Literature Review- Resistance to Change

Many types of risk are created – risk to the project, to the organization, to the employees involved and to the individuals supporting the change.

43-45). Top-down change process provides prescription that has only been developed by top managers and given to lower cadre employees down the ranks to consume without their input. According to Bovey & Hede (2001, p. 540) resistance occurs at the individual level, where employees are motivated by psychological factors to change that include resentment, frustration, low motivation and morale, fear, and feelings of failure. At the same time, earlier publication by Yilmaz & Kilicoglu (2013, pp. 17-18) identified four factors that motivate employees to resist changes in the organisation: employees focusing on self- interests as opposed to those of the organisation, having inadequate understanding of

Staff resistance: the program will introduce changes, and changes are bound to be met with resistance. Staff resistance to changes is one of the main factors that can lead an implementation failure, as the ED staff acceptance of the changes and following the directions of the quality improvement plan defines the difference between success and failure of the program.

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.

All Organisations posses a distinct form of culture with some having more than a single culture. This culture is usually very difficult to measure, change and most especially change.

You have probably heard the saying “Change is hard.” This statement is true for organizations as well as for individuals.

The resistance from employees and managers is normal and can be addressed. Persistent resistance, however, can threaten a project. The change management team needs to identify understand and help their leaders manage resistance throughout the organization. Resistance manage is the process and tools used by managers and executives with the support of the change

Selling the benefits of change –Identifying potential threats and develop scenarios presenting what could take place in the future. Examining opportunities that should be, or could be exploited.

I define resistance as not wanting to change. For example a group member ordered by the courts to participate in so many group sessions. Resistance is a useful concept because it cannot be dealt with properly until the emotional force behind it is understood. It is good for group leaders to restate what each group member is saying in a way that will cause less resistance. Co-leaders can use metaphors as a way of talking about experiences that stimulate reframing, as communication to overcome client resistance. I think when clients are involved in a group setting that facilities change, client resistance is probably not far behind. All group leaders should create a safe environment that allows clients to explore their defenses and resistances

Employees who feel pushed out of their comfort zone may also resist change, due to the unfamiliarity of new implications or managers. The fear of uncertainties due to the lack of communication can also lead to resistance to change on an individual level. If employees are not informed of the needs of the change then the fear of the unknown can cause resistance.

Change starts with the perception of its need, so a wrong initial perception can be the first

In these instances, change is seen as evil and not "healthy". Change is not looked on as a positive opportunity and thus is rejected by the individuals in a company, which may result in incohesiveness within the organization and eventual collapse. Personal instances of resistance like those stated above often hold companies back because of their conservative views as they often result from lack of individual confidence in oneself to be creative. Stemming from personal instances of resistances is the occurrence of group resistance to change. Sources of group resistance to change include: Conformity to Norms (Inertia), Vested Interests, Sacrosanct, Rejection of Outsiders, Overdetermination, and threatened power. Vested Interests is probably the most interesting source of resistance because how can interest in being the best be a resistance? Vested Interests can be a resistance because it often promotes conformity to norms, as workers are less likely to contribute their ideas to the advancement of innovation and as a result the company suffers as past new ideas become old, and new ideas are needed to survive in the ubercompetitive business world today. Rejection of Outsiders can be looked on as positive or negative, but more negatively, thus placing it as a resistance to change. Rejection of Outsiders might cause more cohesion within a group to rely on each

According to Palmer, Dunford, and Akin (2009) there are six different approaches to managing resistance to change which are, situational, let nature take its course, thought self-leadership, creative counters, tinkering, kludging, and pacing approach, and finally the power of resistance approach. While all of these different methods or approaches for dealing with change have positives and negatives, some are better than others. For example, Kotter and Schlesinger’s situational method is great in that it recognizes some situations need to be treated differently than others. However, they suggest that manipulation could be used and while they explain the dangers of this approach, its application is very limited and the rewards don’t outweigh the risks.

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:

NASA had a firm hierarchy and this brought about a lot of resistance to change from people. NASA could have gotten more of the people involved in the changes. I find that by getting people involved and having some key people or champions to support the change, there is less resistance. People want to feel involved and a part of decisions, especially if it impacts them directly. When it comes to successful change management, get people involved earlier, which will contribute to greater buy in and acceptance. Keep in mind that this should not be the sole solution for employee resistance; successful change management is about understanding the true nature of the resistance.