i

CHAPTER No. 1INTRODUCTIONT0RESISTANCE TO CHANGE INA ORGANIZATIONS

1.1 Introduction

The world today is changing at an unprecedented rate, and the environment within which organizations operate as characterized by instability resulting from increased global competition, technological innovation and change, limited resources, deregulations and privatization (Carnall 1995). Change is an unavoidable phenomenon arising from the dynamics of environment and it is inevitable for an organization that desires to grow, achieve its mission, vision and objectives. Organizations have to adapt to the environment to become competitive and stay ahead or at least keep afloat. Work processes and rules are revised, new equipments are introduced, product lines are dropped and added, and workforce is adjusted as internal and external conditions change. Change refers to making something different from its initial position and involves confrontation with the unknown and loss of the familiar. Carr et al (2006) claim that it connotes a significant disruption in established patterns of behavior and/or expectation and could lead to discontinuity, destruction and replacement of familiar social structures and relationships. It could alter set patterns of behavior, define relationships with others, work procedures, and job skills. All these might present individuals with new situations, new problems and challenges, ambiguity and uncertainty. On an organizational level, they could lead to alteration of policies, procedures, sunk costs, organization structures, and manufacturing processes and flows (Harvey and Brown 2001). Invariably, change might affect authoritative allocation of both human and material resources and encourage competition which heats up the political climate in organizations.The politics of change is very critical and sensitive. Because change threatens the status quo, it inherently implies political activity. New employees who have invested less in status quo and managers who are slightly removed from the main power structure might tolerate the process. However, some high up individuals in the organizations might perceive it as a threat to their skills, status, positions and behavioral patterns and construe the process as undermining their competence. Coincidentally, Proposing a change in an organization can affect several aspects beyond the initial conception. Change in structure may affect the culture of the organization as well as the attitude that individuals have towards work.

New structures mean new reporting relationships, new tasks and job descriptions for employees. All these may trigger resistance from those who feel disadvantaged by the new arrangement. The multi-dimensional nature of the effects of change poses challenges to managers and calls for effective management in its implementation. The manager could change four basic aspects of the company: its strategy, technology, structure and employees (Desler 2007). Strategic change affects the way the company creates and markets its products or services. It covers the purpose and mission of the organization, its corporate philosophy on such matters as growth, quality, innovation and values concerning employees and customers, competitive positioning and strategic goals for achieving and maintaining competitive advantage and for product-market development (Armstrong, 2009) Structural change focuses on reorganizing the chart and structural elements of the firm. This may involve replacing, dismissing or adding personnel. Technological changes are mostly concerned with automation of processes. Influences of information and communications technology have made this change not only desirablebut also an on-going process as the dynamism of technology continues to dictate the competitive strength of business organizations. Employees may be changed through learning activities such as training, education and development programs. They need new orientation to ensure that the organization keeps pace with changes in the environment. The principal models of change management stem from the work of Kurt Lewin in the 1940s who developed the planned approach to change. Graetz et al (2006) states that Lewins approach to organizational change is grounded in a general system of ideas termed field theory. This theory stipulates that organizations are constantly exposed to two forces of those that maintain stability and those that break it down. The normal state for organizations is one of equilibrium in which the forces for stability are dominant. To achieve change, the organization would need to reduce the forces for stability or increase the forces for change. Lewins change model involves three steps: unfreezing, moving and refreezing.Unfreezing contains a reduction in the field forces that maintain an existing organizational culture and method of operations. It involves breaking psychological attachment to the past by using information that demonstrates the existence of problems (Graetz et al 2006). The principle is that the equilibrium needs to be destabilized (unfrozen) before old behavior can be discarded (unlearnt) and new behavior can be successfully adopted. Burnes (2004) expands on Lewins ideas and explains that the key to unfreezing is to recognize that change, whether at the individual or group level is a profound psychological dynamic process.

The second stage is moving which entails the creation of cognitive recognition in the workplace of the need for change, and the establishment of new norms of behavior around a particular set of new structures and processes (Graetz et al 2006). Essentially this means moving from a less acceptable to a more acceptable set of behaviors. The third level, refreezing, basically involves cultural reinforcement of the new learnt behaviors. The focus of refreezing is to ensure that the new behaviors are to some degree, congruent with the rest of the behavior, personality and environment of the learner in order not to lead to a new round of disconfirmation (Burnes, 2004).

