Organizational Behavior: Resistance to Open Plan Office and Communication Barriers in a Law Firm

This article discusses the reasons why employees resist the transition to an open plan office approach and the barriers to communication in a law firm. It also provides suggestions on how the partners and employees can overcome these challenges.

Organizational behavior
Name
Institution
Professor
Course
Date

1. a. Reasons why the employees resist the change to an open plan office approach
Employees resist the transition to an open plan office approach as they have a lot of
distractions from colleagues (Oldham and Brass, 2017 p.267). Open plan offices sometimes are
very noisy due to ringing phones, phone conversations with clients and discussions from
colleagues which create a non-conducive environment making concentration difficult. As
lawyers need a quiet atmosphere to work, open plan office approach may not provide that
environment as one is distracted by other employees leaving them unfocused hence increasing
their chances to make mistakes (Smollan, 2015 p.301).
In an open plan office approach, there is a lack of privacy. Lawyers require a certain
measure of privacy such as meetings and calls with clients to discuss confidential matters. I open
plan office it is difficult to achieve intimacy as computer screens can be overseen and
conversations overheard by other staff members. Employees also resist the change as they
believe that their personal preferences may not be achieved in an open plan office (Lam and
Choi, 2009 p.1452). Everyone has own choice of heating, air conditioning and lightning and in
an open plan office, it would be difficult to satisfy everyone at the same time. The workers also
resist the change as they believe it increases supervision form their seniors as they will be in
constant contact, although guidance raises their productivity it diminishes their freedom.
Another reason to resist the change is that senior employees may feel like they are losing
their status as they do not have their own offices and work with the junior employees. There is
reduced security in an open plan office as each employee does not have a lockable door and this
can lead to issues and risks of confidential information landing to unauthorized hands or theft
cases (Farley and Newsham, 2017 p.177). In an open plan office, there is a high risk of spread of

illness as employees share the same stationery, phones, and keyboards. During seasons s of flu,
colds or coughs all employees will catch it.
b. How the partners might have minimized the resistance
The partners should have effectively engaged the employees to reduce resistance. They
should have been willing to receive and respond to the employees’ views. The employees are the
ones who make clients happy and get work done hence engaging them is very vital. They could
have used the feedback from the employees to change the plan accordingly.
They should have communicated the change effectively and early before they shift to the
new open-plan office (Van Dijk and Van Dick, 2009 p.143). Through informal and formal
communication the partners should have encouraged the workers to take the change positively.
They should have told them the many advantages associated with the open plan office than in the
closed plan office. They should have said to them that in the open plan office they would be able
to have interaction and communication, increased flexibility and it is cost effective which may
boost their productivity leading to an increase in salaries.
The partners should have focused on overcoming opposition. They should have engaged
those who oppose the open plan office layout and actively get to know their concerns and
alleviate the problems. The partners should have been straightforward, truthful, and
communicate in timely about the change. They should have conveyed the need for the change
and explain to the employees the advantages they will enjoy exceed the disadvantages (Kirkman
and Shapiro, 2010 p.74). The partners should also have arranged the office according to status to
ensure the senior employees do not feel like they are losing their status. The partners should have

also set a place for phone calls, discussions to ensure confidentiality and privacy and reduce
distractions which make many employees resist the change.
2 a. The barriers to communication
In the law firm there exists noise as a barrier to communication. In the open plan office
layout, the environment is noisy which distracts the staff members communicative thought. In a
noisy environment the receiver may not receive the message as the sender intended. In return, the
receiver does not provide appropriate feedback if they did receive the message appropriately and
did not understand it clearly (Lunenburg, 2010 p.5). Noise as a communication barrier distorts
messages in the law firm making the staff members, clients and partners to waste time and
money as it causes confusion and misunderstanding.
The language barrier is also present in the law firm. The lawyers may use specific
terminologies and jargons which clients may not understand. In written messages to clients, they
may use abbreviations and languages which the clients may not be familiar with hence fail to
understand. Lack of communication skills is also another barrier. The lawyers and the other
employees meet some clients who are unable to use the right words hence send the wrong
impressions. Some clients cannot say their words authentically and adequately, and in the
presence of noise, the lawyers and the paralegal staff may not understand the message.
Lack of sufficient knowledge is also another barrier. Some clients do not have enough
knowledge of the subject and if the lawyers cannot explain to them in simple ways can cause
misinformation hence losing potential clients (Welch and Welch, 2016 p.421). Another
communication barrier present is information overload whereby the clients or the lawyers may
convey too much information which the receiver may not grasp thus bring difficulty in

