MGT 362 Resistance to Change Case Study Assignment Content Read the following scenario on Jack’s Dilemma from Ch. 8, “Resistance to Change,” of Managing O

MGT 362 Resistance to Change Case Study Assignment Content

Read the following scenario on Jack’s Dilemma from Ch. 8, “Resistance to Change,” of Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach:

Scenario: Jack’s Dilemma

Jack White is the newly appointed general manager of the pet food division of Strickland Corporation. He has completed a strategic review that has convinced him that the division needs to undergo rapid and substantial change in a number of areas, given the recent strategic moves of key competitors.

Although Jack is new, he is familiar enough with the company to know that there will be significant resistance to the changes from a number of quarters. He also suspects that some of this resistance will come from people with the capacity to act in ways that could seriously impede successful change.

Jack reflects on the situation. He believes that it is important to introduce the proposed changes soon, but he also recognizes that if he acts too quickly, he’ll have virtually no time to have a dialogue with staff about the proposed changes, much less involve them in any significant way.

One option is to act speedily and to make it clear that “consequences” will follow for anyone not cooperating. He certainly has the power to act on such a threat. The risk, Jack knows, is that even if no one shows outright resistance, there’s a big difference between not cooperating and acting in a manner that reflects commitment. He knows that he needs the cooperation of key groups of staff, and that sometimes “minimum-level compliance” can be as unhelpful as resistance when it comes to implementing change. “But maybe I’m exaggerating this problem,” he thinks to himself. “Maybe I should just go ahead with the change. If people don’t like it, they can leave. If they stay, they’ll come around.”

But Jack is not sure. He considers another option. Maybe he should spend more time on building up support at least among key groups of managers and staff, if not more broadly across the organization. “Maybe,” he reflects, “the need to change is not quite as immediate as I think. I just know that I’d feel a whole lot better if this consultation could happen quickly.”

Write a 525- to 700-word paper in which you:

oIdentify the risks associated with the need for change in Strickland Corporation.

oDescribe the different approaches Jack may consider that could be used to manage resistance.

oDiscuss an approach that would be appropriate in minimizing resistance to change.

