Introduction
In today's economy, change is all-pervasive in organizations. It happens continuously, and often at rapid speed. Because change has become an everyday part of organizational dynamics, employees who resist change can actually cripple an organization.
Resistance is an inevitable response to any major change. Individuals naturally rush to defend the status quo if they feel their security or status are threatened. Folger & Skarlicki (1999) claim that “organizational change can generate skepticism and resistance in employees, making it sometimes difficult or impossible to implement organizational improvements”.
If management does not understand, accept and make an effort to work with resistance, it can undermine even the most well-intentioned and well-conceived change efforts. Coetsee (1999) states “any management's ability to achieve maximum benefits from change depends in part of how effectively they create and maintain a climate that minimizes resistant behavior and encourages acceptance and support”. Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. The current definition of Change Management includes both organizational change management processes and individual change management models, which together are used to manage the people side of change.
Individual change management
A number of models are available for understanding the transitioning of individuals through the phases of change management and strengthening organizational development initiative in both government and corporate sectors.
Organizational change management
Organizational change management includes processes and tools for managing the people side of the change at an organizational level. These tools include a structured approach that can be used to effectively transition groups or organizations through change. When combined with an understanding of individual change management, these tools provide a framework for managing the people side of change. Organizational change management processes include techniques for creating a change management strategy (readiness assessments), engaging senior managers as change leaders (sponsorship), building awareness of the need for change (communications), developing skills and knowledge to support the change(education and training), helping employees move through the transition (coaching by managers and supervisors), and methods to sustain the change (measurement systems, rewards and reinforcement).
Dynamic conservatism
This model[2] by Donald Schön explores the inherent nature of organizations to be conservative and protect themselves from constant change. Schön recognises the increasing need, due to the increasing pace of change for this process to become far more flexible. This process being one of ‘learning'. Very early on Schön recognised the need for what is now termed the ‘learning organization'. These ideas are further expanded on within his frame work of ‘reflection-in-action'[3], the mapping of a process by which this constant change could be coped with.
The role of the management
Management's responsibility (and that of administration in case of political changes) is to detect trends in the macro environment as well as in the micro environment so as to be able to identify changes and initiate programs. It is also important to estimate what impact a change will likely have on employee behavior patterns, work processes, technological requirements, and motivation. Management must assess what employee reactions will be and craft a change program that will provide support as workers go through the process of accepting change. The program must then be implemented, disseminated throughout the organization, monitored for effectiveness, and adjusted where necessary. Organizations exist within a dynamic environment that is subject to change due to the impact of various change “triggers”, such as evolving technologies. To continue to operate effectively within this environmental turbulence, organizations must be able to change themselves in response to internally and externally initiated change. However, change will also impact upon the individuals within the organization. Effective change management requires an understanding of the possible effects of change upon people, and how to manage potential sources of resistance to that change. Change can be said to occur where there is an imbalance between the current state and the environment.
Decision Downloading
Often changes are initiated at a very senior level in the organization without input from others. For example, mergers, layoffs, and company acquisitions rarely involve input from employees at any level but the most senior. In fact, most employees are kept in the dark. These situations require special types of change management practices. As the decisions get “downloaded” to the rest of the organization there is a high probability that misunderstandings, angst, and anger will surface. Researchers have determined that employee “buy-in” can be hastened by robustly downloading the decision. Executives who use a robust style of downloading or announcing the decision include the following points in their message: a) how the decision was made b) why it was made c) what alternatives were considered d) how it fits in with the organizational mission e) how it impacts the organization f) how it impacts employees. Executives who use this more robust approach to communicating double the rate of acceptance when compared to more impoverished methods.
INFOSYS:-
Infosys was founded onJuly 2,1981inPunebyN R Narayana Murthyand six others:Nandan Nilekani,N. S. Raghavan,Kris Gopalakrishnan,S. D. Shibulal, K. Dinesh and Ashok Arora,[4]with N. S. Raghavan officially being the first employee of the company. Murthy started the company by borrowingINR10,000 from his wifeSudha Murthy. The company was incorporated as “Infosys Consultants Pvt Ltd.”, with Raghavan's house in Model Colony, north-centralPuneas the registered office.
