A change is inevitable, whether you plan for it or not. Sometimes, businesses and individuals change how they do things as an effect of external forces, e.g., the pandemic. Other times, they embrace changes more wilfully in response to our society members' shifting attitudes and behaviour. One thing has been agreed upon: 'the rapid rate of change in the world of management continues to escalate' (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), and it is unlikely to present any signs of slowing in light of our ongoing battle with Covid-19 virus or implications of the Brexit. Kotter & Schlesinger has first described their approach to change management in the article 'Choosing Strategies for Change' originally published in 1979. The authors presented six methods to equip managers with a systematic approach to manage organisational change. Based on dozens of analyses of successful and unsuccessful organisational changes, Kotter & Schlesinger identified main causes of resistance:
Parochial self-interest. People resist organisational change because they fear they may or will lose something of value due to the change. This is because most people focus on their best interests and not on those of the total organisation. This resistance can cause 'political behaviour.' The authors provided the example of the organisation of which its president decided to form a new staff function due to the continued rapid growth of the firm. New Product Planning and Development was meant to be run by the vice-president. As an effect of the change, divisional vice-president of marketing, engineering, and production lost their decision-making power. The firm's vice-president thought that the change was also going to have a diminishing effect on his status in the whole company. What did eventually happen? Did the president go ahead with the change anyway regardless of the resistance from his vice-presidents?... Unfortunately, the inability to manage such resistance influenced the president to retain the firm's status quo.
Misunderstanding and lack of trust. Put yourself in a position when a firm's CEO or director announced the company's upcoming changes, but he is the one you do not really trust. You believe that his only goal and objective is to make the company successful without considering his subordinates' best interests. Would you be likely to embrace changes or show some resistance? Misunderstanding and lack of trust are other reasons people resist change when they do not understand its implications and perceive that it may cost them more than they will gain. Lack of trust or poor relationship between management and its employees can play a significant role. However, misunderstanding of changes caused by poor communication or insufficient information can be the dominant factor.
In a certain midwestern bank, the bank's director announced his management an introduction of a flexible working schedule for all employees. He intended to make working conditions better and more attractive. However, that was not the perception of his subordinates, who thought that 'flexible working hours' meant that they would have to work whenever their supervisors asked them to. The problem here was clear, and the director did not explain well enough what he meant by flexible working hours. People opposing the new strategy held a meeting with the union for the president to drop the new concept. The president was taken by surprise, and as a matter of fact, did not pursue this project.
Different assessment. Can a different perspective of two or multiple parties be a cause of resistance? According to Kotter & Schlesinger, people'…assess the situation differently from their managers or those initiating the change and see more costs than benefits resulting from the change, not only for themselves but for their company as well.'
The authors justified this argument by telling the story about the midsize bank of which its president decided to reorganise a part of the institution which managed the real estate investment trust (REIT). The trust performance analysis suggested that a bank could make losses up to $10 million, and the losses were increasing every week by 20%. The reorganisation did run into massive resistance from the employees involved. They argued that new changes had cost the organisation three precious staff members who already quit the job and that the department's new program they were working on could easily crumble.
The problem here was that the management was not aware of the new initiative the team was working on, and the fact, the president of the bank, during his announcement about the changes, did not refer to his staff's analysis that suggested the inefficiencies in the REIT department. Nevertheless, the fundamental problem was that both could not agree a new strategy would bring benefits for all.
Low tolerance for change. Every person has a different level of tolerance when it comes to changes. One person may enthusiastically embrace a new project as a whole but will have some resistance level in a particular matter or area of the project. Another individual may, in turn, fear the change as they worry that they will not be able to adapt or learn new skills required of them in order to implement such changes.
One of the most renowned consultants in history, Peter F. Drucker, has said that 'the major obstacle to organisational growth is the manager's inability to change their attitudes and behaviour as rapidly as their organisations require'.
A change can make people feel uneasy, even if they realise it is for better. Imagine you have worked in a certain industry for 20 years, but now have got an offer to do a completely different job for a much higher salary. How would you feel about it?
