Ob Case: Humanized Robots? Essay

The intent of the proposal is to address the case brought forward to our organization concerning “The Young Change Agents,” at Price Waterhouse (PW) who later merged with Coopers & Lybrand. It is my understanding that the platform to address the need for change in the organization plummeted with three young pioneers (Shaw, Middleburg and Sgaralgli) recognized a need for change. Prior to Shaw and Middleburg arrival to PWC, they had an opportunity to work in a well-known student organization AIESEC. In their tenure at AIESEC life was different, as Shaw recalled while operating as the president of the national organization in New Zealand division; he recognized that AIESEC focused on developing his leadership skills by focusing on such programs as skills, attitudes, values and cultural understanding. Furthermore, he noted that his transition to PwC led to a lower echelon, and it was difficult to transition from the president to a staff member. PwC also had a high spending budget for stationery compared to New Zealand AIESEC. Moreover, the technology was not up to par for such a large cooperation. (Jick & Peiperl, p. 463) Shaw and Middleburg later partnered with Sgaralgi to fight the deficiencies that they saw in PwC. They created a force that focused on overhauling the existing values at PwC. They approached each situation, manager and employee one step at a time. Expecting nothing in return, but only to share their message on the new

Consequently, the changes did not go smoothly. There was chaos in the “inner circle” of the Wang Group. The employees became more dependent on Charles, constantly seeking his opinion and decisions. In the end, Charles became an integral part of the firm’s decision-making processes. As the firm’s organization became “Charles-centric” the employees became more confused and perceived unclear signals about essential parts of the change process, decision-making routines and the structure.

Change may be viewed in terms of how a newly designed idea will improve operational performance. Because inhuman characteristics exist, sometimes the decision to implement change appears to neglect the human touch required to successfully execute the process. As a result, the change agent may fail to prepare for effectively responding to employee resistance (By, 2005). In contrast, the psychological management of an organization recognizes what the organization may sense during the transition period (Kale, 2005). Due to the forceful nature of labor in hospitality, change management produces psychological implications on operations. Organizational change may involve financial and intangible transactions, but the human impact on change is immeasurable. Due to the service nature of the hospitality industry, change is only as

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:

According to S. McShane author of Organizational Behavior, many organizational behavior scholars, suggest that employee resistance represents symptoms of underlying restraining forces and should be removed. Employees may be concerned about the consequences of change, like how the new conditions can take away their power and status. Others may be worried about the process of change itself, which can the effort required to break old habits and learn the new skills. The listed main reasons are listed as: direct cost, saving face, fear of the unknown, breaking routines, incongruent organizational systems, and team dynamics. Brief examination of these reasons follows; with direct

This research paper is an attempt to better understand why some processes in the XYZ organization are stagnant as well as identifying key factors that keep the organization from moving forward at all times. More specifically, are stagnant processes a result of employees actually resisting change or are the processes stagnant because of management’s perceived perception of change and resistance? In addition, the research will focus on understanding key reasons why some people resist change and others do not. Further, it will explore to understand management’s role and the need for management to individually analyze their own attitudes and beliefs prior to the on-boarding of others. Last, it is an attempt to convince others that not everyone is resistant to change and in order to continuously improve, change is necessary for the continuous growth and development of the organization.

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:

The ways changes are implemented within a company can influence the results (Kotter, 1995). Over the years, many theoretical models have been developed. They are useful as they are a starting ground for rapidly implementing change with a positive result and can help reducing employees’ resistance (Petrescu, 2010). This section will discuss and analyzes various of the model currently used for manage change, employees resistance and its results.

In many cases, resistance to change is viewed and analyzed from the managerial perspective (Schultz & Schultz, 2004). From the managerial point of view, resistance to change is considered as a cause to the delay in the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals. Hence managers are aware of the effects of the resistance to change, such as wastage of time. As a result, change projects are introduced earlier than the actual time, so that by the time the management can mobilize consensus on the proposed change, the ideal time for the commencement of the project is fulfilled. Hayes (2002) outlines other ways of managing change, such as coercion, manipulation and dialogue with the employees. At this point, it is also necessary to realize that change is not only a property of the employees but also an aspect common with the middle level managers. According to Folger and Skarlicki (1999), such managers are reprimanded, transferred to given higher positions in order to allow the change process to take its course. In some cases, employees who resist change were sacked such as shown below.

Organizations age, and grow seeking specific goals, while the organization constructs and reconstructs a number of these organizations develop negative habits, and processes adapting to changing circumstances. History and today’s society has recognized that change is necessary to meet the ever-changing needs of the individuals and the environment. Today changes are necessary to retain a competitive lead, or factors based on the economy. Change has never been an easy process as resistance is always present, with impediments existing at all levels from the organization as a whole down to individual staff members. The responsibility lies with the senior managers to recognize the source and build a plan to remedy the resistance before it

Change can be resistant and any company culture. If the company is bought out, a new leader steps in, or a new set of work rules is implied this can be difficult for employees and overcoming this change is something

Organizations are under tremendous pressure to change; these forces come from the competition, the market and consumers (Clardy, 2013). These pressures require more than just increasing work flow; change needs to be introduced. It is therefore important for organization to continually change if there were to grow or even remain in the competition. Burke & Church (1992), state that change has a great impact on organization, with results highly dependent on the management’s ability and skills to support the affected areas and employees. This is especially important because, the concept or idea of change has always been considered as dangerous by employees. However, it is an inevitable phenomenon as organizations must always change in order to survive. According to Bareil (2013), this resistance to change is regarding as one of the main reasons organizations fail to implement change. Change agents are used in order to mitigate the resistance that occurs in organizations. They are able to identity reasons why employees resist change, create and implement strategies to support the change. This paper is going to identify the several reasons why the employees at ABS Corporation may resist the change. Recommendations will be provided as to how resistance can be managed to ensure that the organization’s deliverables are attained.

In many cases, resistance to change is viewed and analyzed from the managerial perspective (Schultz & Schultz, 2004). From the managerial point of view, resistance to change is considered as a cause to the delay in the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals. Hence managers are aware of the effects of the resistance to change, such as wastage of time. As a result, change projects are introduced earlier than the actual time, so that by the time the management can mobilize consensus on the proposed change, the ideal time for the commencement of the project is fulfilled. Hayes (2002) outlines other ways of managing change, such as coercion, manipulation and dialogue with the employees. At this point, it is also necessary to realize that change is not only a property of the employees but also an aspect common with the middle level managers. According to Folger and Skarlicki (1999), such managers are reprimanded, transferred to given higher positions in order to allow the change process to take its course. In some cases, employees who resist change were sacked such as shown below.

As organizations face change they may have to deal with resistance from employees. Change is often resisted by employees, the reasons typically are fearful of the unfamiliar, fear of loss or fear of disaster, as well as behavior and political reasons. Therefore, it is vital that managers mitigate employee frustration to ensure a business remains effective in its task or duties. Managers must learn the necessary skills to make the change easier by using employee participation, organizational communication, workplace empathy and support.

The second factor responsible for resistance is the costs inherent to the change. The validity of this point is hinged on the view that employees have personal interests that they always seek to protect. As far as this factor is concerned, the ability of the workers to support change is dependent on the impact it will have on the employee interests. The changes that subvert the interests of the employees would be resisted, while the kinds that complement them would be warmly welcome. According to Fabia McLean Bourda (2016), it is always important for the decision-makers to strive and strike a balance between the interests of the employees and those of the organizations. This step can be actually achieved by engaging employees in the decisions regarding the needed change, yet is an effective way of understanding the employee concerns.