It is implied here that Lewin saw successful change as a group activity because unless group norms and routines are transformed, changes in individuals behavior will not be sustained (Graetz 2006). It is pertinent to note that the concept of refreezing might not apply to many modern day organizations that are encouraged to thrive on chaos and constant change. Thriving resonates with actual experiences because the period of time between phases of planned change had dwindled to zero. Current managers have to deal with a much more turbulent environment that is full of uncertainties and face constant change bordering on chaos. Managers need to make prudent organizational change decisions by envisaging how employees are likely to react to them. Implementation of change is an interplay between change paths and change planning tools. The paths are the products of a particular blend of personal, cultural, organizational and environmental characteristics that make each organizations experience of change different.(Armstrong)

1.2 Resistance to ChangeThe significance of the degree of change is measured mainly by how those affected perceive and react to it (Carret al 2006). Organizational change involves moving from known to unknown. Because the future is uncertain and may adversely affect peoples competencies, worth and abilities, organizations members generally do not support change unless compelling reasons convince them to do so. Any change will result in responses from those that might be affected positively or negatively. Perceived positive effect of change will promote commitment while negative perception will generate resistance. Judson (1991) identifies a spectrum of possible behaviors towards change as acceptance; indifference; passive resistance; and active resistance. Resistance to change may be expressed through deviant behaviors to truncate the process or prevent implementation. Because deviant behavior and delinquency could produce organizationallosses, managing deviant behavior and resistance to change is crucial to every organization and must be accorded strategic importance. Goetsch and Davis (2006) allude to the fact that the capacity to manage resistance and smoothly implement change to meet environmental challenges is essential to organizational survival. Resistance to change is mainly an effort to maintain the status quo (Carr et al 2006). It is a behavior put up to protect an individual from the perceived effects of real or imagined threat. Gaetz et al (2006) describe resistance to change as barriers arising from organizational politics, inappropriate use of power, challenges to cultural norms and institutionalized practices, lack of understanding, inappropriate timing, inadequate resources, incorrect information or employee suspicion of honorable management intentions. Harvey and Brown (2001) contend that resistance to change is usually a reaction to methods used in implementing a change rather than any inherent human characteristics. They claim that people tend to resist changes that do not make sense to them or that are forced on them against their will.(Giddens)Resistance does not necessarily surface in standardized ways. It can be overt, implicit, immediate or deferred (Robbins 1996; Nadler 1998). Whichever form it takes, it is usually viewed as a negative force, especially by the management because it can occur irrespective of the value of the change effort proposed. Graetz et al (2006) however, contend that resistance to change can also serve positive purposes such as firing change initiators to reconsider hasty plans or marshalling employees support for new vision. They put forward four schools of thought to explain why employees resist change. They include Psychological, Systems, Institutional and cultural models of resistance to change The Psychological Model of Resistance claims that individuals by nature challenge any type of change. The central idea here is that sources of resistance to change reside in basic human characteristics, such as perceptions, personalities, and needs. The notion of dramatic change for most people is downright scary and the natural response is resistance. Typical causes of this include uncertainty, lack of tolerance, differences in opinion concerning the need for change and threatened self-importance. Systems Model of Resistance views resistance to change as a system concept that reflects organizationalmembers discomfort with the process modifications that are likely to disadvantage them. This implies that what people resist is not change per se but loosing something they like, such us status, money or comfort. Institutionalized Resistance to change focuses on behaviors that have become embedded in an organizations legitimate structures, decision making processes and resources allocation (Graetz 2006). Organizations by their very nature are conservative and actively resist change. This model therefore explains the resistance of organizational members to change that they perceive as unnecessary. Organizations Culture is a pattern of beliefs and expectations that are common to members of a social unit and subsequently set the behavioral standards or norms for all new employees. Because culture is intrinsically inflexible, determined and shared by members of an organization, and has profound influence on behavior, any attempt to change its core assumptions might be met with resistance.While these categories are desirable for theoretical construct, the clear cut distinctions between them may not appropriate reality. For instance, sources of resistance between individual and organizations overlap in the real world. Graetz et al (2006) argue that resistance is found within the constructed realities that individuals operate within. They criticize the modernist perspective that presumes all people share a reality and therefore view a change initiative in the same ways. Managing resistance therefore requires bringing these background conversations into the foreground to examine and work through them.(Burnes)

