positive, because she felt the change was sorely needed. Her buying in to the change effort also evoked positive emotions as reflected in her enthusiasms in the process. However, a few weeks into the restructuring, she became increasingly negative. She planned to challenge the whole restructuring exercise if they would not provide the support that was needed. initial attitudesupportive but it evolved into a more negative state as her negative experiences emerged She later spoke out against the negative consequences of the "disruptive project." Although she still believed the change was needed, she was discouraged by her staffs lack of commitment. Thus, this departmental leaders initial attitude can be seen as supportive, but it evolved into a more negative state as her negative experiences emerged. If the change leader were to categorize the departmental leader as a supporter and left it as such, the change effort would have suffer some setbacks if no effort is made to intervene in a later stage. stepping back and wait for change to happen or maybe even passively resist, he was motivated to gatherinformation Sometimes, initial fears and doubt that could lead to possible resistance turn out to be a motivating factor for change instead. In this third example a principal learned that his school was merging with another nearby school. Dwindling enrolment had pushed the upper managements decision to merge the two schools. The principal initially responded with a combination of excitement and fear. These mix feelings were only to be expected because he was uncertain whether he would continue to be principal of the merged schools or otherwise. Instead of stepping back and wait for change to happen or maybe even passively resist, he was motivated to gather as much information as possible on the strengths and weaknesses of both schools. He was not comfortable discussing the merger with his superiors because he did not want to reveal his anxieties and appear insecure of his position. However, he and his staff were able to reassure each other through their new found information that the merger in fact will strengthen many departments and add

30

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

experience and depth to the staff strength that his school did not have. As a result, he became an active supporter of the merger despite the anxious feelings related to his position. Therefore from a situation of possible passive resistance, the principal turned out to be a vital advocator for change. This made the merger a lot easier because of support from a formal leader. change leader needs a lot of wisdom and information to tell the difference between true resistance and concerns. Indeed the change leader needs a lot of wisdom and information to tell the difference between true resistance and concerns. Much of the needed information can come only if the change leader has a strong social network among his or her staff members. If the change leader operates from the top and only apply the tell and command method, then much pain and wasted effort would follow the change initiative. Despite this apparently blurring line in categorizing resistance there are indeed well documented and researched reasons for real resistance to any change effort. The following discussion of the causes of resistance will help us understand better some of the reasons for resistance that could jeopardize a change effort. 3. Fear of Uncertainty anything that suggests an unknown usually creates fear and anxiety Loss of control over the outcome of change causes a staff to resist change (Fullan, 1999). Most people prefer to remain comfortable and stable with their present job situation. They may avoid additional responsibilities or even promotions and instead prefer to focus on work that is familiar and routine and rejecting anything that might change their present situation. The person's fear is not so much of doing something new as a result of change but because of unsure outcomes. Anything that suggests an unknown usually creates fear and anxiety because it presents the possibility of loss of control (Fullan, 1993). As discussed earlier with the potentials of change where the outcome of change can either be positive or negative, loss of control associated with a change is something that causes some people to react with great fear. In this case, taking a chance on something implies the outcome is not completely known and the person is entering unfamiliar territory. Although this type of fear is quite common, there are some

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

31

who cannot tolerate it and this creates major difficulties for them when they are simply considering trying something new. Resistance due to fear of uncertainty could also arise because most staff desire to be successful in their work. To be successful they want to know precisely their role and responsibilities within the organization. In addition, they want to be able to predict what they will face in the future. They also need to interact with other staff members in the organization as much as possible to ascertain that they are facing the same challenges and demands since this helps reduce anxiety that they are not alone. Finally, all staff have the need for some type of control over what takes place within their organization. This is so they will not feel as though they are at the mercy of the system.

4.

Fear of Being Irrelevant a threat to ones existenceif upgrading or acquiring new skills are perceived as a problem

Organizational change can disrupt the work environment in such a way where new skills, new knowledge and new processes are needed. The perceived inability to learn new skills may cause a staff to resist change. This fear of being in a situation in which his or her present skills will no longer be of value in a changing organization is a legitimate cause of resistance. Change can frequently be seen as a threat to one's existence within an organization if upgrading or acquiring new skills are a problem because of time constraints or the inability of the person to learn these new techniques.

the thought of ones contributions in the organization is no longer valued A stable organization usually has well established rules, policies, and procedures that staff are familiar with. The introduction of change frequently may mean new rules, policies and procedures and may leave the staff with the feeling of anxiety of adapting to the new changes which may contribute to the feeling of being irrelevant. Another example which demonstrates the fear of change and being irrelevant is when a junior staff is deemed to be given a better job

32

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

assignment in line with the new change in the organization. Suddenly, fears of job security, seniority and job promotion are all threatened. Worse, the thought of ones contributions in the organization is no longer valued becomes a real source for change resistance.