For a manager, it is imperative to understand your employees before any significant change is made. Although managers are generally aware that efforts to bring changes in the organisation will most likely run into some resistance, few of them take time to analyse who and how might resist. After years of research, John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger invented six practical and tested methods to manage organisational change better.
1) Education and communication. One of the most common and perhaps easier forms of easing the resistance is to educate people effectively about the changes before they happen. The right level of communication can help people understand why the proposed changes will be important. It will reduce or eliminate the amount of assumption made by employees and make them more engaged and involved in the new future'. The communication process can take the form of one-to-one or group discussions, memos, or reports. The chosen method must be appropriate for the organization's type and size and something that managers should consider when 'educating people about changes.'
2) Participation and involvement. Another approach can be to involve potential resisters in the planning and executing of a new strategy. This technique may make people feel as they are one of the change initiators. Let's go back to the midsize bank's director who wanted to reorganise the REIT. Could he involve people from this department to contribute to the new strategy and save the company from losing millions of dollars?
One of the principal drawbacks to the 'participation and involvement' method is that it can be time-consuming and potentially generate poor overall results. However, it is something that managers should think about.
3) Facilitation and support. Do you like to feel supported? Would you like to feel supported by your new manager when you are being moved to a different department, even though you think you should stay where you are? Managers can deal with resistance by showing support. It could be that you will be given time and a great level of attention when learning new skills or simply by showing emotional support and empathy. It seems obvious that you should be supportive or supported, but is it true that you always are? It is typical for many organisations to miss this element, especially for large, result-driven companies.
4) Negotiation and agreement. Another method proposed to deal with resistance is to offer an incentive. For instance, a proposal of higher wages or other material benefits could stop people from opposing the project. A significant drawback could be the threat of potential blackmail to offer more generous incentives or setting up the precedent that every change in the organisation must be rewarded.
5) Manipulation and co-optation. According to the authors, 'in some situations, a manager also resorts to covert attempts to influence others.' Selective use of information and detailed strategy to implement changes can be a way to go about the new reality. One typical form of manipulation is co-optation, which means giving somebody the desired role in implementing changes. Co-opting a group involves giving one of its leaders, or someone it respects, a key role in designing or implementing a change. It is not a form of participation because the change initiators do not actually want to advise them. It is almost like creating an illusion of an engagement for the project to avoid resistance. A potential problem may arise when people will realise they were being manipulated.
6) Explicit and implicit coercion. Sometimes the management has no choice but to deal with the resistance coercively. In this context, they effectively force people to accept changes by explicitly or implicitly threatening them, e.g., with the loss of a job. It is a risky process because people resent forced changes. Managers may lose the respect of their subordinates and contribute to poor organisational culture.
Figure 1. Six Changes Approach method in a nutshell. Source: www.hbr.org
Any thoughts?
This article was originally published in 1979. Many things have changed since then. Technology has dramatically altered the way we live; we are more aware of the importance that equality has in workplaces and the fact that employees' satisfaction is paramount to many businesses these days that realised, it is its workforce that companies would not exist without. So the fundamental question is: Is the 'Six Changes Approach' theory still relevant today? Is it 'trendy' to manipulate people to get them to do what we want? Will the threat of losing the job be the reason why people should not be skeptical about changes?
Regardless of answers to those questions, one thing is clear; organisational changes are inevitable as the business environment constantly evolves into new models of management; government regulations change; technology gives us more and more opportunities to do things differently. The article 'Choosing Strategies for Change' neither was a masterpiece of its century nor had any potential to win the Noble prize, but it was a great eye-opener for many managers that there is an imperative need to analyse potential resisters and what may influence them to act in a certain way. Their research showed that an inadequate change strategy was a major reason why 'organisational changes' fail or are withdrawn.
Further reading
Kotter, J.P. (2007). Harvard Business Review. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail (online). Available at www.hbr.org
Bibliography
Kotter, J.P., Schlesinger, L.A. (2008). Best of HBR. Choosing Strategies for Change (online). Available at www.hbr.org