In1982, Infosys opened an office inBangalorewhich soon became its headquarters.
Infosyswent publicin1993. Interestingly, Infosys IPO was undersubscribed but it was “bailed out” by US investment bankerMorgan Stanleywhich picked up 13% of equity at the offer price of Rs. 95 per share. The share price surged to Rs. 8,100 by 1999 making it the costliest share on the market at the time.At that time, Infosys was among the 20 biggest companies by market capitalization on theNASDAQwell ahead ofAdobe Systems,NovellandLycos.
According to Forbes magazine, since listing on theBombay Stock Exchangetill the year2000, Infosys' sales and earnings compounded at more than 70% a year.In the year 2000,President of the United StatesBill Clinton complimented India on its achievements in high technology areas citing the example of Infosys.
In2001, it was ratedBest Employer in IndiabyBusiness Today.Infosys won the Global MAKE (Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises) award, for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, being the only Indian company to win this award and is inducted into the Global Hall of Fame for the same.
Infosys was rated best employer to work for in 2000, 2001, and 2002 by Hewitt Associates. In 2007, Infosys received over 1.3 million applications and hired fewer than 3% of applicants.[12]
Business Weekreported that Infosys, along withWiproandTataaccounted for nearly 80% of the[H-1B] visapetitions approved in 2007 for the top 10 participants in the program.
InApril 2009,Forbesrated Infosys among the 5 best performing companies in the software and services sector in the world.[14]
In2009, Infosys was considered one of theBusiness Week's 50 Most Innovative Companies.
From December 2008 till April 2009, Infosys fired over 2500 employees for poor performance. The company has been hit hard by lower income from a crisis hit European and North American market. On April 15, 2009 Infosys reported its first ever sequential fall in its revenue in a decade during the March 2009 quarter
Literature review:-
Change Management on the level of society
Mats Larsson, in the book Global Energy Transformation (2009), argues that change management will become necessary on the level of society in order to transform energy systems on a large scale. Transforming global systems of transportation, energy supply and industrial processes, is an undertaking that will require large investments, change in individual behavior and company routines on a large scale and during a short space of time. This effort will also require the cooperation of many companies, public organizations and individuals. In order to achieve this on the scale of nations and regions, government financed programs will become necessary. Larsson outlines how the management principles and tools of change management could be applied in large scale national programs.
Larsson uses as examples previous large scale change and development programs in the United States, in which many tools that are now used in corporate change management projects have been developed and used. These programs are the transformation of US industry to war production during The Second World War, The Marshall Plan and The Apollo Program. Each of these programs have different focuses and management mechanisms, but they are examples of successful large scale change management efforts on the level of society
Other approaches to managing change
The constructions principle
The map is not the territory: The map/territory relation is proven by neuroscience and is used to signify that individual people do not have access to absolute knowledge of reality, but in fact only have access to a set of beliefs they have built up over time, about reality. It has been coined into a model by Chris Argyris called the Ladder of Inference. As a consequence, communication in change processes needs to make sure that information about change and its consequences is presented in such a way that people with different belief systems can access this information. Methods that are based on the Map/Territory Relation help people to:
Some methodological frameworks that are based on this principle are:
Resistance Defined
In order to understand the concept of employee resistance, it is critical to define what is meant by the term resistance. Alvin Zander (1950) an early researcher on the subject, defined resistance to change as “behavior which is intended to protect an individual from the effects of real or imagined change” (cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999. Zaltman & Duncan (1977) define resistance as “any conduct that serves to maintain the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo” (cited in Bradley, 2000,. In the view of Folger & Skarlicki (1999) resistance is defined as “employee behavior that seeks to challenge, disrupt, or invert prevailing assumptions, discourses, and power relations”.
Piderit (2000) believes that the definition of the term resistance must incorporate a much broader scope. She states that “a review of past empirical research reveals three different emphases in conceptualizations of resistance: as a cognitive state, as an emotional state, and as a behavior”. The notion that employee resistance can be overcome cognitively suggests that negative thoughts or beliefs about the change exist. Piderit sites, “Watson (1982) who suggests that what is often labeled as resistance is, in fact, only reluctance. Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) define resistance in behavioral terms but suggest that another state precedes it: is a cognitive state they call (un)-readiness”.
