This lack of incentive can drastically decrease employee motivation. Leaders initiate a taxing and costly transformation without deliberate, data-driven reason. The change will undoubtedly improve some facet of the business.
Organizational changes can completely transform the way each team member operates. Employees may gain new roles and responsibilities, and they may be reassigned to a new team, reporting manager, or supervisor. The changes may force employees to adopt new strategies, tools, or methods of communications. To execute effective change management with minimal resistance, leaders should establish precautionary measures before initiating change. The importance of effective communication in the workplace cannot be stressed enough.
Before change efforts are in motion, management must explain the reasons, implications, and expected outcomes of the change. Employees want to feel like a part of the change process, which means management needs to commit to thorough communication every step of the way. Communicate expectations to employees to create accountability and encourage engagement. Consider implementing a streamlined, intuitive communication journey that simplifies the messaging behind change initiatives and supports productive communication.
How can you feel excited about the upcoming changes if your manager is evidently resistant? The management team needs to lead by example when working to overcome resistance. Communicate with eagerness, excitement, and positivity when speaking about the future.
Enthusiasm is contagious, but so is indifference. Stay conscious of your words and body language. The organizational change management process exists for this reason. If changes are initiated all at once without planned intervals, employees are likely to feel overwhelmed, unmotivated and resistant. Allow team members the necessary time to complete their tasks in each step of the change management process, with allotted intermissions that grant team members the chance to breathe and assess their efforts.
Be mindful that employees are learning new skills, new jobs, or new technologies. Implementing change management practices will increase productivity and create realistic expectations for employees. Organizational changes cannot be implemented by management alone. Change efforts fall in the hands of all leaders and employees within the company. Employees will be the ones putting the new changes into practice, so engage their efforts early on in the process. For each of these four groups a minor change in the work procedure was installed by a different method, and the results were carefully recorded to see what, if any, problems of resistance occurred.
The four experimental groups were roughly matched with respect to efficiency ratings and degree of cohesiveness; in each group the proposed change modified the established work procedure to about the same degree. This small group of operators was called into a room where some staff people told the members that there was a need for a minor methods change in their work procedures. The staff people then explained the change to the operators in detail, and gave them the reasons for the change.
The operators were then sent back to the job with instructions to work in accordance with the new method. All the operators in these groups met with the staff people concerned.
The staff people dramatically demonstrated the need for cost reduction. A general agreement was reached that some savings could be effected. The groups then discussed how existing work methods could be improved and unnecessary operations eliminated.
When the new work methods were agreed on, all the operators were trained in the new methods, and all were observed by the time-study people for purposes of establishing a new piece rate on the job. Research findings: The researchers reported a marked contrast between the results achieved by the different methods of introducing this change:.
Marked expressions of aggression against management occurred, such as conflict with the methods engineer,…hostility toward the supervisor, deliberate restriction of production, and lack of cooperation with the supervisor. It is seen often in management journals, heard often in management discussions. In fact, the idea that it is a good thing to get employee participation in making changes has become almost axiomatic in management circles.
But participation is not something that can be conjured up or created artificially. You obviously cannot buy it as you would buy a typewriter. Participation is a feeling on the part of people, not just the mechanical act of being called in to take part in discussions. Common sense would suggest that people are more likely to respond to the way they are customarily treated—say, as people whose opinions are respected because they themselves are respected for their own worth—rather than by the stratagem of being called to a meeting or being asked some carefully calculated questions.
So there is still the problem of how to get this thing called participation. And, as a matter of fact, the question remains whether participation was the determining factor in the Coch and French experiment or whether there was something of deeper significance underlying it. Now let us take a look at a second series of research findings about resistance to change… While making some research observations in a factory manufacturing electronic products, a colleague and I had an opportunity to observe a number of incidents that for us threw new light on this matter of resistance to change.
It occurred to me that we might get around that trouble if we washed the part in a cleaning solution just prior to assembling it. With this episode in mind, let us take a look at a second episode involving the same production operator. One day we noticed another engineer approaching the production operator.
