Question:

Answer:

Reasons of change resistance

Following are the detailed discussion of common reasons for resistance of change in an organization: –

1. Threat of power on company: when there is implementation of change process, there are specific groups or sectors of the company that get more power then other sector. Thus, some employees oppose to this kind of proposal or procedure where they can lose power on company level (Burke, 2017).
2. There is threat of comfort: the change on company level in certain cases results in some level of discomfort and make the life of the workforce more challenging. They make a shift from the comfort of having a status quo towards level of discomfort because of new change.

Ways managers commonly view resistance

1. Threat of power on a single phase: there are chances that the manager may resist change that can diminish the power and move it towards the subordinates. Thus, the threat of power is one the reasons for resistance.
2. Loss of control by workforce: the process of change usually can decrease the amount of control that managers can perform. This way, manager can resist the changes especially when change process will need reduction of the control power (Fullan, 2014).

The classic example can be taken here from recent case of Uber expansion in various part of the world. conventionally taxis have been in a battle for the place in city transportation industry via strikes which left so many passengers stranded. However, the industry and many small taxi drivers resisted lately because of the rise of Uber and same kind of services but it is a futile effort to put any restriction on innovations.

Key theoretical concepts of resistance and the method in which they are linked with theoretical ontologies

The theory aspect of change in company has a little extra characteristic that are part of the many metalanguage. Firstly, many experts based literature is based on management perspective that is mainly interested in the effective methods of bringing change in company one functions. Secondly, there two methods of addressing the challenge of change in company where one is based on an explanation for the means of executing a change which is pre-planned and other one describes the process that evaluates change in the place of providing norms for executing it (Jadhav, Mantha & Rane, 2014).

One of the main models is introduced by Harold J. Leavitt. According to him, companies are multivariate system with four crucial elements covering goals, technology, player and structure.

The structure based on four crucial factors like authority, communication, responsibility and relation based work. The player was shown by the workforce of the company, technology is related to all the techniques and instruments used as an attempt to reach the company goal. All these elements show the mark toward change to establish, therefore there are four kinds of changes.

The second model is of Kurt Lewin where as per him, change happened when all the forces supported the system’s consistent attitude were transformed. Specifically, the situation of the system in the current time is as per the communication that exist between two group of forces where one tends to manage the status quo and the tend to change it (Sverke, Falkenberg, Hellgren, Lu, Pienaar, & Fraccaroli, 2017). When two groups of forces are equal in approximate manner and it is often said that the system is in a phase of quasi-stationary phase of equilibrium. To change this state, it is important to strengthen one set of forces or other. As per him, the procedure of change occurs in three phases discussed below:

1. Unfreezing: the step is based on reducing the force that manage the behaviour of the system now. It can be accomplished by the introduction in the system based on data that will show the existence of specific discrepancies between the desired attitude by the workforce and the real-time behaviour (Oreg, 2017).
2. Change proper: the system is about changing the behaviour of the organization and about accomplishing other level of plan. This is based on the growth of new approach or behaviour, attitudes and values via changing the structure and procedure.
3. Refreezing: the step is based on bringing stability in the new phase of company is in, to further reinforce the new elements and it can also be achieved through culture, norms, structure and policies (Oreg, 2017).

The theoretical ontology serves as a basic building block for the business based procedure transformation approach for management. Following are the concepts: –

Provenance specs: this is related with three sub-headings which are AgentName concept that covers the name of the individual or agent who brought the change. Then there is cause concept which is based on the requirement or reasons behind the change and lastly description concept which record data associated with change.

Timestamp: the concept covers the time and date based data when the change has made in the business process (Oreg, 2017).

BPMN construct change: the concept covers the data about which BPMN construct has transformed. The change mainly based on series, task etc. It notes down all the data related to specific BPMN like declaration based change, process initialization, task based change, sequence flow change and many more (García‐Cabrera & García‐Barba Hernández, 2014).

Relationship between power and resistance

In consideration of the association between control, power and resistance, many studies have proved that resistance or retaliation can be useful. The study further suggests that mistreatment on interpersonal level further promotes retaliation along with resistance replace the other targets. For instance, the study of injustice as well as retaliation, Folger and Skarlicki explored in their study that conditions of many level unfairness were related with high amount of organizational retaliatory attitude. It is important to note here that such approach is featured by both replaced method or direct method of retaliation like disobedience of supervisor or spreading rumours about the colleagues (Pullen & Rhodes, 2014). It is important to be part of resistance of attitude to retaliate against the abusive manager and they must be part of displaced resist approach.

There are number of studies in corporate culture management and other type of normative control where the workforce resistance is usually not come under the grandiose as well as blatant conduct that sometimes can be pictured when basing it on industrial fight. This way, the concept of resistance is more subjective like cynicism or satire. The overall efficacy of such kind of resistance can be calculated in context with the words of psychic impact and subjective amount of recalcitrance (Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2016).

Resistance, power and control: as a kind of discursive control that try to subjectively change the identities of the workforce, it mainly fails among the employees. A crucial empirical kind of finding says that there are many supplements from other studies of domination is the feature of this resistance. The workforce further perceives the culture as well as supervision who further had propagate it as condescending. This is primarily because their treatment like children decreases the overall sense of self-respect and dignity. Thus, they also refuse to completely internalize the role which cynically disparage the surrounding (Silva, Hsu, Backhouse, & McDonnell, 2016).