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines. 252 Chapter 8 Resistance to Change
Chapter 8 Resistance to Change 253
of energy and feedback. Rick Maurer (2010) also argues that the power of resistance can
be used to build support for change. Treating resisters with respect strengthens relation-
ships and improves the chances of success. He also advises the change manager to relax,
to resist the temptation to “push back” when attacked, to learn from the resistance, to look
for common ground. Although advocating this perspective, Maurer (2010) also accepts
that there are situations where focusing attention on dissent can be counterproductive. This
can occur, for example, where challenges to the change proposals are not well informed,
or where change is necessary for organizational survival.
For the benefits to be gained, resistance must be active. But resistance can sometimes be
passive, and involve silence, and withholding cooperation and information. Encouraging
complaints and challenges may sound perverse, but by encouraging the dialogue, active
resistance can be stimulated, and the feedback and ideas can then be used constructively.
This section has focused on the positive dimensions of resistance. We also have to rec-
ognize the damage that resistance can cause, to an organization, its members, and some-
times even to those who are resisting. Job security, for example, may be jeopardized by
a failure to introduce new systems, procedures, practices, and technology. It is important,
therefore, to adopt a balanced perspective on this topic, recognizing the negative as well as
the positive implications.
LO 8.2 Causes
Resistance, when it does occur, is not necessarily damaging. Donald Schön (1963)
argued that resistance was not just desirable, but necessary, in order to prevent the imple-
mentation of weak ideas and ineffective proposals. Unity and consensus are often viewed
as desirable, while conflict and disagreement are bad. However, in some settings, a diver-
gence of opinions can be constructive if this exposes the dimensions of an argument or the
full range of consequences—positive and negative—of a change proposal. Several other
commentators have thus argued for the need to recognize the utility of resistance (Waddell
and Sohal, 1998; Mabin, 2001; Atkinson, 2005). Maurer (2010, p. 23) says, “Sometimes
we need to hear the resistance in order to know that our plans are doomed to failure.”
Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (2009) argue that resistance to change provides valuable feed-
back on what is being proposed. Resistance is a resource, even if it sounds like complaints
and arguments. They suggest that there is no point in blaming resisters. Treated as a threat,
they become defensive and uncommunicative, and the resource is no longer available. On
the contrary, it is important to understand resistance, which can often be well founded.
Resistance is not always irrational or self-serving. Ford and Ford (2009, p. 100) argue,
“Even difficult people can provide valuable input when you treat their communication
with respect and are willing to reconsider some aspects of the change you’re initiating.”
What to you as the change manager is an annoying complaint may be a genuine expres-
sion of concern from the person who raised it. Resisters believe that they are being helpful
and constructive, while you believe that they are being negative and disruptive.
Furthermore, different people interpret change, and therefore respond to change, in dif-
ferent ways, at different times, depending on their current role and past experience (Ford
et al., 2002). We may resist your current proposals because your previous initiative did not
work. We may find some parts of your proposals exciting and welcome, while being horri-
fied by some of your other change ideas.
Ford and Ford (2009) identify five ways in which resistance can be used productively:
1. Encourage dialogue Keep the conversation alive—even with complaints—to
increase awareness of the change ideas and allow those
affected to think through the implications.
2. Clarify the purpose Those affected need to understand why their roles have
to change.
3. Consider new possibilities Assess and if appropriate accept the ideas of those who
are resisting; the most outspoken are often closest to the
operations affected and care about getting it right.
4. Listen to the voices
Encourage participation and engagement; people want
to be heard, and noting concerns can generate novel and
valuable options.
5. Deal with the past Current responses to change can be based on previous
failures in which today’s managers were not involved; it
may be necessary to resolve any “leftover” issues before
going ahead with new plans.
For some change managers, adopting a “welcoming” approach to resistance to change
may sound unrealistic, and personally challenging. However, Todd Jick and Maury Peiperl
(2010) suggest that change managers should “rethink” the concept of resistance, recogniz-
ing this as a natural part of the process of adapting to change and thus as a potential source
The American composer, John Cage, once said: “I can’t understand why people are frightened
of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones”
(http://www.quotationspage.com)
Resistance can have seriously damaging organizational and individual consequences,
leading to reduced performance and competitiveness, failure to acquire new capabilities,
and job loss. Why then do people resist change? There are probably as many answers
to that question as there are members of organizations faced with change. Broadly, the
reasons fall into three categories concerning the content or substance of the change, the
process through which change is implemented, and the uncertainty that change can gen-
erate (Hughes, 2010). We will explore in this section the common causes of resistance.
Be aware that this is not an exhaustive list. It is important, however, for the change man-
ager to diagnose the cause—or causes—of resistance before taking action.
Innate Dislike of Change
Some of us just do not like change. It is common to hear the complaint that the main imped-
iment that managers face in introducing change is that people dislike change and will resist
it. We have already argued, however, that this view is oversimplified and does not explain
why people sometimes welcome and even seek change. It is not wise to assume that a dis-
like of change is necessarily an innate human characteristic that we all share. As individu-
als, we vary in our approach or “disposition” to change. Some of us prefer routine, become
