How Change Is Inevitable?

As a result, Zwick (2002, p. 542) has noted that implementing change programmes in organisations that realise positive outcomes remain problematic for many organisations in the 21st century. Ayodeji & Oyesola (2011, p. 235) have postulated that organisational change is a dynamic process, which when taken poorly contribute to employee resistance to it, and eventually leads to failure of the whole process. 3|Page Organisation Behaviour; MGTS 1601; Individual Essay; Employee resistance to change Yuanli Zhang 43401163 Employees resist changes when they occur in the organisations for several reasons. Many organisations when they introduce changes are likely to stick to the ‘top-down organisational change’ process (Awasthy, Chandrasekaran & Gupta, 2011, pp.

Chapter 15 is a very interesting chapter, I really enjoyed reading this chapter, it discussed the theory of change, reframing, paradoxical interventions, problem information/ resolution, stochastic process, perturbed versus change agent, meaningful noise, language and worldview, stability and change and information and perturbation. A theory of change is connected with two perspectives how the worldview analyzes things. The first-order cybernetic perspective is one, which means the therapist intervenes from a position outside the system and the second-order cybernetics perspective the therapist perturbs from a position withing the system. I started to evaluate my life and started to think what I needed to change, and what problems I needed to work on.

Resistance to change is an expected reaction of human nature. We are not accustomed to change, as it is possible to lead to failure; however, there are also ways to manage the resistance within the company.

This article discusses the pros and cons of advocating change within the workplace. It also discusses the reason (s) individuals are said to resist change because of habit and inertia, fear of the unknown, absence of the skills they will need after the change, and fear of losing power. OD approaches to organizational change presents a solid consensus that change and resistance can and should be "managed" by developing a strategy for change and using the OD tool kit of interventions such as training and communication programs, confrontation meetings, stakeholder

Organizational change is a necessary outcome when considering various scenarios contributing to the resulting vision. Perplexing as it may seem, change initiatives don’t always result in positive outcomes. In fact, many never succeed. As a change agent, one should always have formulated a vision of what change will “look” like for the organization. One would be hard pressed to paint a landscape without having a vision of what the landscape should resemble. Yet, resistance to change usually becomes a significant factor contributing to an initiative’s failure. It is likely an

Changes are very critical to enhance organizational effectiveness. An organization needs to implement changes to stay productive, competitive as well as avoiding calamity in the case of aviation sector. Changes are the process of instilling new attitudes, values, norms and behaviors within an organization to support the way of doing work. However, the implementation of changes is a task that requires adequate planning and design since changes are not always welcome and could lead to individual's resistance to change. (Agboola,& Salawu,2011). The identification

Change is difficult to implement in most professional settings. Employees and managers alike are often set in their ways, and usually resist change via a response based on self-interest. Many feel that change threatens their personal freedom; that change limits them in how they can accomplish their work goals. This negative reaction is centered around the idea of reactance. Fear is a common cause of reactance that often leads employees and managers to resist change. People are often afraid of the unknown. Change can lead to a feeling of uneasiness, or distrust due to a lack of experience with the change. What an employee was once comfortable with doing is now an unknown to them. They may not be sure if this new implementation

Change in a business is inevitable and typically only the strongest thrive. With a fluctuating economy and constant technological advancements, organizations are expected to adapt in order to survive. When a business is posed with an issue or change, it must develop new business and strategy structures and implements those developments throughout the entire company. Communication, education and participation are all required for a change model to be successful. Though change and adaptation may be needed to better the company, with implementation of change comes resistance. Most companies face resistance on an organizational and individual level during a transition. However, it is how the company is able to overcome

Individuals when faced with any major change will be inevitably resistant and will want to preserve the status quo, especially if they think their status or security within the organization is in danger (Bolognese, 2010). Folger and Skarlicki believe that organizational change produces skepticism in employees which make it problematic and possibly even impossible to contrive improvements within the organization (as cited in Bolognese, 2010) Therefore, management must understand, accept and make an effort to work with resistance, since it can undermine even the most well-conceived change efforts (Bolognese, 2010). Furthermore, Coetsee states for organizations to achieve the maximum benefits from change they must effectively create and

Burke (2014) stated that organizations change from day to day. The changes that take place in organizations can be intentional or unintentional. Generally, the changes that occur is accidental. It is important to have a broader and deeper knowledge of understanding organization change. Understanding what is currently happening as well as trends in which the organization is functioning can provide such awareness.

Daft explains organization development as a three-step process of unfreezing, changing and refreezing (Daft, 2014). Overcoming resistance to change occurs during the unfreezing stage where “people throughout the organization [are made] aware of problems and the need for change. This stage creates the motivation for people to change their attitudes and behaviors” (Daft, 2014). Participation of those directly affected by the change has been shown to be the most effective technique in reducing resistance to change and minimizing the disruptive period of organization readjustment that naturally follows any change in the workplace.

Poorly managed organizational change can increase risk, budgets and damage reputations. Organizational change typically educes strong emotions because change interferes with the sense of security, as well as produces feelings of uncertainty (Barabasz, 2016). Employee’s reactions to imposed change, which can range from high turnover, low morale, an assiduous reduction in productivity, to wildcat or other strikes, perplexes many leaders. Leadership that develops strategies to manage the active and passive resistance can mitigate risk and minimize additional costs. In this paper, I will discuss a case study that focuses on how employee resistance to a poorly managed change

Resistance to change will derail even the best laid plans if not identified and dealt with in a positive, re-enforcing manner. In Organizational Behavior 6th Edition, resistance to change is defined as, "an emotional/behavioral response to real or imagined threats to an

To identify the key elements of the resistanceto change described in this situation, one may make use of the six Change Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger.[1]The model prevents, minimizes or descreases resistance to change in organizations. According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four reasons that why people resist change, three of which are applicable to this case:

Resistance to change is one of the biggest barriers that organizations face in their efforts to implement organizational change. This greatly hampers the uptake of new technologies, new ways of doing work and even progress of organizations. Reviewing on this, the British Journal of