MAN232 Essay: Comparing Views on Managing Organisational Change

This essay delves into the complexities of managing organisational change, focusing on the challenges of resistance. It begins by introducing the concept of resistance and its various forms, highlighting the fear and uncertainty it creates within organisations. The essay then explores Ford and Ford's perspectives on resistance, breaking it down into three key avenues: the mechanistic, social, and conversational views. The mechanistic view perceives resistance as natural, neutral, and a product of interaction, while the social view considers it exceptional, detrimental, and often originating from individuals. The conversational view emphasizes the role of language and communication in shaping resistance. The essay then compares and contrasts these three views, highlighting their agreements and disagreements. Finally, it discusses practical strategies that managers can employ to positively and actively manage resistance to change, including overcoming opposition, engaging staff, implementing change in stages, and communicating change effectively. The essay concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding and addressing resistance to ensure successful organisational change.

Running head: MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 1
MANAGING ORGANISATION CHANGE
Name
Institution

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 2
MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE
Introduction
Managing resistance to change presents several challenges. Resistance to change can
either be overt or covert, organized, or even individual. There are many reasons why resistance
takes place in an organization, specifically because it creates fear and anxiety among employees.
The current situation has got tremendous holding power along with uncertainties related to either
fear or success of the unknown which are capable of blocking change and creating resistance. By
themselves, such physical and emotional reactions possess enough power to create resistance to
change. Resistance to change may be associated with the refusal of accepting or complying with
certain things or the attempt of preventing certain things either through action or through an
argument. The term resistance describes the psychological and physiological response to a
change that manifests under certain behaviors. However, Ford and Ford revisit the current
knowledge of resistance, offering a suggestion that it is possible to invent new avenues of
investigating resistance. As such, Ford breaks the current understanding of resistance into the
three key avenues that include the social view, mechanistic view, as well as the conversational
view. The essay compares and contrasts the three key avenues as suggested by Ford.
Additionally, it discusses how managers positively and actively manage resistance to change.
Contrast
Mechanistic View
The mechanistic view is explained using there attributes. This view considers resistance
as inherent neutral, natural, and an outcome of the interaction. According to the mechanistic

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 3
view that change resistance is natural, this means resistance cannot be avoided where motion and
movement are present. Resistance proves that something is in motion. In organizations,
resistance comes in a natural way through the behaviors of the employees (Michel, Todnem &
Burnes, 2013). The behaviors can be seen to slow or delay the proceedings of the organization.
Such behaviors may include late meetings, failing to perform some duties, declining requests,
damaging organizational equipment, and failure to follow directions. Such behaviors may
decrease the productivity of the organization hence leading to resistance.
The second attribute of mechanistic is that resistance is neutral. This means that
resistance is neither bad nor good, detrimental nor beneficial, positive nor negative (Hargrave &
Van, 2017). Resistance only occurs when two or more objects come into contact or interact with
each other (Matos & Esposito, 2014). Example, resistance in the organization may occur only
when there are conflicting issues between two parties or more. On the other hand, according to
the neural attribute of the mechanistic view, resistance to change is not a bad thing rather it may
encourage change agents in the organization (Kunze, Boehm & Bruch, 2013). The third attribute
is resistances as a product of interaction. Resistance to change happens when two or more people
interact. Resistance to organizational change occurs due to the interaction between agents of
change, proposals, change recipients, behaviors, responses, directives, and actions.
The social view of resistance
The social view of resistance is based on a psychological and subjective view of
individuals and groups in which resistance is a personal tendency. The first component that
explains the social view of changes is that resistance is exceptional. Resistance is not an every
happening but people innovate new forms of resistance to change initiatives that they are not