1.2.1 Deviant BehaviorsDeviant behavior is only one of many forms of resistance. Judson (1991) argues that the form any resistance takes depends on individuals personality, the nature of the change itself, attitudes towards it, forces driving it from the group and the organization and its environmental context. According to him, deviant behaviors are all types of oppositions that are aggressive or hostile manifestations of resistance to change. They are actions which transgress commonly held norms. What is regarded as deviant can shift from time to time and place to place; normal behavior in one cultural setting may be labeled deviant in another (Giddens 2000). In essence, it is a behavioral departure from norms of a reference group (Warren, 2003). Wilmot shares this sentiment that deviant behavior has to do with transgressions from common societal or organizational norms. A person would be considered to be acting defiantly if he violates the significant social norm in that particular culture.

Notable deviant behaviors in the workplace include absenteeism, striking, sabotage, gossip and physical violence. Werner and De Simone (2008) create typology of deviant workplace behaviors and categorized-them into four. They include production deviance (leaving early or intentionally working slowly); property deviance (sabotaging equipment, lying about hours worked); political deviance (showing favoritism, seeming or gossiping about co-worker; personal aggressions (sexual harassment, verbal abuse, endangering or staling from co-workers). Deviant behavior may also include acts that are interpersonal in nature, like sexual harassment, aggression towards co-workers, verbal abuse, physical assault and political behaviors. Managers attention should not only focus on the physical deviance directed towards the organization but also take cognizance of those directed at individuals. Lawrence and Robinson (2007) reflect this when they describe workplace deviance as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and perceived it as threatening the well-being of the organization or its members. It is caused by provocations arising from perceived disparities between a current state and some ideal state, need, and desire which create frustration. This frustration motivates deviant behavior that is either instrumental or expressive in nature.Although deviance may be dysfunctional and threatening to the well-being of an organization or individual, a lot of positive outcomes can also emanate from it. It can alert group members of their common interest and provide warning signals to the organization as a whole. Interpersonal deviance may serve positive social functions by assisting to build group cohesion.(Carnall)1.2.2 Change Management InterventionsBehavior modification means changing or modifying behavior through the use of contingent rewards or punishment. It assumes, for instance that behavior that appears to lead to a positive consequence or reward tends to be repeated, while behavior that leads to negative consequence or punishment tends not to be repeated (Desler, 2007). Management must be able to spot resistance early to be able to respond before it takes hold. It must be on the lookout for undesirable behaviors. Mooketsi (2009) suggests the following methods for overcomingresistance to change:I. Education and Communication: This method could be used when resistance is noted to have arisen from lack of information and analysis. Effective use of the method may encourage the employees to help in the implementation of change.II. Foster Open Communication: Employees usually have a lot of questions that need clarification.III. Subordinates and Management should be able to converse together. Open communication minimizes speculations, wrong perceptions and rumors.IV. Participation and Involvement: This approach is useful to buy employees in into the change process. People who participate in fostering a change will be committed to its implementation. Formidable resistance is unlikely to come from employees that took part in the process. Useful information is usually provided that will be integrated to improve and ease the process of implementation of desired change.V. Facilitation and Support: This may be useful when employees are resisting because of adjustment problems. Management should guide them to ease the transition.VI. Negotiation and Agreement: This is desirable when dealing with unions and any group that has power to influence.VII. Manipulation and Co-optation: This can be used when other methods have failed or expensive.VIII. Implicit and Explicit Coercion: This may be used when there is time constraint. When the change must be implemented within a short period of time to save the organization.