For example, when Uber started expending there was a lot resistance from many parts of the world. The primary reason for it was that old taxi companies were the prisoners of traditional system. With the advent of new technologies, rise in expense and congestion in transportation and new expectation from consumer have resulted fast changes in world. there is obviously loss of power and rise in resistance because of that. The taxi industry in general prefer some stability and it came as a shock for them. The resistance is in form of complaint from conventional taxi drivers who are calling the company illegal for its activities and looking for a chance to pinpoint any kind of complaint against them (Silva et al, 2016).

The ethical issues that raise in relation to the managerial and resistant positions

Abusive supervision is however being a low based element, it can be noted as impacting the attitude of workforce. The research also shows that abusive supervision is associated with low level of commitment, satisfaction and perception of justice along with high turnover or conflict in role as well as distress in psychological perspective. Things like interpersonal mistreatment is a central element of abusive supervision and the study also shows that workforce perceives supervisor as a dominating source of mistreatment. Supervisors also reported to be most crucial part of bullying at work place.

All kind of research further suggests that abusive approach in supervision is associated to retaliation. The study suggests that victims of abusive managers directly impact the bosses in private as well as open challenge to them. Another study suggests that high percentage of respondents shows resistance which is against a supervisor.

Implication of power and resistance for the role of the change agent

There are so many people at managerial posts that are facing so many issues however they are considered as most challenging one to have a smooth as well as effective change management. As per the studies, there is a pattern which is successful for the change management and the study also suggest that change is crucial, constant and inevitable. It does not have to disorganized though and must be controlled. Conventionally, managers have also operated under control driven model instead of participative model. Managers are very tough as well as faced no nonsense and focused on imperatives. There are orders and authority that must be valued. Employees usually assume and are treated as they are less educated and uncooperative (Barnett & Duvall, 2014).

The prime realities in current work environment usually contradict the conventional management opinions as well as assumptions. The authority of managers can further be undermined as employee mainly ask for participation of the process of decision making in company (Scarbrough & Corbett, 2013). Moreover, a new employee behaviour, the manager in present time experiences the impact of shock as well as turmoil of so many changes in the legal, economic and social environment along with number of acquisitions, mergers and other kind of capital based restructuring. Such powerful forces of transformation have decreases the power and security of manager and further upset the usual ways of performance (Barnett & Duvall, 2014).

Change obviously is the continuous issue of management. For some managers, dealing with the change can be a torture and the results are frustration, bitterness for the company. This can explain why transformation usually has a decreasing impact on morals of management as they are swept along by diverse events over which people have less control. It is of no surprise that some executives continuously as well as energetically resist change as well as embrace status quo. The negative approach of some executive towards the change may come from many potent characteristics (Davies, 2017). Two main sources of resistance are the perceived frustration in gaining clarity and getting along the new kinds of employees and the approach for pervasive and new technological transformation in the work environment that influence techniques, work based methods and products (Bosworth, 2017).

The biggest impact of resistance of change can be explained through Nokia example. The Finnish culture of Nokia company could not encourage uncertainty. The downfall happened with change in the structure of company, miscommunication and no assurance on job security, many workforces felt the challenge and protested. Employees were uncomfortable with the selection of CEO who was non-Finnish. Cultural difference further made it challenging for everyone to become part of adjustment (Davies, 2017). With many new joining at managerial position, many projects had to go on hold or completely shelved. This kind of change was not appreciated and widely criticized by the workforce.

Reference

Barnett, M. N., & Duvall, R. (2014). Power in global governance (pp. 1-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bosworth, M. (2017). Engendering resistance: Agency and power in women’s prisons. Routledge.

Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Davies, L. (2017). Social work in a corporate era: Practices of power and resistance. Routledge.

Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. (2016). Subsidiary initiative taking in multinational corporations: the relationship between power and issue selling. Organization Studies, 37(9), 1249-1270.

Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. John Wiley & Sons.
R. Jadhav, J., S. Mantha, S., & B. Rane, S. (2014). Exploring barriers in lean implementation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(2), 122-148.

García‐Cabrera, A. M., & García‐Barba Hernández, F. (2014). Differentiating the Three Components of Resistance to Change: The Moderating Effect of Organization‐Based Self‐Esteem on the Employee Involvement‐Resistance Relation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(4), 441-469.

Oreg, S. (2017). Resistance to Change and Performance: Toward a More Even-Handed View of Dispositional Resistance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 0021886317741867.

Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2014). Corporeal ethics and the politics of resistance in organizations. Organization, 21(6), 782-796.

Scarbrough, H., & Corbett, J. M. (2013). Technology and Organization (RLE: Organizations): Power, Meaning and Deisgn. Routledge.

Silva, L., Hsu, C., Backhouse, J., & McDonnell, A. (2016). Resistance and power in a security certification scheme: The case of c: cure. Decision Support Systems, 92, 68-78.

Sverke, M., Falkenberg, H., Hellgren, J., Lu, C. Q., Pienaar, J., & Fraccaroli, F. (2017). How Do We React When Our Organization Changes? Perspectives on Employees’ Appraisal of Change, Consequences and Mitigating Factors. An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: An International Perspective, 233-257.