5.

Fear of Failure fear of risk-taking often creates an obstacle to grow and gain competitive advantage

Organizations have no choice but to change in order to adapt to new challenges in the environment. However, as much as is needed for an organization to change in order to remain successful, fear of failure is a real issue that many staff grappled with. Taking risks is what allows an organization to grow and gain competitive advantage (Tushman et al., 1997). The fear of risk-taking often creates an obstacle to getting desired results. When there is more to lose than gain people choose not to risk but strangely when there is nothing to lose and much to gain they unwisely choose not to risk. The fear must be reduced as much as possible in order for the organization to be change and have the potential to grow. Staff members with this fear often prefer to maintain the status quo

Fear of failure can leave a staff feeling very discouraged. There is also the possibility that it can sometimes ultimately lead to dismissal of the staff. Staff members with this fear often prefer to maintain the status quo and/or keep a low organizational profile. It is true that no person wants to fail but some people have an excessive fear of failure that all but immobilizes them. Such a person may be a perfectionist who internalizes failure and believes that the source comes from within the self. This type of person avoids opportunities when they present themselves and instead continues to do what they feel they do well. This inevitably holds a person back by putting severe limitations on the kinds of change undertaken. Change is seen as a source of fear instead of interesting exciting opportunities.

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

33

6.

Fear of Losing Power and Control

It may come as a surprise but resistance to change is not limited to staff members. Leaders too can resist change. Sometimes, these leaders are highpowered members of the organization. These leaders hold key positions in the organizations. In fact, the propensity to resist is directly proportional to the amount of power that a leader holds. What makes leaders resist? A simple explanation is that these leaders are inclined to defend the routines, processes, system, and procedures that they have put in place. After all, they were the ones who have channelled their energies and committed a big portion of their organizational life into making these routines successful. Replacing these systems and processes simply mean replacing their authority and power. However, there is a deeper issue contributing to the propensity to resist among leaders. Many leaders will not find any reason to go through change if they are successful. However, their very success could be transformed into failure. In other words, the act of being extremely efficient and successful changes the whole business itself. When leaders fail to understand the consequences of their success and their doggedness in doing the same old routines they are on the road to failure in the long run. The reason is simple. Once success is achieved or a problem is effectively dissolved, the concerns associated with that problem are irreversibly affected. Dissolving a problem transforms it and generates a whole new set of concerns. The consequence is that, the leader who once had the expertise, authority, and control, suddenly finds himself or herself being brought to the same level as staff members. The leader no longer has the edge in terms of expertise, or know-how because everyone in the organization has to start from the same square. Take for example, the success of the Swiss watch industry. For hundreds of years, the Swiss watch manufacturers have been the undisputed master craftsman. Their very success in dealing with the watch mechanisms caused them to refuse to move into digital technology (Tushman et al., 1997). However, a silent watch revolution was underway in Japan. As we know it, the rest was history. The Japanese watch industry took a huge slice of the worlds watch market. The inattentiveness of the Swiss watch makers provided Japan with an opportunity to move into new technology. Leaders who fail to understand the implication of new change can become resistors themselves. It is easy to dismiss new technology because the leader has acquired a vast amount of knowledge in the old technology. Giving up this vast

34

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

amount of knowledge can be very painful. But it must be done. Otherwise, the propensity to resist can increase the higher up the leader is in the organization. 7. Resistance Because of Success success is just as serious as the fear of failing Resistance because of success is not an area that immediately comes to most people's minds when discussing about causes of resistance. However, this phenomenon is just as serious as the fear of failing because the end result is the same - the organization holds back and avoids taking a risk for fear of losing something they already have. Resistance due to success is the flip side of the fear of failure. The difference is that the more successful an organization is, the more visibility the organization gets. Success, while attractive, tends to isolate organizations, and the successful organization is set apart from others. There are certain forces associated to success that lead to resistance. These forces are discussed here. Each force represents a distinct tendency experienced by many organizations because of past and current success. Inertia The first force that contributes to the type of resistance that comes out of organizational success is inertia (Gharajedaghi, 1999). Inertia is a delayed reaction to new technology or any new processes that could radically transform the organizations way of conducting their core business. In the business world, for example, inertia by AT & T, a major telecommunication company in America, in the early 1990s to adopt digital technology in phones caused the company to lose out a big chunk of the world market in mobile phones. The main reason for AT & Ts reluctance to venture into digital technology is not because it does not have the capability. It is because they were so good in producing analogue phones that they were committed to continue in the same trend for a while longer before perfecting the digital phones. On the contrary, a Finnish company, Nokia, started to market their not so perfect digital phones and we all know the rest was history. Nokia is now the worlds dominant manufacturer of mobile phones. To use another example from the school setting, the more success a school enjoys as a direct result of using the drill method, the greater is the inertia for the school to try a new and untested method. delayed reaction to change