Others attempt to define employee resistance based on the emotional factors exhibited as a result of organizational change. From their early study, Coch and French (1948) acknowledged aggression and frustration in employees as the emotional factors that caused undesirable behaviors and resistance to change. Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) noted that resistance to change is a defense mechanism caused by frustration and anxiety (Piderit, 2000).
The final aspect of Piderit's conceptualization focuses on individual behavior in an attempt to define employee resistance to change. She cites Brower and Abolafia (1995) who define resistance as a particular kind of action or inaction. Ashforth and Mael (1998) define resistance as intentional acts of commission (defiance) or omission. Shapiro, Lweicki, and Devine (1995) suggest that willingness to deceive authorities constitutes resistance to change (2000).
Piderit (2000) claims that: although these conceptualizations of overlap somewhat, they diverge in important ways. Finding a way to bring together these varying emphases should deepen our understanding of how employees respond to proposed organizational changes. Each of these three conceptualizations of resistance - as a behavior, an emotion, or a belief - has merit and represents an important part of our experience of response to change. Thus, any definition focusing on one view at the expense of the others seems incomplete.
According to Dent & Goldberg (1999), individuals aren't really resisting the change, but rather they may be resisting the loss of status, loss of pay, or loss of comfort. They claim that, “it is time that we dispense with the phrase resistance to change and find a more useful and appropriate models for describing what the phrase has come to mean - employees are not wholeheartedly embracing a change that management wants to implement”.
METHODOLOGY:-
The Nature and Causes of Resistance at Infosys
Symptoms are the specific behaviors individuals exhibit when they are resistant to change. According to Bhutan (1995), it is important to distinguish between the symptoms of resistance to change, and the causes behind it. These behaviors fall into two categories -- active-resistance or passive-resistance. Symptoms of active-resistance include finding fault, ridiculing, appealing to fear, and manipulating. Passive-resistance symptoms include agreeing verbally but not following through, feigning ignorance and withholding information.
Bhutan (1995) adds, “there is always the danger of identifying a symptom of resistance when you are really looking for its cause. To diagnose the causes, we must understand a person's state of mind. The most important factors that go into a person's state of mind are his or her facts, beliefs, feeling, and values”.
The list of reasons why individuals might be resistance to organizational change has grown since Sander's initial six published in 1950. It is safe to assume that any attempts to cover all of them would produce volumes of literature. However, there are several that are quite common and prevalent, which help provide a solid basis to understanding the concept.
Employees resist change because they have to learn something new. In many case there is not a disagreement with the benefits of the new process, but rather a fear of the unknown future and about their ability to adapt to it. de Jag er (2001) argues, 'Most people are reluctant to leave the familiar behind. We are all suspicious about the unfamiliar; we are naturally concerned about how we will get from the old to the new, especially if it involves learning something new and risking failure.
Low tolerance for change is defined as the fear that one will not be able to develop new skills and behaviors that are required in a new work setting. According to Kotter & Schlesinger (1979), if an employee has a low tolerance for change, the increased ambiguity that results as a result of having to perform their job differently would likely cause a resistance to the new way of doing things. An employee may understand that a change is needed, but may be emotionally unable to make the transition and resist for reasons they may not consciously understand.
Folger & Skarlicki (1995) investigated resistance to change as a response to the treatment employees receive in the change process. Specifically they focuses on resentment-based resistance -reactions by disgruntled employees regarding the perceived unfairness of the change. They claim that “resent-based resistance behaviors, which can range from subtle acts of non-cooperation to industrial sabotage, are often seen by the perpetrators as subjectively justifiable - a way to “get even” for perceived mistreatment and a way for employees to exercise their power to restore perceived injustice”.
Paul Strebel (1996), professor and director of the Change Program for international managers at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD), attributes resistance as a violation of “personal compacts” management has with their employees. Personal compacts are the essence of the relationship between employees and organizations defined by reciprocal obligations and mutual commitments that are both stated and implied. Any change initiatives proposed by the organization would alter their current terms.