The role of management is crucial in every change process. Management is the art of getting things done through people in organizations (Hill and McShame, 2008). Managers are to give organizations a sense of purpose and direction; they can motivate ordinary people to do extra-ordinary things. Effective managers should be capable of relating individuals, groups, and formal structures to the needs of the organization. Dube (2009) suggests that managers could utilize the following to ensure smooth change process:

I. Perception: Managers should be able to interpret sensory inputs effectively and ensure that employees perceive the organizations objective correctly. They need to understand workers grievances and complaints and empathize with problems confronting various departments. It is necessary to facilitate good communication between managers and subordinates.II. Learning: Individuals in the organizations should be encouraged to acquire new knowledge, skill and attitude. Learning helps people to understand better and influences behavior.III. Motivation: this focuses on the totality of individuals dispositions and motives to behave in a certain way. Managers should endeavor to know the drives and forces that can influence employees behavior. Employees are motivated partly by the need to earn a living and also by human needs for job satisfaction and security of tenure. All these should be factored into the process of change. IV. Support is very essential for effecting a smooth change. People undergoing change need material, moral and emotional support. Undergoing change is a lot like walking a tightrope for the first time. It will go smoothly if you have someone to help you get started, someone waiting at the other end to encourage progress, and a safety net underneath in case you fall (Goetsch and Davis, 2006). People are primary inhibitors of change in organizations and it is important to pay attention to them. Managers should listen to hear what is being said and observe what is not being said. Employees who are listened to and heard are likely to participate more in change process than those who are not. Everyone who is affected by change should be involved in making it happen. It can be difficult when people feel that change is being imposed on them. Employees should therefore be involved in planning and implementing change. They should be given opportunity to express their concerns and fears. Getting problems into the open from the onset would allow them to be dealt with while shoving them aside or ignoring them will transform little problems into big ones.(Carr)1.3 Pressures for organizational change in schoolsDue to complexity of events and rapidity of technologies in the environment, organizations are subject to many pressures for change. Continuous developments and range of triggers force organizations towards change initiatives. Indeed, these pressures on organizations to change emanate from external and internal environment of the organizations. Forces encountered in turbulent external environment and dynamic internal environment are equally valid forces for educational organizations as well because non-profit organizations (e.g., schools) also undergo technological, structural, social and financial changes like the case of profit organizations (Levin, 1993). Globalization, developments in information and communication technology, economic crises, demographic changes dramatically forces human beings to change (Ragsdell, 2000). Actually, some main external triggers originated outside the organization can be ranked as law and regulations of the government, globalization of markets with adopting standards and values, demographic characteristics, social and political pressures created by main political and social events, and improvements in technology (Dawson, 2003; Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). Internal forces come from inside the organization that encourage organizational change proposed by Leavitt (1964) are technology (e.g. plant, machinery and tools), primary task (e.g. the major field of business), people (e.g. human resources constituting the organization) and administrative structures (e.g. formalized lines of communication, formation of working procedures, managerial hierarchies, reward systems and disciplinary procedures). Therefore, it can be stated that internal forces for change come from both human resources and managerial behaviour or decisions (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). These external and internal factors are all related to speed, direction and outcomes of change in organizations (Dawson, 2003).In organizations, government intervention, societys values, changing technology, administrative processes and fulfilment of school members needs are pressures on schools to change. Specifically, government has an important role in educational matters. That is, governments intervention in educational policy making through legislation which deals with right for education, equal educational opportunity, educational justice and agenda of the government for handicapped and economically disadvantaged. Moreover, societys values and school members educational needs affect government legislation and in turn influence school organizations with updating coordination mechanisms and organizational design in education system, updating job designs for individuals and administrative processes in school organizations. Changing technology, improved equipment and facilities also improve productivity and competitiveness in schools (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). However, main purposes of change in schools come from external forces. In order to ensure the survival and future success of educational organizations, it is necessary to be readily adaptable to the external demands placed upon these organizations. Actually, schools should be properly prepared to face the demands of a changing environment and responsive to needs of the environment for change.

1.4 Resistance to organizational changeNo matter how successfully or administratively perfect a proposed change may be, individuals in an organization implement or break the change due to representing a form of influence. Even though organizational change generally can be initiated by managers or imposed by specific changes in policy and procedures or arose through external pressures; organizational change is managements attempt to have organization members to think, behave and perform differently (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). However, people differ with regard to their perception towards change; some of them may consider change with a lower tolerance (Carnall, 1999). That is, some organizational members embrace change initiatives readily and move it while others fight the change to the death with denying its necessity (Burke, 2008). In organizations, resistance to change which concerns thought of the implications about change appears to be any attitude or behaviour indicating willingness to support or make a desired change (Mullins, 2005; Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 2005). In fact, resistance to change is a resistance to loss of something that is valuable or loss of the known by moving to the unknown. Sometimes, people resist the imposition of change that is accepted as a universal truth (Burke, 2008). Nonetheless, resistance can be passive resignation or deliberate sabotage (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). In schools, resistance to change can also be faced when a change is introduced and school members are forced to practice this new state of being or acting with lack of choice. Furthermore, schools have to adapt to their environment and need to comfortably operate with the structures, policies and procedures that have been introduced by the environment. However, to ensure effectiveness, individuals in school organizations may prefer to focus on the routine things that they perform well and set up defences against change by resisting it. In addition, school members may reject change due to the fact that they believe it is not worth their time, effort and attention.In order to understand the logic behind resistance to change performed in educational organizations, it is necessary to consider the kind of resistance proposed by Hambrick and Cannella (1989; cited in Burke, 2008). Specifically, resistance may be blind, political or ideological:(Desler)1.5 Blind resistanceA few people in an organization are afraid and intolerant of change regardless of what it may be with having knee-jerk reaction to change. In educational organizations, school members can also react defensively at first and not get used to the idea of change due to the fact that unknown is being discomforting. It is best to provide reassurance these individuals and let time to pass without putting pressure on them are two kinds of response that may be useful here. Therefore, getting used to new idea of change in school organization needs time.

1.5.1 Political resistanceOrganization members having political resistance think that they will lose something of value to when the change is implemented, like loss of ones power base, position, and role in the organization, status, size of budget, even personal compensation. In these instances, change agent becomes a negotiator and the negotiation begins; that is, trading something of value with something else of value. Besides, some people also argue that change provide long term loss gain versus short term loss. In schools, teachers or school principals may think that implemented change will lead to loss of their position, power and/or role within other school members.

1.5.2 Ideological resistanceIntellectually honest people can disagree about organizational change. Some may genuinely believe that the proposed change is ill-timed, will simply not work, and/or will cause more damage than improvement. That is to say, resistance to change results from intellectual differences in genuine beliefs, feelings or philosophies. To illustrate, teachers may feel that the proposed changes in the schools are wrong thing to do and violate their deeply held values. When they feel that the planned change is ill fated, they provide their logical reasons why they feel just like that and resist change. Under these circumstances, the change agents strategy here is to gather more data, more facts to bolster the case for change and to attempt once again to persuade those. In this category of resistance, intellectually honest people can be influenced through building ones case with further documentation and sound reasoning.

1.6 Causes of resistance to changeEven though resistance to change can take many forms, it is difficult to identify the reasons for the resistance. The forces against change in work organizations include disregarding the needs and expectations of the organization members; providing insufficient information about the nature of change and not acknowledging the need for change. Therefore, people may exhibit fear and anxiety over such matters like job security, employment levels, loss of job satisfaction, different wage rates, loss of individual control over work and changes to working conditions (Mullins, 2005). Despite the fact that change is implemented for positive reasons like adapting to volatile environment conditions and remaining competitive, organization members often react to change efforts negatively and resist change (Boohene & Williams, 2012). The main reason behind this negative reaction is due to pressure, stress and uncertainty coming with change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Some common reasons for resistance to change within organizations include interference with need fulfilment, selective perception, habit, inconvenience or loss of freedom, economic implications, security in the past, fear of the unknown, threats to power or influence, knowledge and skill obsolescence, organizational structure and limited resources (Gattiker, 1990; cited in Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008; Mullins, 2005; Powell & Posner, 1977; Robbins & Judge, 2009).

1.6.1 Interference with need fulfillmentChanges preventing people from fulfilment of economic, social, esteem and other needs may encounter with resistance. Thus, people resist changes that lower their income, job status and social relationships.

1.6.2 Selective perceptionPeople process the provided information selectively in order not to change their point of view. Indeed, people hear what they want to hear and disregard any information threatening their perspective. In other words, people interpret an image of the real world with their own perception of reality which gives birth to a biased view of a particular situation and resistance to change occurs.1.6.3 HabitWhen changes are faced with, individuals may tend to re-act these changes due to accustom to their usual manner of behaving. Actually, people tend to respond situations in an accustomed manner. Since habits serve as means of security and comfort, proposed changes to habits may be resisted.1.6.4 Inconvenience or loss of freedomWhen change is seen as troublesome and reduce freedom of action with increased control, organization members may resist change implementations.(Judson)

1.6.5 Economic implicationsIf change is perceived as reducing pay or other rewards, individuals are likely to resist change. People may want to maintain the status quo by establishing the patterns of working.1.6.6 Security in the pastIndividuals who have higher security needs resist change more than others because change threatens their sense of security. When people face with new and unfamiliar methods or difficult and frustrated occasions, they may reflect on past with a wish to retain old ways.1.6.7 Fear of the unknownIf innovative or radical changes introduced without giving information about the nature of change, the organization members become fearful and anxious about change implications. In fact, change takes place of doubt and uncertainty because people like stability.1.6.8 Threats to power or influenceAdministrative and technological changes threatening power bases in the organization may lead to trigger resistance due to being seen as a threat to power or influence of certain groups in controlling over decisions, resources and information concepts. Specifically, intimidating changes may menace specialized groups in the organization. Reallocation of decision making authority could threaten long term power relations.1.6.9 Knowledge and skill obsolescenceOrganization members resist organizational changes when their knowledge and skills are obsolete. It is essential to state that knowledge is related to management while skills can be applied to any member of the organization.1.6.10 Organizational structureIn organizations which have ideal bureaucracy with hierarchy of authority; division of labour and specialization, regulations and rules, some degree of structure are given to groups for fulfilling the organizations goals. However, this need would be dysfunctional to the organization with serving as a main factor for resistance to change.1.6.11 Limited resourcesOrganizations not having available resources prefer to maintain their status quo since change requires resources like capital and people having appropriate skills and time. Inadequate resources may lead to abandon the desired changes.(Graetz)1.7 Overcoming resistance to changeEven though organizational change is considered as alterations in technology, hierarchy or in structures in the organization, it is obvious that change has tremendous impact on individuals in the organization (Schein, 1980). However, the reason why many organizations fail to accomplish change initiatives is associated with underestimating the influence of change on the individual (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006). Therefore, neglecting psychological perceptions of employees toward change lead to failure of change initiatives in organizations (Devos, Buelens & Bouckenooghe 2007). Though, for successful change implementations, it is necessary to manage psychological transition of employees effectively (Armenakis & Bedian, 1999; Martin, Jones & Callan, 2005). It is essential to realize that effective management of change is based on clear understanding of human behaviour in the organization. Due to the challenge of change, individuals may react with some emotions like uncertainty, frustration or fear and feel threatened and disoriented. Therefore, people often exhibit a defensive and negative attitude and resist to change initiatives. Because of being complex and psychological event, the power of change needs to be respected and managed effectively. In order to be successful, dedicated workforce and effective management of change are necessary in organizations. Besides, different impact of change on each person and nature of change should be considered (Mullins, 2005).In organizational settings, defensive and negative attitudes may be displayed by school members and people may show uncertainty, fear and frustration about change initiatives. That is, change may influence individuals in educational organizations differently. Therefore, successful implementation of change demands positive action from school principals, and administrators are advised to prefer a contingency approach involving situational factors as in the following while dealing with resistance to change.Six specific methods helping in overcoming resistance to change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979) that school administrators can use are education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, explicit and implicit coercion.(Goetsch)

1.7.1 Education and communicationIndividuals in the school organization are objected to be educated about the nature of and need for change before implementing and the logic of change needs to be explained. When resistance is based on inaccurate and lack of information, this strategy seems work best.1.7.2 Participation and involvementAllowing people to planning, designing and implementing the changes provide school members to contribute ideas and advices that lead change. This strategy is useful when change initiators do not have all the information they need to design the changes and other members have important information and considerable power to resist.1.7.3 Facilitation and supportWith the goal of helping to deal with resistance by emotional and material help; people having hardships of change are actively listened by school administrators about their ideas, problems and complaints with using their ideas that have merit. That is, supportive principals make the work environment more pleasant and enjoyable for change process. This strategy is essentially utilized when school members are frustrated by work constraints and difficulties that are encountered in change process and have adjustment problems.1.7.4 Negotiation and agreementIncentives to actual or potential change resistors in the schools are offered in negotiation and agreement method. In fact, trade-offs for special benefits are arranged with these resistors and unblocking of the change initiatives is assured. This approach is preferred when someone in the school organization clearly loses something of value in change process and has power to resist. In order to reach the desired change, influencing other people in organization is attempted, the necessary information is provided and the required events for change are structured. When aforementioned tactics do not work and are seen as expensive, manipulation and co-optation approach is common.1.7.5 Explicit and implicit coercionChange initiators employ the force of their authority for acceptance of the change by people in organization. Resistors in the schools are threatened with undesirable situations if they do not go along the proposed changes. When speed is essential like in crisis situations and change agents have considerable power, this method may be used. However, it should be kept in mind that there are negative effects of using coercion such as frustration, fear, revenge and alienation which in turn may give birth to poor performance, dissatisfaction and turnover (Woodman & Pasmore, 1988).(Giddens, Giddens, A. (2000). Sociology: A new Introduction. (3rd ed.), United Kingdom: Polity Press, Oxford.)

CHAPTER NO. 2

CASE STUDY Of ARESISTANCE TO CHANGE INVIRTELLIGENCE INC

18 Resistance to Change

2.1 INTRODUCTIONCommitment Based on a quality and standard. We are committed to delivering high quality results on time and within budget, driving long-term business value for each of our clients while achieving an expected degree of excellence. Respect Is the state of being regarded. Showing consideration and appreciation and encouraging all individuals to treat everyone with dignity. Achievement through Team Work Is a cooperative effort by the members of a group or team. We promote and practice teamwork in order to achieve a common goal for greater results and long term development. Integrity Adherence to our ethical principles is the cornerstone in which we do business. Our pledge is to never diminish or compromise our dependability. Affirmative Action An active effort to improve employment opportunities. Virtelligence promotes and is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.

2.2 VISIONVirtelligence Vision is to exceed expectations of employees, consultants, and clients using a collaborative and trustworthy environment to enhance industry improvement and establish long-term relationships.

2.3 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE IN STOPPAGE OF AUTOMATIC SALARY INCREMENTSThe company had an established tradition of automatic salary increment on yearly basis to take care of inflation. A new change that removed this privilege was introduced in 2009. The announcement of this change came as a rude shock to the employees. The situation was worsened by the fact that management did not prepare the employees in any way for a soft landing. No compensation or any other alternative to cushion the effects of the cancellation. The employees felt cheated about the management decision. There was a feeling of uncertainty among the employees regarding the direction towards which the company was heading. Many believed that no increments could eventually lead to a cancellation of the annual bonuses, or worse still, retrenchment. Employees were sitting and chatting in small groups all the time, discussing the issue of no increments. They were making statements like why should I go all out for the company that doesnt really appreciate what I do for it?

A number of deviant behaviors were noticed. Some employees became hostile and displayed undesirable team member behaviors. They became slack in their duties leading to a drastic drop in productivity as indicated by the companies scorecard. A drop of 4% was noticed at the end of January and 5%n in February. Some employees revealed companys sensitive information such as pricing lists/tariff, top customer information and marketing strategies to the competitors. Anonymous tip-offs to management revealed that some were planning to go on strike and boycott duties. Theft incidents ranging from couriers rolling over money to stealing actual shipments of valuables like phones, laptops iPods were reported. Siphoning of fuel from company vehicles, obtaining company fuel by unauthorized means, stealing and using customers credit cards were other forms of stealing noticed. The Human Resources department noticed an increased number of employees on sick leave and a strong desire by some employees to leave the company.An emergency staff meeting was convened by the management to address the issues. Power coercive was first employed because of time constraint to prevent the intended industrial action. Disciplinary actions were taken against the concerned staff. Some were dismissed while others received warning letters. An interactive initiative, First Choice, aimed at improving morale of workers was thereafter put in place as a long run solution. All employees in the company were to nominate members of staff that achieved extraordinary results monthly. The selected employees were given various gifts such as digital cameras, Plasma TV screen and shopping vouchers. At the end of the year in November the best three out of the monthly winners would be chosen and offered anall-expense paid trip to Mauritius for a week. This initiative helped to mitigate the effect of the change introduced. Morale of workers improved, negative behavior decreased and performance began to improve.

CHAPTER NO. 3SWOT ANALYSIS OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

3.1 STRENGTHS Proposing a change in an organization can affect several aspects beyond the initial conception. Change instructure may affect the culture of the organization as well as the attitude that individuals have towards work. New structures mean new reporting relationships, new tasks and job descriptions for employees. All these may trigger resistance from those who feel disadvantaged by the new arrangement. The multi-dimensional nature of the effects of change poses challenges to managers and calls for effective management in its implementation.

3.2 WEAKNESSESIf innovative or radical changes introduced without giving information about the nature of change, the organization members become fearful and anxious about change implications. In fact, change takes place of doubt and uncertainty because people like stability.Administrative and technological changes threatening power bases in the organization may lead to trigger resistance due to being seen as a threat to power or influence of certain groups in controlling over decisions, resources and information concepts.3.3 OPPORTUNITIES If the information presented coincides with their current values, beliefs, and attitudes: If they perceive that the change will benefit them more than it will cost them: If the innovation requires marginal rather than major changes in their views or lives: If they have a demonstrated need for the innovation: and If the innovation is introduced gradually so that people can adjust to the resulting change.

3.3 THREATS When the reason for the change is unclear. Ambiguity--whether it is about costs, equipment, jobs--can trigger negative reactions among users. When the proposed users have not been consulted about the change, and it is offered to them as an accomplished fact. People like to know what's going on, especially if their jobs may be affected. Informed workers tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction than uninformed workers. When the change threatens to modify established patterns of working relationships between people. When communication about the change--timetables, personnel, monies, etc.--has not been sufficient. When the benefits and rewards for making the change are not seen as adequate for the trouble involved. When the change threatens jobs, power or status in an organization.

CONCLUSIONChange has become an inevitable phenomenon in the present age of global competition and dynamic business environment. It is not only desirable but necessary to create a vision of change and communicate same to all the stakeholders. Successful change depends on proper integration of human resource management policies withstrategies. These policies have become critical facilitators in the process of change and often determine employees commitment and how they relate with the nature and direction of the firm. Policies on training, education, compensations, security of tenure of office are particularly critical to the smooth implementation of change. These policies should be handled by committed and visionary leadership who properly understand the firms culture. To ensure smooth implementation, proper explanation for the need for change must be provided and the interests of those that might be affected should be protected.

RECOMMENDATIONChanging nature of technology and economy force educational organizations to change as regards structural and functional aspects. Indeed, some major external triggers originated outside the organizations can be ranked as law and regulations of the government, societys standards and values, changing technology, demographic characteristics, improvements in technology, administrative processes and members needs (Dawson, 2003; Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). On the other hand, internal forces stem from inside the organizations fostering change proposed by Leavitt (1964) are technology, primary task, people and administrative structures. However, it is clear that main purposes of change in schools are from external forces. Specifically, government has a significant role in educational issues. Therefore, it is necessary to be readily adaptable to external demands placed upon organizations in order to ensure the survival and future success.

BibliographyArmstrong, M. (. (n.d.). Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrongs Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, (11th ed.) Kogan Page,.Burnes, B. (. (n.d.). Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change, (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Carnall, C. A. (n.d.). Carnall, C. A. (1995). Managing change in Organizations. (2nd ed.). Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.Carr, D. K. (n.d.). Carr, D. K, Hard, H J., & Trahant, W J. (1996). Managing the Change process: A Field Book for Change Agents,.Desler, G. (. (n.d.). Desler, G. (2007). Management Principle and Practices for tomorrows Leaders. (3rd ed). United States of.Giddens, A. (. (n.d.). Giddens, A. (2000). Sociology: A new Introduction. (3rd ed.), United Kingdom: Polity Press, Oxford.Giddens, A. (. (n.d.). Giddens, A. (2000). Sociology: A new Introduction. (3rd ed.), United Kingdom: Polity Press, Oxford.Goetsch, D. &. (n.d.). Goetsch, D., & Davis S. B. (2006). Quality Management: Introduction to Total Quality Management for.Graetz, F. R. (n.d.). Graetz, F., Rimmer, M., Lawrence, A., and Smith, A. (2006). Managing Organizational Change. (2nd ed.).Judson, A. S. (n.d.). Judson, A. S. (1991). Changing Behavior in Organizations. Massachusetts and Oxford: Basil Blackwell inc.

30 Resistance to Change