Reframing Resistance to Organizational Change †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Reframing Resistance to Organizational Change. Answer: Introduction: As highlighted earlier in the introduction part of this study, many change attempts have been reported to have failed. The reasons for this are because the change was or resisted in many organizations. From the research works of Anderson, Hardy, and Thomas, we find that change in an organization entails establishing new understandings, practices, and relationships which may not be welcomed or supported if the change does not support the interest of the majority. Therefore they highlight some of the common reasons why people resist change in organizations or in other aspects of life are due to; loss of status or job security in the organization (Thomas et al., 2011). For instance, employees, peers or even managers will resist administrative and technological change which may render their status or their job roles insecure. Another reason for resisting organizational change is the non-reinforcing rewards systems in organizations and therefore organizations should strive to ensure that their reward systems support the change that they want to implement in the organization. Change is also resisted in organizations due to surprise or the fear of the unknown. According to Anderson (2011) when change agents bring about changes whether administrative or technological for instance in an organization, the change recipients usually have great fears of the unknown and therefore this calls for managers or changes agents to get their organizations prepared for change through establishing effective communication mechanisms for communicating change before it is implemented. Organizational politics also bring about resistance to change as a result of the creation of organizational groupings supporting certain ideologies and resisting others (Ng Choi Rashad, 2015). Lastly, organizational change is resisted due to poor timing to implement the change initiative in the organization. As discussed above organizations through their managers should ensure that their organizations, as well as their stakeholders, are prepared enough to embrace change. Poor timing has greatly contributed to increased resistance to change as research provides that most changes implemented without proper timing have always failed and therefore causing a lot of resistance which is not properly timed. Managers of different organizations, therefore, are of the view that change is naturally resisted by people and that change in its course is not the problem but the resistance to change. They, therefore, feel that resistance to change can be avoided in organizations with effective change management initiatives (Thomas Hardy, 2011). This can, therefore, be achieved through promoting a culture of trust, transparency in communication, a culture of employee engagement and creating positive interpersonal relationships which will reduce resistance to change. The first question is well answered. Different theoretical ontologies have been used to evaluate resistance to change in organizations and their effectiveness in enhancing change management. However, the most common concepts that we focus on is the scientific objectivism ontology to resistance as well as the subjectivism or social constructionism ontology to change management. Social construction ontology suggests and supports the idea that people can indeed be change agents (Burr, 1995) which promotes the fact that change is brought about by human activity. However, this concept of social constructionism also accepts that there is always an objective reality behind any change engagement which brings about the concept of objectivism as another important ontology in understanding change management (Burr, 2003). Scientific Objectivism approach This approach is also referred to as positivism approach and portrays an organizational position that social entities exist , external to social actors and concerned with existence. This means that the approach argues that social phenomena have an existence that is independent of social actors (Jabri, 2012). The approach is based on the findings from organizational data collected and analyzed. The results from such data is termed as scientifically true however in most case the symptoms that lead to such results have different interpretations. Therefore, when implementing change in an organization, the managers usually use an established scientific approach that is aimed at attaining certain outcome irrespective of the social factors from the employees in the organization. This approach or method can be used to assess staff competence and capability without taking into considerations the organizational efforts to empower employees with relevant skills. Results from this assessment are then used to make comparisons with the organization future requirements or even to plan for employees development programs without involving the inputs of employees on various social factors. This ontology does not support effective change management in an organization as it does not support a lasting relationship between change agents and the change recipients. This ontology or approach portrays a concept of social phenomena such as organizational change as created from perceptions and consequent actions of those social actors. It therefore takes into considerations the causal effects and all other social factors influencing change in an organization. Social constructionism lies under the premises of dialogue and appreciative inquiry and therefore during change implementation in an organization this approach takes into consideration the views of all stakeholders (Jabri, 2012). It argues that the reality of a social phenomenon is understood differently according to our social experience. It therefore provides an effective way of change management in an organization. This approach lays more emphasis on discovering and valuing the things which give organization vitality and identifying the future. The managers then design a dialogue through creating proposals for change, discussing them with stakeholders and enhancing readiness to adapt to the changes through capacity building (Jabri, 2012). Social constructionism therefore supports the idea that people can be change agents within an organization through human agency and this provides an effective mechanism of implementing change in an organization (Shore Kupferberg, 2014). This ontology therefore contributes to both positivism in achieving organizational goals as well as taking into consideration the social actors contributing or influencing change. It therefore helps to minimize change resistance. Ontology can be applied in change process to minimize resistance and overcoming situations that might arise. Managers might apply ontology directly to gain results in cases of change or reducing negat ive impacts that might arise. Critically examine the relationship between power and resistance, and the ethical issues that these raise in relation to the managerial and resistant positions. These scholars have also examined the relationship of power and resistance and it is evident in the modern society or in modern organizations resistance to change has ignored the theoretical concept of power and therefore in most case, the privileges of change agents have been taken for granted. Power has been used severally in organizations to mobilize certain outcomes or to bring about change. However, it has been equally used to resist change in any organization. Therefore power and resistance may seem to operate together in most case; there are no relations of power in an organization without resistance (Fleming, 2007). Yes well done The two approaches to resistance to change as well the relations of power and resistance raises a number of ethical issues and challenges in relation to managerial and resistant positions. Both approaches have been found to maintain a clear distinction between the change agent and change recipient in understanding change resistance but have been found to privilege the change agent (Erkama, 2010). There are two approaches one is scientific objectivism and other is subjectivism to change management procedure. In every