We knew that this particular engineer had had no previous contact with the production operator. He had been asked to take a look at one specific problem on the new product because of his special technical qualifications.
He had decided to make a change in one of the parts of the product to eliminate the problem, and he had prepared some of these parts using his new method. Here is what happened:. The new engineer indicated that she should try another part. She did so, and again it did not work. She then proceeded to assemble units using all of the new parts that were available. She handled each of them in an unusually rough manner. None of them worked. Again she turned to the engineer and said that the new parts did not work.
What can we learn from these episodes? To begin, it will be useful for our purposes to think of change as having both a technical and a social aspect. The technical aspect of the change is the making of a measurable modification in the physical routines of the job. The social aspect of the change refers to the way those affected by it think it will alter their established relationships in the organization. We can clarify this distinction by referring to the two foregoing episodes.
In both of them, the technical aspects of the changes introduced were virtually identical: the operator was asked to use a slightly changed part in assembling the finished product. By contrast, the social aspects of the changes were quite different. In the first episode, the interaction between the industrial engineer and the operator tended to sustain the give-and-take kind of relationship that these two people were accustomed to.
The operator was used to being treated as a person with some valuable skills and knowledge and some sense of responsibility about her work; when the engineer approached her with his idea, she felt she was being dealt with in the usual way. By his brusque manner and by his lack of any explanation, he led the operator to fear that her usual work relationships were being changed.
And she just did not like the new way she was being treated. The results of these two episodes were quite different also. In the first episode there were no symptoms of resistance to change, a very good chance that the experimental change would determine fairly whether a cleaning solution would improve product quality, and a willingness on the part of the operator to accept future changes when the industrial engineer suggested them.
We might summarize the two contrasting patterns of human behavior in the two episodes in graphic form; see Exhibit I. It is apparent from these two patterns that the variable which determines the result is the social aspect of the change. In other words, the operator did not resist the technical change as such but rather the accompanying change in her human relationships. This conclusion is based on more than onecase. Many other cases in our research project substantiate it.
Furthermore, we can find confirmation in the research experience of Coch and French, even though they came out with a different interpretation. Coch and French tell us in their report that the procedure used with Group 1, i. And yet they also tell us something about the customary treatment of the operators in their work life. Now compare these customary work relationships with the way the Group 1 operators were treated when they were introduced to this particular work change.
There is quite a difference. When the management called them into the room for indoctrination, they were treated as if they had no useful knowledge of their own jobs. How could they construe this experience except as a threatening change in their usual working relationship? It is the story of the second episode in our research case all over again.
The results were also the same, with signs of resistance, persistently low output, and so on. Now consider experimental Groups 3 and 4, i. It was simply a continuation of the way they were ordinarily dealt with in the course of their regular work.
And what happened? The results—reception to change, technical improvement, better performance—were much like those reported in the first episode between the operator and the industrial engineer.
So the research data of Coch and French tend to confirm the conclusion that the nature and size of the technical aspect of the change does not determine the presence or absence of resistance nearly so much as does the social aspect of the change.
These observations check with everyday management experience in industry. When we stop to think about it, we know that many changes occur in our factories without a bit of resistance. We know that people who are working closely with one another continually swap ideas about short cuts and minor changes in procedure that are adopted so easily and naturally that we seldom notice them or even think of them as change. The point is that because these people work so closely with one another, they intuitively understand and take account of the existing social arrangements for work and so feel no threat to themselves in such everyday changes.
These are the changes that we notice and the ones that most frequently bring on symptoms of resistance. By the very nature of their work, most of our staff specialists in industry do not have the intimate contact with operating groups that allows them to acquire an intuitive understanding of the complex social arrangements which their ideas may affect. Neither do our staff specialists always have the day-to-day dealings with operating people that lead them to develop a natural respect for the knowledge and skill of these people.