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 4
comfortable with. When individuals find that their communications are not recognized, valued,
heard, they may escalate the way they behave by altering the content, form, and timing of their
purpose (Carlström & Ekman, 2012). This type of response may be showed specifically where
change agents use strategies for reducing resistance.
The social view sees resistance as detrimental. The detrimental view assumes that all
changes are beneficial and should be implemented as strategized. According to this attribute, the
change agent is presumed to create greater alignment between a company and its surrounding
that will enhance some aspects of performance. Moreover, resistance may be taken as
detrimental by virtue of being irrational (Canning & Found, 2015). The third attribute of social
view to resistance to change is that resistance is ‘over there, in it/them’. As per this attribute,
resistance to change emanates from the relationship among employees, mental problems,
personal situations, irrational thinking, personality disorders, and poor communication. This
attribute ignores the interactive nature of a causal agent of resistance to change as described by
the mechanistic view.
Conversational view
Conversation and change explain how resistance to change occurs through the company’s
participants. In an organization, the employees may not use the same language and the same
words in all scenarios. The translations are neither evident nor straight forward. Change
recipients and agents should work to construct understanding and communication, handling
problems of retranslation and translation that result from the difference in meanings due to
different language games and communities (Fugate, Prussia & Kinicki, 2012). This is the main
resistance to change according to the attribute of conversation and change. On the other hand,

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 5
construction of a distinction states that resistance is not factual, the descriptive form of a report
that talks about reality, rather it is a distinction of language that develops the probability of the
observer looking at a phenomenon in the world they call resistance (Hon, Bloom & Crant, 2014).
Moreover, according to this view, resistance comes through declaration and assertions.
Resistance cannot occur in organizations if it is not declared and asserted.
Comparison
Both the social, mechanistic, and conversation view agree that changing the manner in
which an organization operates is painful and most are the times when the process appears
frustrating. Nonetheless, the three avenues acknowledge that before an organization achieves
success by changing the way it operates, there are several failures and challenges that should be
overcome. Many are the times an organization implements change without effectively
communicating the change to the employees (Pollack, 2015. Both social, behavioral, and
mechanistic views also agree that lack of communication is one factor that results in resistance to
change. In instances where managers seek to make widespread changes, it is essential to ensure
that there is effective communication regarding why the changes are necessary and how the
change is to be implemented.
In addition, both mechanistic and social view is of the opinion that resistance results from
the interaction between two or more people (Georgalis, et al., 2015). The two views of resistance
suggest that resistance is a phenomenon that is found in people as well as in groups irrespective
of the behaviors of the change agents along with communications. The two limit the
opportunities of facilitating communication that includes contributions from the resistant
responses. However, by remembering that resistance is a phenomenon that is interactive, it is

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 6
helpful to the change agents to adjust their plans, forums, as well as messages to ensure that they
enhance the quality of interaction including gaining intelligence in ensuring that there is an
effective change.
Also, Ford’s three key avenues agree that when dealing with resistance, to avoid a
resistance dialogue, it requires that one of the parties changes the meaning that is assigned to a
certain action including the communication of the other (Msweli-Mbanga & Potwana, 2016).
The criteria which incorporate effective change is associated with the point of view taken and not
a formula or a standard that is agreed upon (Pieterse, Caniëls & Homan, 2012). The change
agents are responsible for declaring resistance in an organizational change by evaluating their
expectations along with the interpretations of the responses obtained from change recipients. In
general, all three views agree that resistance results from relationships, whereby it takes place
due to an encounter between groups, subjects, individuals, or even objects. In simple terms,
resistance occurs when the change agent and the change recipients interact.
Ways Managers can positively and Actively Manage Resistance to Change
The reasons behind resistance to change include fear for job loss, lack of trust, poor
communication as well as engagement, fearing the unknown along with poor timing. There are
several strategies that managers can adopt to positively and actively manage change.
Overcome opposition: Irrespective of how well an organization manages change, there
will always be resistance. Hence, it is important that organizations engage individuals that are
opposed to change. By so doing, managers are able to see what the resistors’ concerns are
including possibly alleviating the issue in a timely manner (Hornstein, 2015). Nonetheless, if the
staff is given the opportunity to provide their input, it makes sure that they are assured of being