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

35

is directly proportional to the level of success it had achieved This delayed reaction to change is directly proportional to the level of success it had achieved in the past. In other words, the more success an organization has with a particular process, method, or technology, the more reluctant it is to let go of the proven paths to success. The initial reaction toward any suggestion to change their tried and tested ways is always an emphatic no. But the consequence of such resistance could be almost devastating when the organization finally decides to adopt the change. By now it has wasted crucial time in delaying adoption. It provides other competitors with a window of opportunity to adopt the new change and thus achieve competitive advantage.

Sub-optimization Sub-optimization is another force that often plagues successful organizations (Gharajedaghi, 1999). While not directly a cause of resistance, it is nevertheless a potent force that prevents organizations from exploring possibilities of change. Another word to describe sub-optimization is exaggeration. It is a belief that if A is good, more of A is even better. Overuse of a proven strength will transform the strength into a destructive weakness. A simple illustration to demonstrate sub-optimization is how a hypothetical school assigns homework to students. The school found that students doing regular homework were better achievers. If for some reasons the school experience a drop in academic results in a particular year, the homework factor will feature prominently in the discussion. Inevitably the suggestion that if homework has helped students in the past, then more homework is the answer to push results up again. monolithic culture in time defines the organizations identity Indeed, many stories follow the same path towards sub-optimization. An organization achieves success through the introduction of a new programme. Initiators of the programme gain adulation, and they quickly become the sole authorities. In time, one right answer prevails and other alternatives are discarded because of a proven track of success in this new programme, thus creating an increasingly monolithic culture. This monolithic culture in time redefines the organizations goals, the assumptions, the premises, and the identity of the organization. Thus, the very success that the organization has achieved can turn out to be the very resistance to exploring new possibilities.

36

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

To the individual, a staff who seemingly does everything right is one who also suffers from a fear of what others think. In this case, the individual's main focus is on what others think and therefore only does things that they are sure others will approve of. Consequently, the opinions of others are very important and as they often control what the person thinks and does. The staff is very careful to tell others exactly what they want to hear and often suggests solutions that seem obvious. The end result is that the solutions lack creativity and what others think is what the person ends up thinking of themselves. The risk of losing the favour or approval of others can be threatening if not a major crisis, an identity of sorts and this is attributed to the past success that the individual has enjoyed.

Conclusion Change within an organizational setting usually poses several problems for those who resist it. As discussed earlier, staff members resist change because they have learned to associate it with negative feelings and fear since their basic needs may now be threatened. Leaders have the task of dealing with staffs resistance through the positive impact that organizational change can have. In order to do this, leaders must first develop an awareness and understanding of the reasons for resistance that organizational change have on staff. In our discussions above, the following conclusions can be drawn about change resistance: 1. Just as change is a constant, resistance to change is an expected natural constant. Resistance has been used in an all inclusive manner to the detriment of dismissing potentially valid staff concerns about proposed change. Not all resistance is bad in the change process. There are differing degrees of acceptance of change and resistance. People may change their stance towards change from resistors to advocates of change. A change leader needs to have the wisdom to know the difference between concerns and resistance. Resistance should be taken seriously. A change leader should look again at the change process and review plans or errors in the light of feedback.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

Chapter 3: Understanding Change Resistance

37

The purpose of this chapter is for the change leader to understand the causes and sources of resistance. Obviously the change leader must work with real resistance. It is not the intention of this book to isolate resistance and deal with it as a separate issue from the change process. Resistance can occur throughout the process of change. The change leader must use the right change strategies and tactics for working with the resistance as opposed to trying to overcome or annihilate it. Attempting to overpower, avoid, or eliminate it does not allow full awareness of the experience by either the initiator or the resistors. This is patronizing behaviour and is not respectful of the integrity of either party. To gloss over the resistance is to avoid the possibility of real insight or growth, and it precludes full ownership of the resistance. Even if resistance is forcefully reduced, the outcome could be compliance, which may be alright in a coercive setting but is not a good long-term solution in organizational change. In the next few chapters, discussions on working with resistance will be weaved into the main processes of change.

References Anderson, Dean.; Ackerman-Anderson, Linda S. (2001). Beyond Change Management : Advanced Strategies for Today's Transformational Leaders. San Francisco Jossey Bass. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces : probing the depths of educational reform. London : Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces : the sequel. London : Falmer Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. Butterworth-Heinemann. Tushman M. L., Anderson, P. (1997). Eds. Managing strategic innovation and change : a collection of readings. New York : Oxford University Press.