To begin, it will be useful for our purposes to think of change as having both a technical and a social aspect. The technical aspect of the change is the making of a measurable modification in the physical routines of the job. The social aspect of the change refers to the way those affected by it think it will alter their established relationships in the organization. We can clarify this distinction by referring to the two foregoing episodes.
In both of them, the technical aspects of the changes introduced were virtually identical: the operator was asked to use a slightly changed part in assembling the finished product. By contrast, the social aspects of the changes were quite different. In the first episode, the interaction between the industrial engineer and the operator tended to sustain the give-and-take kind of relationship that these two people were accustomed to.
The operator was used to being treated as a person with some valuable skills and knowledge and some sense of responsibility about her work; when the engineer approached her with his idea, she felt she was being dealt with in the usual way. By his brusque manner and by his lack of any explanation, he led the operator to fear that her usual work relationships were being changed.
And she just did not like the new way she was being treated. The results of these two episodes were quite different also. In the first episode there were no symptoms of resistance to change, a very good chance that the experimental change would determine fairly whether a cleaning solution would improve product quality, and a willingness on the part of the operator to accept future changes when the industrial engineer suggested them. We might summarize the two contrasting patterns of human behavior in the two episodes in graphic form; see Exhibit I.
It is apparent from these two patterns that the variable which determines the result is the social aspect of the change. In other words, the operator did not resist the technical change as such but rather the accompanying change in her human relationships. This conclusion is based on more than onecase. Many other cases in our research project substantiate it. Furthermore, we can find confirmation in the research experience of Coch and French, even though they came out with a different interpretation.
Coch and French tell us in their report that the procedure used with Group 1, i. And yet they also tell us something about the customary treatment of the operators in their work life.
Now compare these customary work relationships with the way the Group 1 operators were treated when they were introduced to this particular work change. There is quite a difference. When the management called them into the room for indoctrination, they were treated as if they had no useful knowledge of their own jobs.
How could they construe this experience except as a threatening change in their usual working relationship? It is the story of the second episode in our research case all over again. The results were also the same, with signs of resistance, persistently low output, and so on. Now consider experimental Groups 3 and 4, i. It was simply a continuation of the way they were ordinarily dealt with in the course of their regular work.
And what happened? The results—reception to change, technical improvement, better performance—were much like those reported in the first episode between the operator and the industrial engineer. So the research data of Coch and French tend to confirm the conclusion that the nature and size of the technical aspect of the change does not determine the presence or absence of resistance nearly so much as does the social aspect of the change.
These observations check with everyday management experience in industry. When we stop to think about it, we know that many changes occur in our factories without a bit of resistance. We know that people who are working closely with one another continually swap ideas about short cuts and minor changes in procedure that are adopted so easily and naturally that we seldom notice them or even think of them as change.
The point is that because these people work so closely with one another, they intuitively understand and take account of the existing social arrangements for work and so feel no threat to themselves in such everyday changes. These are the changes that we notice and the ones that most frequently bring on symptoms of resistance.
By the very nature of their work, most of our staff specialists in industry do not have the intimate contact with operating groups that allows them to acquire an intuitive understanding of the complex social arrangements which their ideas may affect.
Neither do our staff specialists always have the day-to-day dealings with operating people that lead them to develop a natural respect for the knowledge and skill of these people. As a result, all too often the men behave in a way that threatens and disrupts the established social relationships.
And the tragedy is that so many of these upsets are inadvertent and unnecessary. Yet industry must have its specialists—not only many kinds of engineering specialists product, process, maintenance, quality, and safety engineers but also cost accountants, production schedulers, purchasing agents, and personnel people.
Must top management therefore reconcile itself to continual resistance to change, or can it take constructive action to meet the problem? I believe that our research in various factory situations indicates why resistance to change occurs and what management can do about it.
All too frequently we see staff specialists who bring to their work certain blind spots that get them into trouble when they initiate change with operating people. Here are two examples:. The sad part of it was that there was no compelling cost or technical reason why the output could not be placed beside the work position as it had been formerly. But the staff people who had introduced the change were so literal-minded about their ideas that when they heard complaints on the changes from the operators, they could not comprehend what the trouble was.
Instead, they began repeating all the logical arguments why the change made sense from a cost standpoint. The final result here was a chronic restriction of output and persistent hostility on the part of the operators.
Obviously, in both of these situations the staff specialists involved did not take into account the social aspects of the change they were introducing. For different reasons they got so preoccupied with the technical aspects of the change that they literally could not see or understand what all the fuss was about.
We may sometimes wish that the validity of the technical aspect of the change were the sole determinant of its acceptability. But the fact remains that the social aspect is what determines the presence or absence of resistance.
Just as ignoring this fact is the sure way to trouble, so taking advantage of it can lead to positive results. We must not forget that these same social arrangements which at times seem so bothersome are essential for the performance of work. Without a network of established social relationships a factor would be populated with a collection of people who had no idea of how to work with one another in an organized fashion.
Another blind spot of many staff specialists is to the strengths as well as to the weaknesses of firsthand production experience. They do not recognize that the production foreman and the production operator are in their own way specialists themselves—specialists in actual experience with production problems.
This point should be obvious, but it is amazing how many staff specialists fail to appreciate the fact that even though they themselves may have a superior knowledge of the technology of the production process involved, the foreman or the operators may have a more practical understanding of how to get daily production out of a group of workers and machines.
The experience of the operating people frequently equips them to be of real help to staff specialists on at least two counts: 1 The operating people are often able to spot practical production difficulties in the ideas of the specialists—and iron out those difficulties before it is too late; 2 the operating people are often able to take advantage of their intimate acquaintance with the existing social arrangements for getting work done.