organisation, process of change is always resisted by its employees. Managers are known to exert power while controlling and coordinating between various organisational objectives. Managers have power, can be change agents from social constructivism. It allows them to extend their capabilities in order that employees can provide productivity. While change becomes an inevitable process across all organisations and can due to need of resource allocation, business processes, budget and other factors. In order to bring about change, varying perspective of the nature of change within organisational environment has to be brought about(DCruz, 2007). With change agents being either internal or external in nature, Power will always play a part. Power is the authority or influence on others, as in this case employees. Manager or change agent within the organisation might exert legitimate power, from their position within organisational hierarchy. Greater the power a manager holds greater will be the resistance to change. In case a manager has great deal of power and is in direct communication with the organisational heads he might be able to dictate terms his own way and employees might will resist(Holland, 2010). According to concept of scientific objectivism, staffs are expected to coordinate with managers in change processes. In such a case, resistance to change is bound to be less as employees will have access to manager who is exerting power. Employees are generally resistant to change in every form, therefore at lower hierarchy levels ethical behaviours can easily be promoted(Antonsen, 2009). Ethical behaviours can be prompted in such cases in managers whereby they can motivate personnel towards change management processes. In case of ethical change processes, there is a gradual transformation that is adopted. Employees are made aware regarding expectations that they might have from the change processes. Impacts the change process will have on their jobs and pay-bands can also be explained. Therefore, there is a gradual transformation through a series of process as has been suggested by a number of scholars and researchers in the domain. Ethical change process is able to impact the organ isation in a positive manner by creating a positive impact on employees. In case of community approaches, manager have to consider the responsibility of organization towards the stakeholders rather than purely a stakeholders view that should be tolerable and respectable (Winstanley,1996). Likewise, at the time of taking strategies manager should not be extreme disparities of benefit with these group as these group have great impact on organization. Critically discuss 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 Power and resistance have been discussed to work together or to exist in the same web of relationships (Bushe Marshak, 2014). Works of Jabri (2012) is able to contextualize problem-centric and logical positivism. While logical positivism incorporates open system model that gather data for replicating science. Outcomes of diagnostic models can be multifarious in nature. While problem centric approach is focused on consciously identifying causes and symptoms by systematically collecting data. In such social construct or organisational open system, change agent or manager communicates regarding all aspects of change. On the other hand, diagnostic methods aims at designing and implementation intervention for arriving at solutions of problems. Efficiency and effectiveness can be enhanced by this mechanism. Implications of power and resistance for role of change agent is critical and essential for the management of change. Implications of change are immense especially on employees. While there remains several implications that needs to be evaluated, resistance to change remains one of the most critical factors. A change agents role focuses on overcoming these resistance to change by use of power in an appropriate manner(Young, 2009). While various organisations promote use of unethical means in adopting change, it is essential that ethical change management be promoted. In order to ethically manage the process of change, change agents needs to promote dialogical talks between employees, management and himself such as to provide smooth transition. No amounts of change management can be smooth, hence its best to approach it in a problem-centric manner. Focusing on the problem will ensure that root of the problem is analysed and solution is arrived at. Ethical change or transformation proc esses includes proper hand-holding of employees through the entire process of change or transformation. With proper communication by the change agent to the employees regarding all aspects of change, they are taken through the process(Fleming, 2008). Employees are trained, counseling is given, any other problems faced by the employee is diagnosed and then analysed to arrive at a recommendation that can be implemented. A problem resolving technique to the process of change is adopted and then change management processes are implemented. A sudden change management process without the implication of processes can lead to failure of the change agent. In every case dialogue should be encouraged to ensure that there are no miscommunications regarding the change and it is handled in an appropriate manner. Dialogue instills a spirit of confidence amongst employees. They feel motivated being a part of the change management process. Hence, they are easily able to accommodate themselves to the entire process of change management. These are the various implications to change management processes t hat provides success to the entire organisation. In this question you need to be more specific about what the two different approaches of Problem centric and Dialogic is and also be more specific about the different roles of the Change agent in both. Have a look at the two chapters in Jabri and also the chapter on Change agent. Reference Lists Anderson, A. (2011). Engaging resistance: How ordinary people successfully champion change. Stanford University Press. Antonsen, S. (2009). Safety culture and the issue of power. Safety Science, 183-191. Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed). London: Routledge Bushe, G. R. (2014). The dialogic mindset in organization development. In Research in organizational change and development. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 55-97. DCruz, H. G. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A critical review of the literature. The British Journal of Social Work, 73-90. Erkama, N. (2010). Power and resistance in a multinational organization: Discursive struggles over organizational restructuring. . Scandinavian Journal of Management, 151-165. Fleming, P. . (2008). Beyond power and resistance: New approaches to organizational politics. Management Communication Quarterly, 301-309. Fleming, P. (2007). Sexuality, power and resistance in the workplace. Organization Studies, 239-256. Holland, S. R. (2010). Power, agency and participatory agendas: A critical exploration of young peoples engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood, 360-375. Jabri, (2012). Social construction and scientific objectivism. Management of change, p-149 . Klonek, F. E.-W. (2014). Dynamics of resistance to change: a sequential analysis of change agents in action. Journal of Change Management, 334-360. Kummamuru, S. . (2014). Human Resource Management: Towards a Human-Centric Approach. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 36. Shore, D. A. (2014). Preparing people and organizations for the challenge of change. Journal of health communication, 275-281. Winstanley, D. and Woodall, J. (2000b). (eds). Ethical issues in contemporary human resource management. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Thomas, R. . (2011). Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 322-331. Thomas, R. S. (2011). Managing organizational change: Negotiating meaning and power-resistance relations. Organization Science, 22-41. Van der Voet, J. K. (2016). Implementing Change in Public Organizations: The relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 842-865. Young, M. (2009). A meta model of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 524-548.