tense and anxious when confronted with change, do not like to change our plans, and are
more rigid in our thinking. Those who have high dispositional resistance toward change are
therefore less likely to accept change in general and are more likely to resist when change
is imposed. But some of us dislike routine, are animated by new ideas and plans, and are
comfortable with changing our minds when presented with fresh information.
254 Chapter 8 Resistance to Change
Chapter 8 Resistance to Change 255
Fear That YouTube Will Change
While our individual disposition toward change may be a relatively stable personality
trait, context is also important. Shaul Oreg (2003; 2006), for example, argues that trust
in management and having the right amount of information can positively influence
dispositions toward change. Information overload, however, can reinforce negative
perceptions and strengthen resistance. Another significant feature of the context
concerns the substance or content of the changes. You may find some ideas attractive
even if you have high dispositional resistance to change in general. We therefore cannot
automatically predict your reaction to the next change based on your response to current
proposals.
For most of us, therefore, our responses are more likely to depend on the organizational
context and the characteristics of the proposed changes than on our personality. If correct,
this conclusion has profound practical implications for the change manager. We cannot
manage your personality. We can, however, change our proposals, and we can manage or
adjust aspects of the organizational context. The change manager has to accept, however,
that some individuals, in some contexts, may have extremely high dispositional resistance
to change that cannot easily be altered.
Managers need to consider the way in which a pro-
posed change or even just the belief that a change
is about to be made—can produce a reaction from
stakeholders outside the organization. Managing
the expectations of the external constituency, such
as customers, can be as important as handling the
concerns of those inside the organization.
In 2014, when Google appointed Susan Wojcicki
as its senior vice president in charge of YouTube,
she received a lot of correspondence from pas-
sionate fans who were worried that she would
make changes that would weaken the YouTube
experience that they currently enjoyed. One user
expressed her concern very succinctly: “So please,
I’m begging you, please, please, please, don’t f*** it
up” (La Porte, 2014, p. 60).
Low Tolerance of Uncertainty
Do you enjoy being taken by surprise? You look forward to the “mystery tour,” destina-
tion unknown. Or do you need to know precisely what will happen next? You want to
know all the journey details in advance. There are individual differences in our toler-
ance of uncertainty and ambiguity. If you are not confident that you have the skills and
capabilities that the proposed changes will demand, then the uncertainty will be magni-
fied. Uncertainty can of course be reduced, and support strengthened, by making clear
the strategic intent of the change, and the actions that are expected of those involved.
The key point here is that lack of support for change may not be due to overt resistance,
or apathy, but to uncertainty and ambiguity, based on lack of information—a lack that
can be remedied.
Attachment to Organization Culture and Identity
The “image” of the organization as a cultural system is a popular one. A cultural sys-
tem includes values, artifacts, and beliefs concerning the way we do things around
here.” Resistance to change can thus be influenced by the degree of attachment to the
existing culture. Rhonda Reger and colleagues (1994, p. 33–34) argue that members of
an organization interpret change proposals through their existing mental models:
A particularly powerful mental model is the set of beliefs members hold about the organi-
zation’s identity. Identity beliefs are critical to consider when implementing fundamental
change because organizational identity is what individuals believe is central, distinctive, and
enduring about their organization. These beliefs are especially resistant to change because
they are embedded within members’ most basic assumptions about the organization’s
character.
Reger et al. (1994) also argue that two mental barriers can undermine the acceptance
of change initiatives that are seen as inconsistent with the current organizational identity.
First, passive resistance (apathy, anxiety) can occur when the meaning and purpose of the
change have not been made clear. Second, active resistance can be triggered when change
is seen to be in direct conflict with key aspects of the organization’s identity. Change man-
agers cannot assume that other members of the organization share their mental models
concerning the need for change. Strong resistance may therefore be triggered by change
proposals that are perceived as threatening basic assumptions. One strategy for the change
manager, therefore, is to avoid changes that carry such threats. A second approach con-
cerns presenting proposals in a way that minimizes challenges to the current order. Third,
it may be necessary to develop an overwhelmingly compelling case for fundamental cul-
ture change, if threats to current assumptions cannot be minimized or avoided.
Perceived Breach of Psychological Contract
Our understanding of the nature of the reciprocal relationship that we have with an
employer has been called the “psychological contract” (Rousseau, 1995; Coyle-Shapiro
and Shore, 2007). A breach or violation of this contract occurs when employees believe
that the employer is no longer honoring their side of the deal. As the label suggests, the
This Is Not in My Interests
We noted earlier that resistance can be based on the perception that change will work
against the interests of those who will be affected. The term “interests” can cover a
range of factors: authority, status, rewards (including remuneration), opportunities to
apply expertise, membership of friendship networks, autonomy, security. People find
it easier to support changes when their interests are not threatened, and they may resist
when they perceive that their interests will be damaged.
The key term here is “perception.” Seen from a different standpoint (long-term job
security, for example), proposed changes may support the interests of those involved,
whose focus on short-term implications (loss of currently valued skills, for example) may
take priority. It is the perceptions of those who are involved that determine their responses
to change, and not the perceptions of others. Perceptions are difficult to manage and to