If given a chance, they can use this kind of knowledge to help detect those parts of the change that will have undesirable social consequences. The staff experts can then go to work on ways to avoid the trouble area without materially affecting the technical worth of the change. Further, some staff specialists have yet to learn the truth that, even after the plans for a change have been carefully made, it takes time to put the change successfully into production use.
Time is necessary even though there may be no resistance to the change itself. The operators must develop the skill needed to use new methods and new equipment efficiently; there are always bugs to be taken out of a new method or piece of equipment even with the best of engineering. When staff people begin to lose patience with the amount of time that these steps take, the workers will begin to feel that they are being pushed; this amounts to a change in their customary work relationships, and resistance will start building up where there was none before.
The situation is aggravated if the staff specialist mistakenly accuses the operators of resisting the idea of the change, for there are few things that irritate people more than to be blamed for resisting change when actually they are doing their best to learn a difficult new procedure.
Many of the problems of resistance to change arise around certain kinds of attitudes that staff people are liable to develop about their jobs and their own ideas for introducing change.
Fortunately, management can influence these attitudes and thus deal with the problems at their source. It is fairly common for staff members to work so hard on an idea for change that they come to identify themselves with it. But when, for example, a staff member goes to some group of operating people to introduce a change, his very identification with his ideas tends to make him unreceptive to any suggestions for modification.
He just does not feel like letting anyone else tamper with his pet ideas. It is easy to see, of course, how this attitude is interpreted by the operating people as a lack of respect for their suggestions. But here are four suggestions for speeding up the process:. It also helps if staff people can be guided to recognize that the satisfaction they derive from being productive and creative is the same satisfaction they deny the operating people by resisting them.
Experience shows that staff people can sometimes be stimulated by the thought of finding satisfaction in sharing with others in the organization the pleasures of being creative. Sometimes, too, staff people can be led to see that winning acceptance of their ideas through better understanding and handling of human beings is just as challenging and rewarding as giving birth to an idea.
One of the problems that must be overcome arises from the fact that most staff people are likely to have the attitude that the reasons why they are recommending any given change may be so complicated and specialized that it is impossible to explain them to operating people. It's your responsibility to implement the change. You can only do that effectively if you plan how you will implement the change with the people you influence or oversee in your organization.
Okay, you've had the opportunity to tell senior managers what you think. You spoke loudly in the focus group. You presented your recommended direction, with data and examples, to the team. The powers that be have chosen a different direction than the one you supported. It's time to move on. Once the decision is made, your agitating time is over.
Whether you agree or not, once the organization, the group, or the team decides to move on—you need to do everything in your power to make the selected direction succeed. Anything else is sabotage, and it will make your life miserable. It can even get you fired. Even if you don't support the direction, once it is decided, you owe it percent of your leadership and support. Wishy-washy or partial support is undermining the effort—it won't earn you any points from your managers or senior leaders or cause your coworkers and reporting staff to respect you.
If you can't buy into the fact that the chosen direction is where you are going, you can, at least, buy into the fact that it is critical that you support it. Once the direction is chosen, it is your job to make it work. Anything less is disrespectful, undermining, and destructive of the senior leaders' direction. Support the change or it's time for you to move on and out. Don't wait for your senior leaders to terminate your employment for non-support. You can do a lot of damage while waiting for the end to come.
If your employees think that you are honest, trust you, and feel loyal to you, they are much more likely to get on board with the changes quickly. So, the efforts that you have expended in building this type of relationship will serve you well during the change implementation. They will serve you well in general, but especially during times of stress and change. You undoubtedly have reporting staff, departmental colleagues, and employees to whom you must communicate the change.
How you communicate the change to the people you influence has the single most important impact on how much resistance to change will occur. One of the key factors is an environment in which there is a widespread belief that a change is needed. So, one of your first tasks in effective communication is to build the case for "why" the change was needed. Specifically, inform the employees about what your group can and cannot affect. Spend time discussing how to implement the change and make it work.
Answer questions; share your earlier reservations, but state that you are on board and going to make the change work now. Ask the employees to join you in that endeavor because only the team can make the change happen. Stress that you have knowledge, skills, and strengths that will help move the team forward, and so does each of the team members.
All are critical to making the changes work—and gee, life after the changes may get better. A good portion of resistance disappears when employees are clear about the benefits the change brings to them. Benefits to the group, the department, and the organization should be stressed, too. But, nothing is more important to an individual employee than to know the positive impact on their own career or job.
Additionally, employees must feel that the time, energy, commitment, and focus necessary to implement the change are compensated equally by the benefits they will attain from making the change. Happier customers, increased sales, a pay raise , recognition from the boss, and an exciting new role or project are examples of ways in which you can help employees feel compensated for the time and energy that any change requires.
You can expect that the employees will experience the same range of emotions that you experienced when the change was introduced to you. Never minimize an employee's response to even the most simple change.
You can't know or experience the impact of an individual employee's point of view. Maybe the change seems insignificant to many employees, but the change will seriously impact another employee's favorite task. Fiorelli J. Managing and understanding large system change: guidelines for executives and change agents. Organization Development Journal , Vol. Ford, J. Resistance to change: the rest of the story.
Academy of Management Review , vol. Organizational Dynamics , Vol. Lawrence, P. How to Deal with Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review , vol. Maurer, R. Using resistance to build support for change. Meyer, J. A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. Michelman, P. Overcoming Resistance to Change. Harvard Management Update , 12, pp. Timisoara: Universitatea de Vest. Sarwar, A. Strebel, P.
Why do employees resist change. Harvard Business Review , Vol. Thomas, R. Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. Waddell, D. Resistance: a constructive tool for change management.
0コメント