Personal compacts are comprised of formal, psychological, and social dimensions. The formal dimension is the most familiar. It is the aspect of the relationship that addresses the basic tasks and performance requirements of the job, and is defined by job descriptions, employee contracts, and performance agreements. Management, in return, agrees to supply the employee the resources needed to perform their job. The psychological dimension address aspects of the employment relationship that incorporate the elements of mutual trust, loyalty and commitment. The social dimension of the personal compact deals with organizational culture, which encompasses, mission statement, values, ethics and business practices.
Strebel points out that when these personal compacts are disrupted it upsets the balance, and increases the likelihood of resistance. He suggests that management view how change looks from the employees perspective, and to examine the terms of the personal compacts currently in place. 'Unless manages define new terms and persuade employees to accept them, it is unrealistic for managers to expect employees to fully buy into changes that alter the status quo.
Kegan & Lahey (2001) describe a psychological dynamic called a “competing commitment” as the real reason for employee resistance to organizational change. The change is not challenged, but rather is it resisted, or not implemented at all because the employee faces additional issue or concerns related to the change. When an employee's hidden competing commitment is uncovered, “behavior that seems irrational and ineffective suddenly becomes stunningly sensible and masterful - but unfortunately, on behalf of a goal that conflicts with what you and even the employee are trying to achieve”.
Competing commitments should not be viewed as a weakness, but as a version of self-protection. If these competing commitments are a form of self-protection, then what are employees protecting themselves from? Kegan & Lahey believe the answer usually lies in what they call “big assumptions” - deeply rooted beliefs people have about themselves and the world around them. Many rarely realize they hold big assumptions because they are woven into the very fabric of people's existence, and thus they accept them as reality. “these assumptions put an order to the world and at the same time suggest ways in which the world can go out of order. Competing commitments arise from these assumptions, driving behaviors unwittingly designed to keep the picture intact”.
Managing change and employee resistance at infosys:-
Background
Many employees will resist change. How they resist and the choices they make can influence the success of your change project, the impact on productivity and employee morale, and ultimately employee turnover. In some cases choices your employees make may have negative outcomes. These choices may be bad for you and for them. Other choices they make will benefit them and enhance their ability to thrive in a changing organization.
The Survival Guide to Change presents the ADKAR model, a framework to help employees through the change process. The excerpt provided below presents choices that employees make about change, organized first by choices that typically have a negative outcome, and then by choices that typically have a positive outcome. The Employees Survival Guide to Change then introduces the ADKAR model as a way to influence these choices and consequences. The text is written in second person and with the intended audience the employees undergoing change.
This tutorial is the first in a series that presents key concepts from this new change management book that is based on research with more than 700 organizations world-wide.
Choices and consequences
The choices shown are separated into:
These examples help illustrate the conscious and unconscious decisions we all make regarding change.
Your choices before the change happens during project planning and design stages (Typically with negative outcomes)
Your choices before the change happens during project planning and design stages (Typically with positive outcomes)
Suggestion:-
Infosys have verity of employee at has work place and employee feel changes due to resistance. So I suggest to Infosys that how they manage employee resistance to change:-
Infosys organizational changes require that people change how they function in some way. When this occurs, a dialogue needs to take place between managers and staff members to assess how the change will impact each staff member's performance.
there are some steps to move resistance from a negative to a positive force.
Give Motivation to employees:-company must give monitoring and non monitoring benefits to employee for retention.
Conclusion
Employee resistance to change is a complex issue facing management in the complex and ever-evolving organization of today. The process of change is ubiquitous, and employee resistance has been identified as a critically important contributor to the failure of many well-intend and well-conceived efforts to initiate change within the organization.
In many cases, vast amounts of resources are expended by organizations to adjust employees to a new way of achieving desired goals. The natural propensity for individuals to “defend the status quo” presents a set of challenges that management must overcome in order to bring about desired change. Management must also seriously take into account and consider the myriad of problems that may result if they are not responsive to issues of resistance in the workplace.
In order to facilitate a smooth transition fi7om the old to the new, organizations must be competent in effective change management. The process of change management consists of getting of those involved and affected to accept the introduced changes as well as manage any resistance to them.
References & Bibliography
