Organizational Change and Resistance

The assignment provides an in-depth analysis of organizational change and resistance, highlighting the differences between the dialogic process and the problem-centric approach. It also explores the ethical considerations of taking into account views and opinions of all stakeholders to make changes permanent and stable.

Running head: MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note:

1MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Change is one of the most common phenomenon experienced in all organizations across
the globe. Without evolving with time, one organization cannot survive in the face of
competition. However, change is one of the most resisted processes that go on in an organization.
Most of the existing employees that work are against any kind of organizational changes or
changes in process. This has caused a lot of debates and discussions about how can change be
implemented in an organization without the larger part of the employees protesting and resisting
such change (Pieterse, Caniëls & Homan, 2012). Some of the very common reasons why
employees resist change are described in the following sentences. Firstly, in a newly
organized company there might be change of position for the existing employees or the new
authority in the new process may not give equal importance to the existing employees. This may
be one of the reason. Secondly, the employees or any other stakeholders who are related to the
organization may be against change for the reason that the new process is not rewarding enough
(Kaufman, 2017). It takes some efforts to align oneself in the new process or system. However, if
it is not rewarding enough then the employees might be in dilemma to put effort in such process.
Thirdly, in the human psychology there is a phenomenon called the fear of the unknown. Human
beings are apprehensive about new situations about which they do not know (Boohene &
Williams, 2012). Fear of unknown arises out of unsureness about new situations and unknown
circumstances which people generally want to avoid, as new situation gives problem in getting
accustomed. An organizational change denotes a situation where there will be a number of
unknown situations that might be challenging to the individual, therefore the employees resist
change in order to not step out of the comfort zone (Courpasson, Dany & Clegg, 2012). Fourthly,
even if some individual employees might not be fearful about a certain change, peer pressure and
group loyalty may force him or her to do so. Fifthly, the comfort zones of the existing work

2MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
scenario will be gone and unable to adapt in the new situation the employees may face failures.
Therefore, these are some of the reasons for which an employee resists organizational change.
In the view of the managers, resistance to organizational change is a routine process. It is
one of the organizational hurdles that need to be taken care of by every management. The
process of managing change in the organization and dealing with the resistances are known as
the change management process. It is necessary for the stakeholders of the change management
process to initiate a structured change in which there will be definitive mention about the
benefits that the employees will receive if they can cope with the change well. Thomas and
Hardy (2011) states that there are two kinds of approaches of reaction to change; one is the
demonizing approach whereas the other one is the celebratory approach. The managers must
understand the kind of approach a particular employee is displaying to manage the resistance
process.
The key theoretical concepts of resistance considered in this subject are described in
the following paragraphs. Burne’s “Leadership and Change” (2011) is one of the key concepts
developed in this regards “This article addresses the relationship between the ethics underpinning
leadership and change.” The developments in the process of leadership and how it has dealt with
change has been understood by research. The two main concepts that the theory focuses upon are
“individual (egoistic) consequentialism and utilitarian consequentialism”. The researcher has
argued that all approaches towards change are rooted in the values of the individual. The theory
suggests that in order to bring all the stakeholders into agreement and to ensure that there is a
clarity in the mind of all the individuals the agents of changes, especially the management must
be clear about the ethical standards of the change.

3MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Niina Erkama in her research article (2010), has stated that various groups within an
organization reacts to change or endeavors in bringing change in order to meet their own
expectation out of the organizational restructuring. The author has pointed out that although in a
very less number of case the organizational resistance actually contributes to any kind of reversal
in the decision of the change, however the resistance paves way for reconsideration from the side
of the management and hence a collective evolution can be achieved. In their article “Resistance
to change”, Kebapci and Erkal (2009) has stated “it is found that despite the amount of
theoretical concepts and tools, there is still an important deficiency in terms of resistance
management, and managers usually tend to employ preset methods to overcome resistance in
change management.” The concept is well known to the managers of most of the multinational
and big companies, however there is a lack of clearly defined actions that can remove the
obstacles of such resistance. Bushe and Marshak (2009) has rather used the term organizational
development in the place of organizational change because the ultimate aim of the organizational
change is organizational development. This idea of organizational development if replaced with
the term organizational change and the process of change is carried in such a way that it reflects
the idea of development then resistance can be reduced to a considerable extent.
Theoretical ontologies which can be discussed in this regard are “Rationalist (Cartesian)
and Social (Relational) theories”. It has been found that the theories which reflect the natural
reaction to a particular action is known as the rationalist theories. Niina Erkama in her research
article “Power and resistance in a multinational organization: Discursive struggles over
organizational restructuring” (2010) has clearly and rationally stated the phenomenon of
resistance to change.

4MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
However, the two key theoretical ontologies in this regards are social constructionism
and scientific objectivism. Social constructionism is the process of developing a shared belief
about a particular subject, which happens due to a shared idea of culture and shared workplace or
environment (Kukla, 2013). Therefore, the resistance that grows in the organization because of
any kind of change may give rise to the employees in believing jointly that it is not good for their
career development therefore they jointly resist any such change because of the shared idea about
the effects that may be posed by the organizational change to their career objectives.
On the other hand, scientific objectivism is the process of being extremely objective and
to the point about empirical evidences about the theories or philosophies that are proposed.
Without evidence or clear results any theory or idea is not substantiated (Reiss & Sprenger,
2014). In the organizational context the scientific objectivity leads the employees to ask for
enough empirical evidences before they any kind of changes in their work environment.
The relationship between power and resistance, and the ethical issues that these
raise in relation to the managerial and resistant positions are variedly understood and described
in various researches and theories devised by experts in the field. Dolan and Bao in the article
“Embedding Storytelling and Ethics in the Culture Change Management Process” has given the
importance of the employees to be engaged in the “story telling process” of a company and how
the narrative plays an important role in evaluating and ascertaining the roles of the employees in
an organizational context. On the other hand, Niina Erkama in her research article “Power and
resistance in a multinational organization: Discursive struggles over organizational restructuring”
(2010), has endeavored in explaining the struggles among the different interest groups in
ascertaining their own position in the organizational context. The relationship between power
and resistance depends on the entities among whom the struggle is characterized. In various

5MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
cases throughout the globe, it is seen that power resistance struggles have become violent and
caused the authorities to take firm decisions like calling the police for help. Especially during the
course of labor union struggles and communist uprising, the clashes of the authorities with the
workers were a common phenomenon. On the other hand, in present systemized system of
corporate governance the phenomenon of resisting change has been taken as a part of the
management process and in many cases such debates against any changes are encouraged from
the side of the audience to ensure that new ideas are exchanged. The corporate governance
system depends heavily on the process of innovative ideas exchanges, and any change is bound
to have some flaws, therefore debates against such changes give rise to new ideas and the
management is made aware about problems and holes in its strategized change.
The question of ethical issue though looms largely around any resistance that takes place
in an organization and how such resistance is handled. It is ethically incorrect for the staffs to be
adamantly against change, which comes from the higher authority as the management is
rightfully at a place to decide changes that they might feel is necessary to take the organization at
a better place. On the other hand, on the part of the management it is unethical for them to
suddenly bring a change that might alter the working quality of the employees without consulting
with them. Therefore, it is necessary for the management to come to a dialogue with the
stakeholders before the final changes are rolled out.
The implications of power and resistance for the role of the change agent in ethically
managing change; in both the dialogical and problem-centric approaches to change,
management has been understood in various researches conducted for the purpose. Bushe,
Gervase and Marshak in their research paper "The dialogic mindset in organization
development" (2014) has termed change as “episodic, linear and goal oriented”. Therefore,

6MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
changes have a goal to fulfill. Without the objectives fulfilled, the change in the management
process is fruitless and must not be encouraged. The dialogical approach to change management
results in a process where dialogues between stakeholders are given importance to solve
problems and bring in the required change. The change is seen as non-linear and flexible. In this
approach to change management, socially constructed relationships are recognized. It is believed
that creating a change requires a change in the dialogue process that has structured the
organization. The tendency of the groups and organizations are to organize themselves. The
process of debate, discussion and engagement is given importance before the final change is
brought about.
The problem centric model on the other hand views change as a systematic and rational
process. The rational outcomes are given more importance than social and emotional outcomes.
The organizational environment is analyzed and a process is created systematically to enhance
and bring change in the organizational structure.
Because the two processes of the organizational change are radically different, the
outcomes and implications on the change agent are also different in both the cases. In the case of
resistance in the dialogic process, many of the resisting agents are pacified in the dialogue
process itself. Therefore, the changes can be brought comparatively in an easier way. However in
the case of problem centric approach the changes can be brought faster and the process is more
rational which gives better results. Radical change is sudden but it is systematic, whereas in the
dialogic process, while giving importance to opinions of various sections of the organization the
rational value of the change process become lower and it takes time to actually apply the change.

7MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Organizational change is a basic necessity which keeps the organization running in the
face of competition from other companies in the same field, however it is ethical to take into
consideration views and opinions of all stakeholders to make the changes permanent and stable.

8MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
References and Bibliography:
Boohene, R., & Williams, A. A. (2012). Resistance to organisational change: A case study of Oti
Yeboah Complex Limited. International Business and Management, 4(1), 135-145.
Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical
clarity. Journal of business ethics, 108(2), 239-252.
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2014). The dialogic mindset in organization development.
In Research in organizational change and development (pp. 55-97). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2012). Resisters at work: Generating productive
resistance in the workplace. Organization Science, 23(3), 801-819.
Dawson, P., & McLean, P. (2013). Miners’ tales: Stories and the storying process for
understanding the collective sensemaking of employees during contested change. Group
& Organization Management, 38(2), 198-229.
Dolan, S. L., & Bao, Y. (2012). Sharing the Culture: Embedding Storytelling and Ethics in the
Culture Change Management Process. Journal of Management & Change, 29(1).
Erkal, H., & Kebapci, S. (2009). Resistance to Change: A Constructive Approach for Managing
Resistant Behaviors.
Erkama. N, (2010). Power and resistance in a multinational organisation: Discursive struggles
over organisational structuring. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 26pp. 151-165.

9MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Fyke, J. P., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). The ethics of conscious capitalism: Wicked problems in
leading change and changing leaders. Human Relations, 66(12), 1619-1643.
Kaufman, H. (2017). The limits of organizational change. Routledge.
Kukla, A. (2013). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge.
Marshak, R. J., & Bushe, G. R. (2013). An introduction to advances in dialogic organization
development. OD practitioner, 45(1), 1-4.
Pieterse, J. H., Caniëls, M. C., & Homan, T. (2012). Professional discourses and resistance to
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(6), 798-818.
Reiss, J., & Sprenger, J. (2014). Scientific objectivity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Thomas. R, & Hardy. C, (2011). Reframing resistance to organisational change. Scandinavian
Journal of Management. 27pp. 322-331.