Factors of resistance leading to failure of organizational changes essay

Obviously the organizational changes are necessary but before suggesting any recommendations as for their successful implementation it is necessary to realize what the factors lead to failure of the organizational changes. As it has been already mentioned the main cause of the failure of the successful implementation of the organizational changes is the lack of proper and efficient managing. At the same time it is important to realize that the managing should take into considerations several factors of resistance form the part of employees that lead to the general failure of the organizational changes and make the management ineffective for, as state by Maurer, “studies estimate that up to two-thirds of all organizational changes fail. That dismal statistic represents a tremendous cost to companies in money, resources and time. Failed change efforts take a human toll as well, leaving employees discouraged, distrustful and reluctant to engage in the next round of changes. The most commonly cited reason for these failures is resistance” (1996:1).

Basically there are four reasons of resistance and each of this reason demands a particular respond from the part of managerial staff in order to overcome it. It means that the understanding of the reasons of the resistance is extremely important. According to Woldring, “understanding of these four reasons will not only establish the employee’s responsibility to resistance, but management’s as well” (1999:187).

So, the first reason is the lack of understanding by the employees of the entity of the organizational changes. In other words they do not simply understand what the aims of the changes introduced are, why they are introduced and what will be their affect on the employees. In fact it is quite natural that, when employees do not understand the reasoning of the organizational changes, they cannot accept them. According to Robins, “changes substitute ambiguity and uncertainty for the known” (2003:560). It means that the employees can hardly substitute what they get used to by something new that they do not fully understand and it is quite a normal reaction since people are traditionally afraid of what they do not understand and it results in uncertainty in the future. And the resistance to such innovation is quite natural reaction for “whenever individuals do not clearly understand the purpose, mechanics, or potential consequences of a change, they are likely to resist it. If a person is involved in the implementation process, it is important for him why the change is being made. When the mechanics of a change are not clearly understood, they cannot be carried out even if the implementer is willing” (584). As a result of uncertainty and unclearness the employees may expect the worst from the organizational changes that are implementing.

The second reason is that employees do not have the time to engage with the organizational change. It means that it is impossible to make a change in a day for people are not machines and they need some time to get used to new conditions and environment. In fact they cannot both change and handle their current accountabilities. As a rule people are not willing to jeopardise their assigned responsibilities. In such a way, when a change is introduced, an employee has fulfil his/her current responsibilities and get use to the change that makes the job quite difficult and moreover, the current work responsibilities and the change become competing activities leading to the increased tension of work and resistance of an employee to the change. At this respect Dessler indicates at a kind of paradox: “Sometimes, employees say they want to change (and may actually mean it), and yet they resist the program” , further he explains that “this resistance may be the result of ‘competing commitments’. In other words, the employees say they want to change (and they mean it, but in fact a competing commitment makes them resist it” (2004:203).

The third reason of resistance is the fact that people often do not have the competencies to do what they have to do in the new situation when an organizational change is implemented. In fact it is quite natural that people do not want to participate in the process, which reveals their incompetence. The situation may be deteriorated if employees feel unable to acquire new competences this leads them to fear and uncertainty about the future for if they cannot perform the ability to the new competences required they can lose their job. At this respect, Robbins draws quite an interesting example, when “if… the introduction of quality management means production workers will have to learn statistical process control techniques, they may fear they’ll unable to do so. They may, therefore, develop a negative attitude toward a quality-management program or behave dysfunctional if required to use statistical techniques” (1999:560). In such a situation it is extremely important that managers and employees share the same as to why the organizational change is important.

The fourth and the last reason is that people resist because they do not share the value driving to the organizational change. It means that employees believe that it is a mistake to initiate an organizational change and they attempt to resist strongly in order to preserve their self-esteem. At the same time employees should realize that resisting to the organizational change they put under a threat their future career in the organization. At this respect Pritchett and Pound underline that “some people cling desperately to the past. They hang on to what’s familiar, snuggling ever deeper into their comfortable routines to avoid the chilling thought that they might have to change. Change always means giving up something and the greater the personal sacrifice the more you feel like dragging your feet” (1990:4).

Obviously, despite the fact that the reasons mentioned above are quite objective, it is still very important for employees to realize that their resistance may extremely harmful for the organization and for themselves than the harm can bring personally to them. Moreover, the harm from the organizational change may be illusionary and imaginary and gradually it simply needs time employees get used to the change. On the other hand, the implementation of the organizational changes, besides it is necessary, may be extremely profitable and productive for the organization at large while the resistance to the organizational change lead to the state when “unproductive roles inhibit the team or its members from achieving what they could have achieved, and they destroy moral and cohesion” (Whetten and Cameron 2002:467). Consequently, the necessity of the organizational changes must be properly understood and accepted by the employees that is absolutely impossible without efficient management.