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 7
part of a team that is concerned about the employees’ wellbeing. When trying to convey
information to the staff, it is important to communicate early. Nonetheless, it is important to
make sure that there is a constant conversation between the C-Suite and the staff on what is
taking place on a daily basis and what is expected in the future.
Engaging the Staff: The other piece of advice that managers are required to take if they
are actively and positively manage resistance to change is receiving and responding to feedback
that the employees provide. It is vital to keep the staff in the loop because they are the ones
responsible for keeping the customers happy and they also make sure that everything gets done
in the organization (Deneen & Boud, 2014). Thus, managers are supposed to understand that
employees are different in their own ways, and this is a tactic manager can employ to understand
their concerns.
Implementing change in stages: It is important that managers recognize that change does
not happen at once. First, organizations, as well as managers, should prepare for change. Later,
they should take action to implement the change, including developing plans on how the change
will be managed (Manning, 2012). Last, they are entitled to support the change and make sure
that everything is taking place as planned.
Communicate change effectively: Managers can communicate change by explicitly
telling the employees what is taking place. By blending both formal and informal means
communication, it allows managers to make sure that every staff receives the news relating to
change in one way or another. Making use of all commination outlets such as town halls, emails,
face-to-face meetings as well as the company intranet will ensure that the message is received by
every employee (Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013). Using several and different means of

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 8
communication to communicate change is helpful in explaining the vision, goals, as well as the
expectations regarding what is to happen and the reasons why it is to happen.
Conclusion
There have several views that been discussed to explain the concept of resistance to
change in organizations. The mechanistic view considers resistance as inherent neutral, natural,
and an outcome of the interaction. Moreover, resistance to organizational change occurs due to
the interaction between agents of change, proposals, change recipients, behaviors, responses,
directives, and actions. Another view that has been discussed is the social view. This view
comprises of three attributes; resistance is optional, resistance is over there, in it/there, and
resistance is detrimental. This attribute ignores the interactive nature of a causal agent of
resistance to change as described by the mechanistic view. The third view is conversational
which also has three attributes: a construct of declarations and resistance, change and
conversations, and resistance as the construction of distinction. Managers can positively and
Actively Manage Resistance to Change through overcoming opposition, engaging the Staff, and
implementing change in stages. This may reduce the effects that may accrue due to resistance to
change. Moreover, they may assist the employee to take change positively and offer their support
to managers so that the change can be effectively implemented.

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 9
References
Canning, J., & Found, P. A. (2015). The effect of resistance in organizational change
programmes: A study of a lean transformation. International Journal of Quality and
Service Sciences, 7(2/3), 274-295.
Carlström, E. D., & Ekman, I. (2012). Organisational culture and change: implementing person-
centred care. Journal of health organization and management, 26(2), 175-191.
Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2014). Patterns of resistance in managing assessment
change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 577-591.
Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2012). Managing employee withdrawal during
organizational change: The role of threat appraisal. Journal of Management, 38(3), 890-
914.
Georgalis, J., Samaratunge, R., Kimberley, N., & Lu, Y. (2015). Change process characteristics
and resistance to organisational change: The role of employee perceptions of
justice. Australian Journal of Management, 40(1), 89-113.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on
managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 319-339.
Hon, A. H., Bloom, M., & Crant, J. M. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing
creative performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919-941.

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 10
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change
management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2),
291-298.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Age, resistance to change, and job
performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 741-760.
Manning, T. (2012). Managing change in hard times. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 44(5), 259-267.
Matos Marques Simoes, P., & Esposito, M. (2014). Improving change management: How
communication nature influences resistance to change. Journal of Management
Development, 33(4), 324-341.
Michel, A., Todnem By, R., & Burnes, B. (2013). The limitations of dispositional resistance in
relation to organizational change. Management Decision, 51(4), 761-780.
Msweli-Mbanga, P., & Potwana, N. (2016). Modelling participation, resistance to change, and
organizational citizenship behaviour: A South African case. South African Journal of
Business Management, 37(1), 21-29.
Pieterse, J. H., Caniëls, M. C., & Homan, T. (2012). Professional discourses and resistance to
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(6), 798-818.
Pollack, J. (2015). Understanding the divide between the theory and practice of organisational
change. Organisational Project Management, 2(1), 35-52.

MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 11
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel
review. Journal of management, 39(1), 110-135.