Motivation And Morale During Times Of Change

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.

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.

Communication breakdowns within an organization may contribute to resistance in changing organizations. Managers must be prepared to talk candidly about the needs for change, otherwise fear and uncertainty will remain a prevailing element that can damage morale and prevent successful implementation of the desired changes at all levels of the organization. Employees need comprehensive information about the nature, processes, and consequences of organizational change.

Alison or Cabletronica didn’t do any kind of motivational analysis. Will employees accept the change? What is the predisposition of employees toward the change? Will they support or resist it? This is the single most important question to assess the organization’s readiness for change because high motivation leads people to acquire the needed skills and to exert the extra effort that contributes to success.

Listening to the employees helps enable the managers to learn more about the employee’s hopes, fears, and the actions that they may take. Listen for points of commonality to establish some common ground. Managers need to rethink resistance by recognizing it as a natural part of the adaption-to-change process, which is a form of energy that may be able to be trapped and a form of feedback about the change process.

As the world changes, many organization may create changes to their company structure in order to remain successful and look good amongst shareholders. These organizational changes may be beneficial for the company overall. However, it may affect the remaining employee’s morale. Some organizations changes such as layoffs, reduce work hours, a stagnate in benefits increases and rewards may result in management trying to figure out a way to motivate and gain employees trust and loyalty.

The end result of a lack of employee motivation in their jobs is turnover. When one is not happy with their career or job choice and it becomes clear that an employer is only looking out for the profit line of the corporation, employees will actively seek out new employment opportunities. The cost of turnover to an organization is tens of thousands of dollars now vying to be spent on interviewing, selecting, and training a replacement.

According Lorenzi and Riley, often many organizations fail to realize the extent of change and its effect on the organizational dynamics between behavior, culture and performance. Additionally, management is typically unaware of the effects system wide change has on the way “we do work”. Work processes change, relationships shift, work skills are either altered or deleted and as a result an

Personal impact and fear of change are not the only causes of resistance by individuals during a change to business practices. The lack of respect and negative attitudes can also lead to employees resisting business change. If an employee lacks respect or has a negative attitude towards a person or department leading the change, then there are more likely to oppose the new ideas being implemented. Poor communication greatly impacts individuals’ accepted to new practices in a company. Typically if an employee is given new behaviors to adopt, but is given no reason, then that employee may reject the change. Upper management must effectively relate the value, need and benefit of the change to help get employees on board with new changes. The lack of individual input can also lead to resistance. Some individuals feel the need to be included in new ideas. When employees are not asked to be involved in changes, they may lack the vision of importance or will to change. A heavier workload can also cause opposition among employees. Employees may not embrace more systems and requirements needed

Certainly, there are several reasons why people don’t like to undergo a change situation. Firstly, some people are more concerned about the implications of change to themselves rather than thinking of the benefits it could bring for the company for example, I feel more comfortable working where there is more interaction with customers rather than working inside the office. Secondly, it somewhat also depends on the individual’s level of tolerance to change; some people feel more secured and satisfied with current working environment. Furthermore, there might be inadequate information about the benefits a change can bring in to them and the organization. Therefore employees are usually hesitant of undergoing a change situation. However, chapter 6 of Organizational Change looks into how we can minimise resistance to change in an organization which is described as Kotter’s theory. Kotter suggested six strategies for overcoming resistance to change:

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

Bolognese, A. (2002). Employee Resistance to Organizational Change. Retrieved December 2, 2006 from Internet, http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/

Many companies look to salaries and benefits as the first places to cut back when looking to make changes that involve cost-saving. When this happens, it is inevitable that some employees will leave the company to seek employment elsewhere. The employees that remain, whether they stay voluntarily or because they could not find employment elsewhere, are often resentful. Motivation decreases, taking job performance along with it. Employees lose their company loyalty and may even become angry enough to purposefully sabotage the company.

The effect of large-scale change on morale and employee engagement was and is still a major concern and potential risk for operational leaders. A decrease in engagement and workforce morale may impact customer service, which is a significant risk. Also, a workforce that is not engaged will resist change. Managing and mitigating these risks are a priority for leaders today as the most industries are moving through an era of extensive change. Insurance being one of the oldest and visible industries post GFC, we will be discussing change at one of the largest Life Insurers in the country - AIA Australia.

In this paper two motivation theories in a diverse workforce during times of change will be discuss. Differences, including theoretical premises, between two models will be explained. Details relates to challenges and opportunities in a diverse workforce will identified. Strategies to keep a workforce motivated during organizational change will be point out.