Resistance to Change

Change is one of the most common and pervasive fixtures in organizations. Unfortunately, for all involved it is also one of the most challenging and painful experiences faced in organizations, even when leaders make all the right moves. I believe that if many organizations were graded on their efforts, many would receive an F. Change management skills seem to be lacking from many leaders either out of overconfidence or ignorance for what has to be done and in what order. 

  

In contrast to a manager, a leader’s role is to change the organization so that it satisfies the mission and vision of the business and implement strategies in service of the prescribed direction. While managers worry about the effectiveness and efficiencies of the business, leaders are concerned with getting to the future desired state. As mentioned in previous publications, to move forward the primary management functions of control, organizing, planning, decision-making⁵ and staffing must be solidly in place.  Once present, it enables effective and efficient change; it is challenging to change a business when its foundation is crumbling. Of course, change only works with appropriate leader actions. 

There are different types of change. Unexpected change that is thrust on an organization can wreak havoc and perhaps put the business in a tailspin. This happened for many businesses during the economic crisis – sales plummeted putting many into crisis and survival mode. The concern in this publication is about planned change; planned change is controllable by leaders, managers and workers. One cannot always predict or anticipate how the staff will react, but leaders can control the actions taken. The challenging question is how to do it the right way?

Planned change has three “flavors” – one form of change is considered developmental. This type is incremental in nature and represents small adjustments for the movement forward.¹ For leaders and workers alike, developmental change is less “threatening” and easier to manage. A second form is evolutionary; it represents a larger transition to a process, function, unit or business. Transitional changes are harder to manage, are more threatening to the workers and may cause elevated anxiety.¹ An example of this type of change could be an upgrade to software that ripples through the business but does not cause a major shift in the organization or how things are done. The final form is transformational¹ or revolutionary – this type is a major shift from the current state to a new state. For example, when an organization decides to enter a new market, such as a soft drink manufacturer entering the coffee business, the business will need to dramatically shift and emerge as a different company. The latter type is the most difficult to manage; when workers don’t visualize a clear end state, they feel much more threatened and exposed.¹

 

What is most relevant, as described earlier, is implementing the process in such a way that optimizes results. This is easier said than done, but there are tried and true processes that leaders can use. At the beginning of any change process, one of the first issues to be dealt with is the reaction from workers. 

Resistance is a natural response to change. It is normal for one to become familiar and comfortable with the current state and when confronted with a change, panic ensues. Like the young child who resists the parent’s instructions, workers may dig in and say no! For leaders to become effective change managers, they must start with an understanding of what can cause resistance and then how it manifests in behaviors.³

 

There are a number of things that cause resistance. For example, resistance behaviors can arise out of a fear of loss.² Change is an alteration of what one knows and therefore may feel like a loss of control.³ Some may worry they will look stupid in the new environment (“I knew what I was doing before, but now I am not sure”). Workers may not only become fearful of what will happen to them, but also what will happen to their colleagues, departments, supervisors and perhaps the organization as a whole.² Some of the fear may be financial or job related.²

 

When change happens, routine is interrupted and old habits may no longer be useful.² This can lead to general feelings of loss, which can impact psychological security.² Similarly, psychological safety may also decline, reducing one’s willingness to speak up and take risks.⁴ Each may draw attention away from a focus on work. Workers may reason that it is best to stay the way things are rather than take the risk and go with the change.  Some may interpret change as a slap in the face about the past and get the sense that one was not doing it right before – no one wants to believe they had a negative impact on the business. ³

It is also expected that workers will begin to fantasize about the future; this will either be in a negative or positive direction. Some may conjure images about how the business will look in the future, which may not be based on common sense or reality. It is not unusual for a worker to filter out the information they don’t want to hear,² and it has significant implications for change communications.

 

In summary, resistance evolves from ambiguity and the fear of the unknown.² Resistance then can manifest in a set of behaviors designed to protect oneself: ³ 

• The worker may do everything in his or her power to keep things the same. This could mean “sabotage” to projects, perhaps by becoming disagreeable with those trying to execute the change. Sometimes this can mean direct or indirect undermining of those in charge; there can be attempts to go behind a person’s back to try to challenge the change process. Projects may also be deliberately stalled as a means to prevent the change from occurring; deliverables go unmet or assignments ignored.

•  An increase in politicking may occur; separate camps may form for or against the change. Workers may feel the need to go up the chain of command to complain about the process or make a case that the change will not work.

• Instructions may be misunderstood – consciously or unconsciously (not all change reactions are obviously related to the change); either way, the change process is slowed.

• Anguish about change can cause an increase in turnover or impact other important behavioral variables such as job satisfaction and the willingness to be a good organizational citizen.

In my 30+ years working, I have been through several revolutionary changes in the business I was employed and whenever it was not handled well, things got worse.

The leader’s role is to drive change forward but do it in the way that optimizes outcomes. A first step is to understand why resistance occurs followed by an understanding of how resistance manifests in the behavior of workers. By understanding these issues, the leader will discover ways to improve the change process. These measures will be discussed in a future publication.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Costello, S.J. (1994). Managing Change in the Workplace. Burr Ridge: Illinois: Irwin: Mirror Press.

² Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

³ Kanter, R. M., (1985). Managing the Human Side of Change. Management Review. April 1985. Retrieved at http://www.apbs.org/archives/conferences/fifthconference/files/UTAH/managing_Change.pdf, 9-13-13.

⁴ Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

⁵ Griffin, R.W. (2011). Management (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.