change, but the quality and volume of available information, and the roles of opinion lead-
ers and networks, can be significant in this regard.
260 Chapter 8 Resistance to Change
Chapter 8 Resistance to Change 261
TABLE 8.2
Active and Passive Resistance
Symptoms of Active Resistance
Being critical, finding fault, ridiculing, arguing
Appealing to fear, starting rumors
Using facts selectively, distorting facts
Blaming, accusing, intimidating, threatening
Manipulating, sabotaging
Blocking, undermining
Symptoms of Passive Resistance
Agreeing in person but not following through
Failing to implement change
Procrastinating, dragging one’s feet
Feigning ignorance
Withholding information, suggestions, support
Standing by and allowing change to fail
Source: Based on Hultman, 1995.
Disagreement with How the Change Is Managed
The idea that resistance to change—that is, to the substance of change—is a natural human
response, diverts attention away from the quality of the change management process. “Over-
coming natural resistance to change,” in some situations, may actually involve “overcoming
natural resistance to poor management,” or “highlighting change management mistakes”
(Dent and Goldberg, 1999a and b). Kahn (1982, p. 416) thus advised:
In considering obstacles to change, we must keep in mind the deceptive nature of our con-
cepts. When we want change, we speak of those who do not as presenting obstacles and
resistance. When we want stability, we speak of perseverance and commitment among those
who share our views. Behavior of people in the two situations might be identical; it is their
stance relative to our own that dictates the choice of language.
In other words, labelling behavior as “resistance to change” may be an example of the
fundamental attribution error-blaming individuals while overlooking the context (Ross,
1977). If those who are managing change can attribute unsatisfactory outcomes to the
behavior (resistance) of others, the spotlight may not then fall on inadequate change man-
agement practices. This “blame game” can also work in the opposite direction, with orga-
nization members attributing change failures to management faults, rather than to their
own behavior (Piderit, 2000).
It is therefore easy to understand how a change manager can be attracted to the propo-
sition that the lack of success of a change program was due to resistance to change. This
explanation shifts attention away from management capabilities and practices and onto
the change recipients. The popular notion that people have a natural resistance to change
also makes this a plausible explanation. As we argued earlier, resistance may be a natural
response to change that has not been adequately considered and planned. If such resis-
tance prompts a review, then it will have been valuable. Mark Hughes (2010) argues that
the term resistance has negative connotations, and is thus misleading and inappropriate.
He suggests that it should now be “retired” in favor of “employee responses” to change,
recognizing the broad spectrum of potential reactions—positive, neutral, and negative—to
organizational change initiatives.
Kenneth Hultman (1995) draws a useful distinction between active and passive
resistance. ble 8.2 identifies typical active and passive resistance behaviors. This
illustrates the distinction, but these lists are not comprehensive, and the various symptoms
are not necessarily mutually exclusive (ridiculing, and being critical, for example).
Nevertheless, the change manager must be alert to the various ways in which resistance
to change can be demonstrated. Hultman also reminds us that identifying the symptoms
does not explain why people are resisting change, and that it is important to be clear about
symptoms and causes (as in this chapter) and not to confuse one with the other.
Merger in Adland: Symptoms of Resistance?
LO 83 Symptoms
When the Australian advertising agencies Mojo and
MDA merged, they decided to locate all staff in the
same building. However, as an interim step, all the
creative staff (copywriters, art directors, produc-
tion) moved into the Mojo offices and management
(“the suits”) went to the MDA offices.
One of the Mojo people required to move was
the finance director, Mike Thorley. Mike was one
of the original Mojo employees and had come to
think of himself more as a partner in the business
than as an employee. However, he was quickly dis-
abused of this notion when, with all the other Mojo
employees, he was given no warning of the merger.
He reacted with shock and anger. To add insult to
injury, he had to move to the MDA offices—which
felt like banishment—where he would report to
MDA’s finance director, who was now in charge of
finance for the merged organization.
The Mojo culture was much less formal than that
of MDA. Mojo staff would often have a few drinks
together after work, sitting around an old white
bench in the office. In an attempt to make Thor-
ley and his Mojo colleagues feel at home, a modern
black laminate bar was installed in the MDA offices.
One morning, Mike Thorley arrived at work with a
chainsaw and cut the bar in two.
Source: Based on Coombs, 1990.
Despite assertions to the contrary, people aren’t against change—they are against
royal edicts.
(Hamel and Zanini, 2014, p. 2)
How can resistance to change be detected? The answer to this question is not as
straightforward as it might seem, because the symptoms—the signs and clues-can be
difficult to detect, and to interpret. For example, resistance can be overt and visible, but
it can also be covert and hidden. Open criticism and heated debate are of course easier to
detect than whispered private conversations. Given the potential benefits of challenges to
change proposals, overt resistance may be of more value to the organization, to the change
manager, and ultimately to the change process. Resistance is also three-dimensional,
with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components (Oreg, 2003). In short, the change
manager has to be sensitive to how people feel about change, how they think about it, and
what they intend to do about it (see the sidebar “Merger in Adland”).
LO 8.4 Managers as Resisters
Most discussions of resistance present managers as advocates of change and cast
employees in the role of resisters. However, resistance is not monopolized by “the man-
aged.” Managers can also resist change, for all the reasons identified earlier, and are
therefore not always passionate advocates. Managers can be considered collectively,
270 Chapter 8 Resistance to Change
EXERCISE
8.1
Diagnosing
and Actin…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment