1

The Relation between Resistance to Change

and

Theory of Constraints

Nevien F. Khourshed

Lecturer, Productivity and Quality Institute –

Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime

Transport, Alexandria, Egypt

nevienfarouk@gmail.com

Tel: 0020176060328

Fax: 002035747650

Abstract

Today’s businesses are competing increasingly on time and quality.

Companies cannot survive if they fail to obtain competitive

advantages by producing high quality products and services in

shorter throughput time and quicker inventory turnover. Some of the

management techniques used in manufacturing organizations may

not be appropriate for service organizations (Siha, 1999). Most

manufacturing and service organizations seek to make a larger profit

at the present and in the future. However, constraints on

manufacturing and service organizations prevent the organization

from making a higher level of profit. Some authors agreed upon a

management methodology called the theory of constraints (TOC)

which views resistance as a necessary and positive force. Literature

on change management contains numerous prerequisites for

successful change, with a predominantly negative view on the issue

of resistance to change. Recent change efforts in many organizations

and especially multinationals, have been geared towards

downsizing; energizing; empowering; total quality management; and

now business process re-engineering (Sinclair, 1994). Hence, the

TOC philosophy has been developed to be applied to everyday

operations decisions as well as to continuous improvement effort. To

take advantage of resistance, a "whole-system" view is required as

well as an appreciation for the true "root-cause" problems. The TOC

provides a view and set of powerful tools that can be used to not only

address resistance but also use it to enhance the solution beyond the

original concept (Patrick, 2011). As a result of applying TOC’s

Thinking Processes to countless organizations over three decades,

generic TOC solutions have emerged that have applicability across

all organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit. To this day these

applications continue to evolve, resulting in more and more

significant and sustainable overall and bottom line performance

improvements were implemented (Goldratt, 2009). The objective of

this paper is study the relation between resistance to change and

TOC.

2

Introduction

Change is a way to tell people to adopt new ideas in dealing with different aspects of

their lives. Of these aspects is introducing “new ways of doing things, new ways of

seeing themselves, their roles and their interactions with others inside and outside the

organization” (Sinclair, 1994). For this reason Sinclair (1994) proposes that managers

have to understand the influence of change on their employees and try to solve

problems that may occur as a result to this change.

People have been widely recognized as a natural change-resistant. Nevertheless,

management gurus and consultants within the organizational change management

area have developed over the years various approaches aiming at elevating employees'

performance within organization (Sinclair, 1994). This point was introduced by

Ragsdell (2000) who stated that the change done in organizations is relative; as it

could be comprehended differently from one employee to the other within the same

organization. It could be “facing new challenges, of gaining promotion and of

furthering their career. Other may see it as a reduction in responsibility, a loss of

status or even an enforced career break”. Sinclair (1994) agrees with Ragsdell (2000)

that change is relative and differs from one person to the other, which makes it

important to analyse problems that may occur from implementing change from

different points of views.

Ragsdell (2000) adds that organisational change mostly intends to change the

organizational state from the undesirable “before” to an improved or desirable “after”

state. Sinclair (1994) mentioned that organizational change faces resistance which is

mostly caused because of stereotypes and perceptions that are adopted by employees

within an organization. These factors should be studied by managers in order to find

ways to overcome and implement an effective change process. However, Oakland and

Tanner (2006) agree with Sinclair (1994) on the idea of resistance to change and list

enablers and factors of resistance to change. Islam and El-Araby (2007) stated that it

could be noticed that "resistance to change" is a very important factor in hindering the

process of change.

So, having introduced the resistance to change as a core barrier to change

management, the author in the next section continues by creating awareness about

resistance to change in more details.

Literature Review - Resistance to Change

Mabin et al. (2001) stated that some view resistance as an unavoidable and natural

behavioural response to the perceived threat of change. It may be seen to be

politically motivated and part of a coordinated campaign of class struggle, or to be a

constructive counter-balance to organisational change, or as the manifestation of

difficulties in cognitive restructuring. In most reports in the literature, resistance is

seen to be problematic, something to be managed and "overcome'' to ensure the

success of change. Schermerhorn (1989) has suggested strategies for "dealing with''

resistance, consistent with this view of resistance as being undesirable. It is much less

often recognised as something to be utilised to support the success of change.

3

Resistance to change is acknowledged as being a fundamental block to change, and a

prime reason why change does not succeed or get implemented. Resistance to change

is everywhere in nature (Mabin et al., 2001). It can be defined as an expression of

reservation which normally arises as a response or reaction to change (Block, 1989).

Mabin et al. (2001) add that resistance is caused by a number of factors, such as:

Individual factors: personality factors (high need for control, locus of control, need

for achievement etc.); attitudes based on previous experiences of change.

Group factors: group cohesiveness, social norms, and participation in decision

making.

Organisational factors: threats presented by the unknown; challenges to the status

quo; workload consequences.

They add that there are many reasons why people inside organisations resist change;

indeed, it is possible for the entire system which the organisation represents, to be

resistant to change if the preparation for change has not been carried out in a manner

that does not correctly prepare the organisation for it. Kanter (1985) has been

identified ten types of resistance, see Table 2.

Table 2: Factors Causing Resistance to Change

Cause Outline

Fear of the unknown Being uncertain about the nature of a change, feeling that you do not know

what is going on and what the future is likely to hold

Loss of control Feeling that the change is being done to you, not by you, worrying that you

have no say in the situation and the events taking place

Loss of face Feeling embarrassed by the change and viewing it as a testimony that the

way you have done things in the past was wrong

Loss of competency Feeling that existing skills and competencies will no longer be of any use

after the change

Need for security Worrying what your role will be after the change

Poor timing Being caught by surprise with a change that has been sprung on you, or

being asked to change at a time when you already feel overworked

Force of habit Not liking to change existing ways of doing things, feeling comfortable in

existing routines and habits

Lack of support Lacking important support from direct supervisors and/or organisation, not

having the correct resources to properly implement the change

Lack of confidence Lacking in personal confidence that things, once changed, really will be

better than before

Lingering resentment Being recalcitrant because of a lack of respect for the people involved and/or

because of anger over the way you have been treated during past change

efforts

Source: Kanter (1985)

Consequently, Deming (1986) stated that staying the same is no longer an option and

those organizations must change to continually improve. Organizations must learn

quickly to adapt to changing business environments. Also, Mabin et al. (2001)

declared that some authors agreed upon a management methodology called the theory

of constraints (TOC) which views resistance as a necessary and positive force.

Subsequently, it is important to study TOC as a tool to eliminate resistance to change

in organizations

4

Literature Review – Theory of Constraints (TOC)

Origin

Since the early 1970s, three important approaches have evolved for companies to

achieve competitive advantages, each challenging old assumptions and ways of doing

things. These are materials requirements planning (MRPI and MRPII), just-in-time

(JIT), and theory of constraints (TOC) Rahman (1998).

TOC developed primarily by Dr Eliyahu M. Goldratt, although considered in the

1970s in a manufacturing context as a scheduling algorithm, Mabin and Balderstone

(2003) stated that TOC has now been developed into a powerful and versatile

management theory, as a suite of theoretical frames, methodologies, techniques and

tools. They add that it is also being applied to situations outside the manufacturing

context, including distribution, marketing, project management, accounting – in fact

any situation involving change to a system.

TOC named before as Optimized Production Timetable in (1979) then changed to

Optimized Production Technology (OPT) in 1982, finally named TOC at the

beginning of 1987 signalled a major change in emphasis, first, from rule-based

scheduling logic to the applications software tool OPT and later to a focusing/iterative

process of ongoing improvement. The addition of the thinking processes (TPs) in the

1990s broadened the scope to an organization wide perspective and the changes in

people’s thinking and behaviours required in any change process. While many of the

early principles foreshadowed general and behavioural issues, the later frameworks

have made these issues more apparent and more amenable to managerial analysis and

action (Mabin and Balderstone, 2003).

Goldratt and Cox (1984) proposed the TOC as a scientific process for generic

problem solving, particularly in manufacturing industries and it has been developed

over the past 20 years (Bradbury-Jacob and McClellend, 2001; Dettmer, 1997; Houle

and Burton-Houle, 1998; Kendall, 1998; Mabin and Balderstone, 2003; Scheinkopf,

1999). Goldratt and Cox (1984) claimed that the focus of management was on

measurement and rewards of “local efficiency” rather than highlighting “systems

efficiency” and its contribution to the ultimate goal. TOC is now a systemic problem-

structuring and problem-solving methodology which can be used to develop solutions

with both intuitive power and analytical rigour in any environment (Mabin and

Balderstone, 2003).

Definition

The TOC is an intuitive framework, developed by Goldratt (1990), for managing

organizations. Motwani et al. (1996) mentioned that "Implicit in the TOC framework

is the desire to improve performance of organizations continually, through a process

of ongoing improvement". Siha (1999) believed that TOC is "an overall management

philosophy that recognizes that the constraint on any system restricts the maximum

performance level the system can obtain in relation to its goal". Mabin and

Balderstone (2003) stated that TOC is "a multi-faceted systems methodology that has

been progressively developed to assist people and organizations to think about

problems, develop breakthrough solutions and implement those solutions

5

successfully". Motwani et al. (1996) said that the TOC "emphasizes the importance of

defining and understanding the global goal of the organization as a condition for

success". This concept is based on the assumption that resources available for

managers and organizations are limited, and should therefore be directed towards a

well defined and focused goal.

Purpose

Although conceived in the 1970s in a manufacturing context as a scheduling

algorithm, TOC has now been developed into a powerful and versatile management

theory, as a suite of theoretical frames, methodologies, techniques and tools. It is now

a systemic problem-structuring and problem-solving methodology which can be used

to develop solutions with both intuitive power and analytical rigour in any

environment (Mabin and Balderstone, 2003).

The core idea of TOC is that every organization has at least one constraint that

prevents management from achieving the goal of the organization to a larger degree.

TOC develops a set of methodologies to identify and optimize such constraints. This

methodology has been used as a guideline for the application of TOC to various areas

including production, distribution, project scheduling and control (Sheu et al., 2003).

Mabin and Balderstone (2003) mentioned that the TOC approach epitomizes systems

thinking: a philosophy that recognizes that the whole is much more than the sum of its

parts, and that a complex web of interrelationships exists within the system. As

Goldratt (2000) stressed, “We must never lose sight of the global picture”. Though

everyone recognizes this obvious truth, many of the day-to-day business practices

lead directly away from this objective. One of the distinctive features of Goldratt’s

systems perspective is to realize that there are always limitations to the performance

of the system of interest, and that despite the complex web of relationships, these

limitations are caused by just an element in the system which he terms the

“constraint”. This constraint may be a physical constraint such as a machine with

limited capacity or raw material, but more often it is either a policy or behavioural

constraint. Policy constraints occur when the environment within which that a

company exists changes while the policies of the company remain unchanged. Most

significantly, policy constraints are usually under the control of the organization

management. On the other hand, behavioural constraints occur when performance

measures or policies lead to behaviours that are changed, are ingrained and constrain a

system’s performance: “Old habits die hard” (Mabin and Balderstone, 2003).

Goldratt and Cox (1984) suggest that the main constraints in organizations are often

not physical constraints (resource capacity, markets or vendors) but policy constraints.

Applications

Pegels and Watrous (2005) claimed that TOC views manufacturing

processes/organizations as “chains”, wherein the entire system is only as strong as its

weakest link. They added that the purpose of TOC is to identify the weak link

(constraint) within an organization and to strengthen this link to the point where it is

no longer the limiting factor in determining the strength of the chain (or organization).

Expanding on this line of thinking, no matter how strong the chain has become, it will

always have at least one link that is not quite as strong as the others. For this reason,

6

TOC can be thought of as a continuous improvement process, because no matter how

well an organization performs; there will always be at least one constraint that limits

the organization from becoming a little better. The TOC process emphasizes the need

to maximize throughput and focuses on identifying and managing the constraints that

can reduce the amount of throughput a company is able to achieve. Using the TOC

process, the objective of management is reaching a point where the system’s

constraint lies outside the production arena. An example of such a situation occurs

when all orders are completed on time and there is a shortage of incoming orders.

Malonis and Cengage (2000) stated that TOC is practiced in many different

industries, including automotive, computers, telecommunications, furniture, retail

food, consumer goods, and apparel. Practitioners have ranged from Fortune 500

companies like Procter & Gamble Co. and General Electric Co. to small local

businesses.

The TOC literature covers theory and practice and addresses wide variety of issues

relating to accounting, scheduling, performance measurement, product mix, quality,

and project management and application areas. In the literature reviewed, several

instances of application to non-manufacturing, administrative or service functions are

mentioned (Mabin and Balderstone, 2003). The organizations reported on include

some of the world’s largest and most successful organizations: Boeing, General

Motors, Ford Motor Company, Lucent Technologies, to name just a few. On the other

hand, there are reports of applying TOC in very small organizations as well (Mabin

and Balderstone, 2003). As for the manufacturing sector, there is a significant series

of applications in the aerospace, apparel, automotive, electronics, furniture,

semiconductor, steel and heavy engineering industries (Mabin and Balderstone,

2003).

7

Concept

The concept of the TOC can be summarized as: Every system must have at least one

constraint. If it were not true, then a real system such as a profit making organisation

would make unlimited profit. A constraint therefore, “is anything that limits a system

from achieving higher performance versus its goal” (Goldratt, 1988). And the

existence of constraints represents opportunities for improvement. Contrary to

conventional thinking, TOC views constraints as positive, not negative. Since

constraints determine the performance of a system, a gradual elevation of the system’s

constraints will improve its performance (Rahman, 1998).

Rahman (1998) stated that TOC has two major components. First: philosophy which

underpins the working principle of TOC. It consists of the five focusing steps of on-

going improvement, the drum-buffer-rope (DBR) scheduling methodology, and the

buffer management information system, and is usually referred to as TOC’s

“logistics” paradigm which also include continuous improvement (ECE diagrams).

Second component of TOC is a generic approach for investigating, analysing, and

solving complex problems called the thinking process (TP). In addition, TOC

prescribes new performance measurements which are quite different from the

traditional cost-accounting system.

1. Philosophy

By taking the TOC philosophy into consideration, improvements in performance can

only be achieved by focusing on system constraints.

a. Five focusing steps of on-going improvement

Goldratt and Cox (1992) suggested five steps to achieve this focus. These steps are

generic in that they can be applied to any system, including service businesses which

are summarised in Figure (1). These five steps are:

1. Identify the system constraint (weakest link). A system cannot be maintained at

maximum performance unless the system constraints are determined so as to

design the control mechanisms appropriate to the constraints.

2. Decide how to exploit the system constraint. Achieve the best possible output

from the constantly. Removing the limitations that impede the flow, and reducing

non-productive time, so that the constraint is used in the most effective way

possible.

3. Subordinate the non-constraint. Link the output of other operations to suit the

constraint and make sure the rest of the system is enabled to help, not detract

from its ability to achieve step 2.

4. Elevate the system's constraint. After completing the above steps, more resources

must be provided to achieve further improvements in the system performance.

5. If a constraint has been “broken” in the above steps, return to step 1. Assess to

see if another operation or policy has become the system constraint. This is

because after a constraint is changed, new system constraints may surface. Return

to step 1 to identify new constraints.

8

Source: Goldratt (1990)

Figure 1: Five Steps to Achieving Ongoing Improvement

Noreen et al. (1995) stated that the implementation of the five focusing steps to a

typical production environment can quickly yield substantial improvements in

operations and in profits. However, this process of continuous improvement takes the

production operations to a point where the constraint shifts from factory floor to

market. In such a case, constraint could be market demand (insufficient demand)

which is a managerial/policy constraint rather than a physical constraint. Policy

constraints are generally difficult to identify and evaluate, and frequently require

involvement and cooperation across functional areas.

b. Scheduling process (Drum-Buffer-Rope or DBR)

The TOC has a unique method of scheduling process with constraints, called Drum-

Buffer-Rope or DBR. For a system to keep the maximum performance, it must be

designed in a way that makes so capacity constraints within it operate at their peak

capacity (Levinson, 2007).

The Drum is the capacity constraint. The capacity constraint sets the pace for

the system as a drum sets the pace for marching soldiers.

The Buffer isolates the capacity constraint from the negative effects of the rest

of the system.

The Rope ties raw material release to the capacity constraint buffer to assure

that inventory is at the lowest level that will maintain capacity constraint

performance at maximum.

c. Logistics Paradigm (buffer management information system)

The logistics branch is everyday operations. This method is to classify plants based on

the product and the process flow. The "V'' plant has very few raw materials and many

final products. The "A'' plant has many raw materials and a limited number of final

products. The "T'' plant has many final products that are assembled in many different

ways from a limited numbers of components and subassemblies.

Identify the system’s constraint (s)

Decide how to exploit the constraint (s)

Subordinate everything else to the above decision

Elevate the system’s constraint (s)

If in the previous steps the constraint is broken, go back

to step 1, but do not allow inertia to cause a system

constraint

Identify the system’s constraint (s)Identify the system’s constraint (s)

Decide how to exploit the constraint (s)Decide how to exploit the constraint (s)

Subordinate everything else to the above decisionSubordinate everything else to the above decision

Elevate the system’s constraint (s)Elevate the system’s constraint (s)

If in the previous steps the constraint is broken, go back

to step 1, but do not allow inertia to cause a system

constraint

9

This analysis is very important in recognizing the type of problems, issues and

concerns associated with each type.

d. Continuous Improvement (ECE diagrams)

The process of developing these diagrams forces managers to think about the true

causes of problems. Hence, the Utilizing critical thinking which is the root cause of a

problem is identified. Consequently, a plan is developed to eliminate the root cause

rather than treat the problem symptoms. This approach answers three questions, what

to change, what to change to, and how to change.

Lubitsh et al. (2005) stated the first three steps would allow for dramatic improvement

in throughput, without extra money/resources. This contradicts a common

management assumption that most improvement in performance requires extra

money/resources.

Reviewing the literature of TOC in the manufacturing sector supports a view that

TOC can be associated with an increase in productivity for both individuals and

organisations. In particular, TOC has simultaneously increased throughput and

reduced both operating expenses and inventory (Rand, 1984; Meleton, 1986; Chase et

al., 1998; Bushong and Talbott, 1999; Miller, 2000).

Researchers such as Vollmann (1986), Massood (1998), Tollington (1998) and

Michalski (2000) examined the effectiveness of identifying and exploiting the

bottleneck. They reported the following benefits. One, by identifying the bottleneck in

advance you can reduce the variability through reducing the material ordered into the

system. Two, efforts specifically targeted at the “buffers” located before a bottleneck

ensure that material going through the bottleneck does not have to be “reworked”.

Three, scheduling the bottleneck resource results in better use of the bottleneck area.

It was this area that paid the greatest dividends in terms of net profit. Four, having a

buffer before the constraint ensures that the bottleneck is less vulnerable to random

disturbances in workflow.

2. Thinking Process (TP)

In 1994, Goldratt developed a generic approach to address policy constraints and

create breakthrough solutions for them using common sense, intuitive knowledge and

logic. This procedure is referred to as the thinking process (TP). According to Noreen

et al. (1995) “the TP may be the most important intellectual achievement since the

invention of calculus”. And according to Goldratt (2009) "the TP are a set of tools

and processes that allows an individual or group to solve a problem and/or develop

an integrated strategy using the rigor and logic of cause-and-effect, beginning with

the symptoms and ending with a detailed action plan that coordinates the activities of

all those involved in implementing the solution".

Furthermore, Patrick (2011) stated that the TOC TP are logical thinking and

communication tools which can be used in separate situations and also together can

form a coherent problem-solving and change management process.

11

He adds that "they are used for the construction of solutions to problems as well as to

facilitate communication, collaboration, and consensus among those that must be

involved in its resolution".

Moreover, Goldratt (1994) declared that while dealing with constraints managers are

required to make three generic decisions: Decide what to change, decide what to

change to, and decide how to cause the change. The TP prescribes a set of tools,

which basically are cause-and-effect diagrams, to get answers to these questions. The

questions, associated tools and their purposes are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: TP Tools and their Roles

Generic Questions Purpose TP Tools

What to change to? Identify core problems Current reality tree

What to change to? Develop simple, practical

solutions

Evaporative cloud,

Future reality tree

How to cause the change? Implement solutions Prerequisite tree, Transition tree Source: Rahman (1998)

3. Performance measures

To understand TOC and to apply it effectively to an organization, one must

completely understand the goal of the organization (Malonis and Cengage, 2000).

Goldratt and Cox (1992) emphasized that the goal of any organization is to make

money. It is important therefore to create a set of measurements that honestly and

accurately allow an organization to monitor its performance as it relates to its goal.

With TOC, the "cost world" is replaced by the "throughput world," which is driven by

these three key components (Figure 2):

1. Throughput (T): The rate at which the system generates money through sales

(product or service).

2. Inventory (I): All the money invested in purchasing things the system intends to

sell which would include plant, property, and equipment.

3. Operating Expense (OE): The money spent to convert inventory into throughout.

Figure 2: Definitions of Throughput, Inventory, and Operating Expense

Using these measurements in combination with TOC "scientific" problem-solving

methods allows management to focus on critical issues and root causes rather than

symptoms of problems. Although these measures are different from the traditional

ones they can be converted to more traditional measures with simple mathematical

operations (Finch and Luebbe, 1995). For example:

Net profit = throughput - operating expense

Inventory turns = throughput /inventory

11

Productivity = throughput /operating expense

Throughput (T) and operating expense (OE) are regarded as appropriate measures for

service businesses. However, inventory (I) as defined above may not be appropriate

for all of them. The measures T, I, and OE are global indicators of system

performance. Organizations should work to increase overall system T and to reduce

the I and OE at the same time.

Due to the importance of resistance to change as mentioned before through

introducing TOC as a tool to eliminate resistance to change in organizations. The

following section shows TOC tools to overcome resistance to change.

Overcoming Resistance to Change through TOC

Mabin et al. (2001) outlines ten causes of resistance to change and explain how each

of these is dealt with within the TOC framework to help recognise and overcome

resistance, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Resistance to Change Factors and TOC Tools to Help Utilise Them

Cause Outline TOC Tools Fear of the unknown Being uncertain about the nature of a

change, feeling that you do not know

what is going on and what the future is

likely to hold

CRT, FRT

Loss of control Feeling that the change is being done to

you, not by you, worrying that you have

no say in the situation and the events

taking place

FRT, assisting or giving input

into building this would assist

Loss of face

Feeling embarrassed by the change and

viewing it as a testimony that the way

you have done things in the past was

wrong

Usually a problem is due to

conflict (e.g. over priorities)

CRT and EC can help

Loss of competency

Feeling that existing skills and

competencies will no longer be of any use

after the change

FRT would assist people to

think the issues through

Need for security Worrying what your role will be after the

change

FRT and NBR (see also loss of

face)

Poor timing Being caught by surprise with a change

that has been sprung on you, or being

asked to change at a time when you

already feel overworked

FRT would assist people see

outcomes and overcome this

fear

PRT and TT would help plan for

future

Force of habit Not liking to change existing ways of

doing things, feeling comfortable in

existing routines and habits

Need for change could be

helped by the CRT, while PRT

and TT would provide practical

steps needed to change habits

Lack of support

Lacking important support from direct

supervisors and/or organisation, not

having the correct resources to properly

implement the change

TT is designed specifically for

this use

Lack of confidence Lacking in personal confidence that

things, once changed, really will be better

than before

FRT would assist people

understand the proposed

solution and its benefits

12

Lingering resentment Being recalcitrant because of a lack of

respect for the people involved and/or

because of anger over the way you have

been treated during past change efforts

NBR, FRT and PRT all address

these issues

Source: Mabin et al. (2001)

The above shows that TOC addresses many of the "soft" or emotional issues

surrounding change. TOC works by giving credibility to these issues, validating them

in people understanding and providing ways of dealing with them through buy-in and

reassurance.

Goldratt (2009) confirmed that TOC has developed a process based on the psychology

of change that acknowledges and systematically addresses the questions people

intuitively ask when evaluating a change.

a. Is the right problem being addressed - mine?

b. Is the general direction that the solution is heading a good one?

c. Will the solution really work to solve the problems and what’s in it for me?

d. What could go wrong? Who might get hurt?

e. How the heck are we going to implement this thing?

f. Are we really up to this? Do we have the leadership and the commitment to pull

this change off successfully?

If these questions aren’t answered frankly and effectively with both the people who

must implement the change and those who will be affected by it, the proposed change

will not have the buy-in and support to succeed. Like most changes, no matter how

great the idea or tremendous the value, the strategy and tactics are doomed from the

outset. The three questions, What to Change?, What to Change To?, and How to

Cause the Change?, provide the framework for what’s called the TOC Thinking

Processes. Fortunately, it has been shown that resistance to change can be understood

in terms of a series of six layers that consistently and regularly appear.

Patrick (2011) acknowledged that these layers are associated with the three basic

questions for change and their objectives and have been identified as shown in Table

5.

Patrick (2011) declared that while not all of these “layers of resistance” arise all the

time, when they do they tend to do so in the order listed. Or at least, they should be

addressed in that order. After all, there is no point in figuring out how to overcome

obstacles and implement a solution (Layer 5) if the idea of the solution itself is not

understood and accepted (Layers 2, 3, and 4). The existence of this consistency allows

for an equally consistent response, and therefore a systematic process to address it.

13

Table 5: Six Layers for Resistance to Change

Questions Objectives Layers of Resistance

What to change? Situation assessment, description

of “current reality,” and

identification of the core

problem or conflict and

assumptions that sustain it.

Diagnosis, systemic root cause

analysis.

1) Lack of agreement on the

problem

To what to change to? Verbalization of vision/solution,

description of strategy to attain

the desired state, and avoidance

of undesirable side effects.

Prescription, decision-making,

and solution development.

2) Lack of agreement on a

possible direction for a

solution

3) Lack of agreement that the

solution will truly address the

problem

4) Concern that the solution

will lead to new undesirable

side effects (“Yes, but…”)

How to make the change

happen?

Development of detailed plans

and tactics that will clarify what

needs to happen.

Synchronization of the efforts of

the group in the implementation

of the strategy.

Planning, team-building, and

leadership

5) Lack of a clear path

around obstacles blocking the

solution

6) Lack of follow-through

even after agreement to

proceed with the solution

Source: Patrick (2011)

The ability to acquire necessary cooperation, collaboration, and even co-ownership is

enhanced if the change agent understands the layers of resistance that are usually

encountered, and the appropriate steps to take and tools to use within each when

communicating the proposal. But the benefit of addressing the layers in the right way

goes far beyond simply overcoming resistance.

What is often not appreciated is that this same resistance is an invaluable source of

improvements to the original proposal. You can take advantage of this benefit with a

logical process that is geared to do so, whether starting at the beginning of building a

solution or when communicating it for buy-in (Patrick, 2011).

For example, while carefully considering all the layers during the construction of a

solution will contribute to the completeness of the solution, layers 4 (“Yes, but…”)

and 5 (“We can't do it because…”) are particularly fertile ground for the enhancement

of a proposed solution. The same thing goes for layer 5 - obstacles to implementation.

If one can generate or identify more obstacles, the resulting implementation plan will

be that much more complete. Those obstacles will exist whether identified or not. It’s

a far, far better thing to identify and plan for them than to be surprised by them. Too

often, the developer of a proposal is so focused on the good things that will come

from it s/he will overlook or even worse, minimize the side effects and obstacles

(Patrick, 2011).

14

As a result of applying TOC’s Thinking Processes to countless organizations over

three decades, generic TOC solutions have emerged that have applicability across all

organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit. To this day these applications

continue to evolve, resulting in more and more significant and sustainable overall and

bottom line performance improvements were implemented (Goldratt, 2009).

Conclusion:

In this paper the author has briefly reviewed the literature for change management,

resistance to change, theory of constraints, and demonstrated how to overcome resistance

to change through TOC. Finding that, organizational change faces resistance which is

mostly caused because of stereotypes and perceptions that are adopted by employees

within an organization. Concluding that "resistance to change" is a very important factor

in hindering the process of change. As resistance to change is acknowledged as being a

fundamental block to change, and a prime reason why change does not succeed or get

implemented. As well, resistance to change is everywhere in nature and it is caused by a

number of factors, such as: individual factors, group factors, and organisational factors.

Accordingly, organizations must learn quickly how to solve the resistance to change problems in order to adapt to changing business environments.

Some authors agreed upon a management methodology called the TOC which views

resistance as a necessary and positive force. So it was important to study TOC as a tool to

eliminate resistance to change in organizations. The TOC provides a view and set of

powerful tools that can be used to not only address resistance but also use it to enhance

the solution beyond the original concept. TOC has developed a process based on the

psychology of change that acknowledges and systematically addresses the questions

people intuitively ask when evaluating a change. TOC recognizes that the constraint on

any system restricts the maximum performance level that the system can obtain in

relation to its goal. It represents the synergy of systems, recognizing that the whole is

more than the sum of the parts. As a result of applying TOC’s Thinking Processes to

countless organizations over three decades, generic TOC solutions have emerged that

have applicability across all organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit. To this day

these applications continue to evolve, resulting in more and more significant and sustainable overall and bottom line performance improvements were implemented.

15

References:

Block, P. (1989)" "Flawless consulting'', in McLennan, R. (Ed.), Managing

Organisational Change, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bradbury-Jacob, D., and Mcclelland, W. (2001): Theory of Constraints Project

Management, The Goldratt Institute.

Bushong, J.G. and Talbott, J.C. (1999): “An application of theory of constraints”, The

CPA Journal, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 53-5.

Chase, R., Aquilano, N. and Jacobs, F. (1998): Production and Operation

Management, Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Deming, W. E. (1986): Out of a Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1994. The New

Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Dettmer, H.W. (1998): Breaking the Constraints to World-class Performance, ASQ

Quality Press.

Dettmer, W. (1997): Goldratt's theory of constraints: a systems approach to

continuous improvement, Published by ASQ Quality Press.

Finch, B.J. and Luebbe, R.L. (1995): Operations Management, Dryden Press,

Orlando, FL, pp. 206-12.

Goldratt, A. Institute (2009): The Theory of Constraints and its Thinking Processes, a

Brief Introduction to TOC.

Goldratt, E.M. (1988): “Computerized shop floor scheduling”, International Journal

of Production Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 443-55.

Goldratt, E.M. (1990): Theory of Constraints, North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson,

NY.

Goldratt, E.M. (2000): Necessary but not Sufficient, North River Press, Great

Barrington, NY.

Goldratt, E.M. and Cox, J. (1984): The Goal, North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson,

NY.

Goldratt, E.M. and Cox, J. (1992): The Goal, 2nd

ed., North River Press, Crouton-on-

Hudson, NY.

Houle, D. and Burton-Houle, T. (1998): "Overcoming resistance to change the TOC

way'', APICS - Constraints Management Symposium Proceedings.

Islam, A. E. and El-Araby, S. A. (2007): "Change Management in Arab Countries- A

General Review", 8TH

International Conference of Quality Managers (8th ICQM),

16

"Quality Managers and the Management Challenges in the 21ST

Century", Teheran-

Iran, 15-18 July.

Kanter, R.M. (1985): "Managing the human side of change'', Management Review,

Vol. 74, pp. 52-6.

Kendall, G.I. (1998): Securing the Future: Strategies for Exponential Growth Using

the Theory of Constraints, St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Knight, A. (2001): “Healing the National Health Service”, The Ashridge Journal.

Levinson, W. (2007): Beyond the theory of constraints: how to eliminate variation

and maximize capacity, Published by Productivity Press.

Lubitsh, G., Doyle, C., and Valentine, J. (2005): The impact of theory of constraints

(TOC) in an NHS trust, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24, No. 2.

Mabin, V. and S. Balderstone (2003): The performance of the theory of constraints

methodology-Analysis and discussion of successful-TOC applications, International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 568-595

Mabin, V., Forgeson, S. and Green, L. (2001): "Harnessing resistance: using the

theory of constraints to assist change management", Journal of European Industrial

Training, 25/2/3/4, pp. 168-191.

Malonis, Jane A. Encyclopedia of Business. Gale Group (2000): Sakhir Library Ref

HF1001.E466 2000

Massood, Y. (1998): “Product-mix decisions under activity based costing with

resource constraints and non-proportional activity costs”, Journal of Applied Business

Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 39-45.

Meleton, M. (1986): “OPT – fantasy or breakthrough?”, Production and Inventory

Management, pp. 13-21, (Second Quarter).

Michalski, L. (2000): “Applying the theory of constraints: managing multiple

deadlines”, Pharmaceutical Technology, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 126-32.

Miller, B. (2000): “Applying TOC in the real world”, IIE Solutions, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp.

49-53.

Motwani, J., Klein, D. and Harowitz, R. (1996): “The theory of constraints in

services: part 1 – the basics”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 53–56.

Noreen, E., Smith, D. and Mackey, J. (1995): The Theory of Constraints and Its

Implications for Management Accounting, North River Press, MA.

Oakland J. S. and Tanner S. J. (2006): A New Framework for Managing Change, 9th

QMOD conference, Creativity, Governance and Transformation – the Building

Blocks for Excellence, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 9 – 11 August 2006

17

Patrick. F. (2011): Using resistance to change and theory of constraints thinking

process to improve improvements. Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE) Solutions

Conference (Dallas, May, 2001)

Pegels, C. and Watrous, C. (2005): Application of the theory of constraints to a

bottleneck operation in a manufacturing plant, Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, Vol. 16, No. 3.

Ragsdell G., (2000): "Engineering a paradigm shift? An holistic approach to

organisational change management", Journal of Organizational Change Management,

13(2) pp. 104-120

Rahman, S. (1998): Theory of constraints: A review of the philosophy and its

applications, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18

No. 4, pp. 336-355.

Rand, G.K. (1984): MRP, JIT and OPT, Department of Operational Research and

Operations Management, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Scheinkopf, L.J. (1999): Thinking for a Change: Putting the TOC Thinking Processes

to Use, St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Schermerhorn, J. (1989): Management for Productivity, John Wiley & Sons, New

York, NY.

Sheu, C., Cheng, M.H, and Kovar, S. (2003): Integrating ABC and TOC for better

manufacturing decision making, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14, No. 5.

Siha, S. (1999): “A classified model for applying the theory of constraints to service

organizations”, Managing Service Quality, Volume 9, Number 4, pp. 255-264.

Sinclair J. (1994): "Reacting to What?", Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 7 (5), pp. 32-40.

Tollington, T. (1998): “ABC v. TOC: same cloth as absorption v. marginal, different

style and cut?”, Management Accounting, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 44-5.

Vollmann, T.E. (1986): “OPT as an enhancement to MRPII”, Production and

Inventory Management, pp. 38-47 (second quarter).