As a result, all too often the men behave in a way that threatens and disrupts the established social relationships. And the tragedy is that so many of these upsets are inadvertent and unnecessary.
Yet industry must have its specialists—not only many kinds of engineering specialists product, process, maintenance, quality, and safety engineers but also cost accountants, production schedulers, purchasing agents, and personnel people.
Must top management therefore reconcile itself to continual resistance to change, or can it take constructive action to meet the problem? I believe that our research in various factory situations indicates why resistance to change occurs and what management can do about it. Encourage openness and honesty and engender an environment of mutual trust and respect. It is imperative to engender a good team spirit, so you should consider ways in which you can do so.
During periods of change, tensions may run high and personal anxieties will be heightened. Team meetings and team bonding sessions will help your people to understand and appreciate their colleagues more easily, especially if you ensure transparency of communication and a systematic approach to problem solving that encourages frank exchange of view to reach a collective and collaborative partnership.
Communicate passionately and be an example of belief in the future vision. Only by being the change can you expect others to onboard the new values and behaviors expected. Engage employees in change by being an energized leader.
Focus on opportunities, and persuade rather than assert authority. Share experiences as you persuade change through stories that focus on positive change. Train your storytelling brain to discover ways to explain culture, brand and the future vision with similes that help employees relate to organizational motives and goals. Give opportunities for feedback and remain flexible as you alter course toward your change goals.
Encourage people to be creative, to discover solutions to unfolding problems, and to become part of the change process. Remove the fear of taking risks by framing failure as an experience from which to learn, and a necessary step on the path to success. Help people to be accountable for their own actions, while also encouraging collaboration across silos.
This will aid pollination of innovative ideas in an environment in which people develop greater knowledge and expand their professional capacity to think more creatively. People find change unsettling, even though change is a constant in personal lives as well as professional environments. They will need the support of a positive leader who inspires free thought, honest communication and creativity, as personal and team development is encouraged.
Employees expect leaders to manage change. Inspirational leaders create a culture where change becomes the remit of all.
Research has shown that resistance to change is a psychological and physiological reaction "The Neuroscience of Leadership" by David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz. In short, you should expect resistance to change. Managing resistance to change requires you to first understand why people resist change, then identify the causes of their resistance, before considering your strategic approach and formulating the tactics and techniques for reducing resistance to change.
Equipping your leaders with a deeper understanding of the emotional effects of change is an essential first step. With better self-awareness and social awareness, leaders and managers are more able to inspire and influence through change — and develop a winning project change team. Contact Forward Focus today to discuss our Management Development Series, including our Energy Leadership Program that helps develop high-performing managers into inspirational leaders.
First Name:. Last Name:. Toggle navigation. Inspirational leaders create a culture that makes overcoming resistance to change an integral part of change management and not a separate corporate function. Corporate culture and change management are inextricably linked, though inspirational leadership is needed for employees to see their responsibilities differently. Download this free eBook to learn how to overcome resistance to change.
Download eBook now. Error : Please complete all required fields! About the Author. Beth Williams. She started her corporate career in the world of advertising and publishing before she founded Forward Focus in the year Learn more about Beth.
Related Posts. How to retain your best people through change Cost cutting, mergers, and pivoting business strategies are big change projects that unnerve employees, often causing the most talented to quit. But with the right tactics, your staff will stay and drive your change success. Do you know the tactics your leaders and managers should be employing to retain your best people? Real Leaders Embrace Continuous Change Change management and change leadership are assets of successful change.
Bridging the Generational Gap for Effective Change Management One way in which to understand how change affects different people is to consider how it affects different generations; for example, the different dynamics of millennials vs baby boomers in the workplace.
Do your change managers have the understanding to make successful and sustainable change in a multigenerational workplace? To Lead Change, Influence Change How do you influence the demotivated employee to embrace change and become engaged with the team effort? The answer lies in their psychology. Effective leaders use emotional intelligence skills to eliminate resistance to change. Page Ratings.
0コメント