interpreting it. Use of the wrong mode of communication is also another barrier. Sending some
messages verbally may be forgotten hence it needs written message.
A long communication channel is another barrier. In the law firm, some messages may
pass through the receptionist to the paralegal staff before it reaches the lawyer. The lawyer may
end up receiving distorted, altered and distilled information hence may not provide the
appropriate feedback. Lack of feedback is another barrier where some clients do not provide
feedback. Impolite language is also present. Some clients use abusive, rude and slang language.
Differences in the viewpoint and perceptions between the clients and the lawyers are other
barriers. Stereotyping, prejudices, and expectations affect the way the receiver understands the
message. Physical disabilities such as speech difficulties and hearing problems are another
barrier. Attitudinal barriers resulting from resistance to change, personality conflicts and lack of
motivation prevent employees from communicating effectively.
b. How they could overcome the communication barriers
Active listening can help the stakeholders overcome noise and the other communication
barriers. Active listening calls for full concentration and attention hence they can overcome the
noise challenge. Active listening also makes the sender communicate more openly, efficiently
and honestly, therefore, communicate effectively (Cable and Aldrich, 2012 p. 83). Use of simple
language will overcome the communication barriers. When the lawyers are speaking to the
clients, they should avoid jargons and professional terminologies for the clients to understand
their message. In the presence of noise, the lawyers and paralegal staff should pause occasionally
to allow the clients to ask questions and clarifications to overcome misunderstandings.

Lawyers and the paralegal staff should be clear on the message they want t to convey. They
should be able to arrange their thoughts and communicate accordingly to the clients to avoid
misleading information. The staff should understand the needs of their clients and be sensitive
towards them. They should understand their clients’ nature, religion, and culture and show
respect to them as they express their views. The staff should also structure their messages
depending on the clients’ ability and level of understanding. When addressing clients their
language should have professional maturity and sophistication.
The staff should keep their emotions in control if they do not agree with the clients’
point of view and reflect positivity by expressing their opinions politely. The partners should
ensure the communication chain is short by providing senders for communicating directly to the
concerned person to overcome distortions. If possible the workers should reduce noise to avoid
disturbance when communicating (Bates, and Kaushal, 2014 p.184). Avoid information overload
by only delivering useful, informative and message with value to clients. The staff should
maintain consistency in their information and clear doubts to clients. The paralegal staff should
also seek advice from the lawyers to gain more experience, knowledge, and ideas to deal and
communicate with clients. The team should eliminate perceptual differences when
communicating. The staff should use proper media of communication such as conveying
complex messages through writing but simple ones verbally.
3 a. Sources of power the partners and others have and the impact on other employees
Owen Cheethan, Jack Wynne, Mark Cheetham, and Cathy Wynne have legitimate power
which comes from the position they hold in the law firm. They have the authority to assign duties
to their employees. The lawyers have expert power which they derive from their expertise and
knowledge in law. They have high problem-solving skills and are deemed indispensable by the

paralegal staff and other employees as they can perform critical tasks (Ibarra and Andrews, 2013
p.277). The other employees hold regarding their decisions, ideas, and opinions as they greatly
influence their actions. The expert power gives a stepping stone to the lawyers as they can be
promoted hence giving them legitimate power.
Mark Cheetham and Cathy Wynne have referent power which they derive from the
interpersonal relationships they have with the owners of the law firm who are their parents
(Smollan and Sayers, 2009 p.435). The employees respect them as their parents hence they can
generate their powers over the employees. Mark Cheetham and Cathy Wynne also have coercive
power which they derive from their ability to influence the employees through sanctions, threats,
and punishments. The power affects the staff to work effectively to avoid disciplinary action
from the partners. The partners’ use of the coercive power to control the employee’s behavior by
ensuring they adhere to the norms and policies of the organization (Fiske, 2018 p.101). The
paralegal staff and the employees have reward power which they derive from their ability to
influence incentives allocation in the law firm. The incentives they can influence are positive
appraisals, salary increments and promotions hence they influence the other employee's actions.
Reward power motivates employees, but it can diminish their output or demoralize them if
applied with favors.
The powers give the partners the opportunity to tell the employees their responsibilities
hence they can be responsible for their duties. The partners can also set standards of excellence,
recognize employees’ achievements, provide training, pass information and knowledge to
employees and treat them with respect hence improving employees’ productivity.
b. The influence tactics the partners and employees used and its effectiveness

Influence tactics are the strategies the partners and employees can use to achieve specific
outcomes in the law firm. The partners used rational persuasion by using logical arguments, facts
and data to convince the employees to accept the changes in the open plan office. They presented
the employees with timely, relevant and specific factual information to deal with resistance to
change (Clarke and Ward, 2016 p.1175). The paralegal staff used inspirational appeals to gain
support from other employees to request salary increments. They used enthusiastic, personal and
authentic inspirational appeals to achieve the two percent salary increment.
The partners used consultations to influence the employees to accept the changes in the
law firm. The partners also used pressure tactics by influencing employees to work effectively
through threats, punishments, and intimidation to convince them to comply with the firm's
policies. Another tactic the partners used is assertiveness by repeatedly making requests to the
employees, expressing anger towards those who miss expectations and setting project completion
timelines. The lawyers used legitimating tactics to the paralegal staff to influence them to
comply with their work as their junior workers (Safko, 2010 p.147). The partners used coalitions
by using the lawyers to influence the paralegal staff to perform their duties effectively to increase
productivity. The partners used exchange tactics by promising the employees to raise their
salaries if they do not make mistakes and maintain confidentiality hence its effective as it boosts
employee performance.
The lawyers used personal appeals to influence the paralegal staff. They helped the ones
they like and the ones they had established interpersonal relationships with hence increasing their
work experience. The partners use ingratiation to make their employees feel good about their
professional status. The tactics were honest, well-intended and infrequency is hence increasing

organization effectiveness as it boosts employee performance. Responses to the influence tactics
include commitment and compliance with the organizational objectives.

References
Bates, D.W. and Kaushal, R., 2014. Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing
computerized physician order entry systems in US business. business Affairs, 23(4), pp.184-190.
Cable, D.M. and Aldrich, H.E., 2012. Smaller but not necessarily weaker: How small businesses
can overcome barriers to recruitment. In Managing People in Entrepreneurial Organiztions pp.
83-106.
Clarke, S. and Ward, K., 2016. The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in
engaging employees' safety participation. Risk Analysis, 26(5), pp.1175-1185.
Farley, K.M. and Newsham, G.R., 2017. A model of satisfaction with open-plan office
conditions: COPE field findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), pp.177-189.
Fiske, S.T., 2018. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. In Social
Cognition pp. 101-115.
Ibarra, H. and Andrews, S.B., 2013. Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of
network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative science quarterly,
pp.277-303.
Kirkman, and Shapiro, D.L., 2010. Why do employees resist teams? Examining the “resistance
barrier” to work team effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1),
pp.74-92.
Lam, K.P., D. and Choi, J., 2009. Occupancy detection through an extensive environmental
sensor network in an open-plan office building. IBPSA Building Simulation, 145, pp.1452-1459.

Lunenburg, F.C., 2010. Communication: The process, barriers, and improving
effectiveness. Schooling, 1(1), pp.1-11.
Oldham, G.R. and Brass, D.J., 2017. Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally
occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.267-284.
Safko, L., 2010. The social media bible: tactics, tools, and strategies for business success.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), pp.147-156.
Smollan, R.K. and Sayers, J.G., 2009. Organizational culture, change and emotions: A
qualitative study. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), pp.435-457.
Smollan, R.K., 2013. Trust in change managers: the role of affect. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 26(4), pp.725-747.
Smollan, R.K., 2015. Causes of stress before, during and after organizational change: a
qualitative study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), pp.301-314.
Van Dijk, R. and Van Dick, R., 2009. Navigating organizational change: Change leaders,
employee resistance and work-based identities. Journal of change Management, 9(2), pp.143-
163.
Welch, D. and Welch, L., 2016. In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and
communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8(4), pp.421-440.