Introduction
My experience with an organization that was unsuccessful at adopting change revolved around a firm that provided management software for businesses. The firm was successful and retained a team of experienced developers who grew accustomed to working with each other. However, despite having a stable influx of clients and workload, staff members were dissatisfied due to the lack of an option to work remotely. In an environment of worldwide digitization, the team did not understand why management chose to pursue traditional office work. The firm’s resistance to the changing work environment underscored subsequent corporate conflicts, and this paper aims to show how to approach negative projections that prevented management and employees from accepting organizational change.
Description
The need for remote work became especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forced under the quarantine measures to work from home, the firm had to quickly adjust and continue customer service. However, as management had taken no steps to prepare for a lockdown, the team experienced difficulties in delivering the product. Obstacles ranged from the lack of an accustomed communication platform to an unclear workday structure. It took months for the team to finally get used to the new conditions. Meanwhile, the company suffered losses because of the team’s failure to meet deadlines. It became apparent that management’s unwillingness to implement remote work opportunities earlier was the reason behind these failures.
The subsequent outcome was low employee morale, which further deteriorated after management decided to return the team to the office once quarantine measures were lifted. Dissatisfied with management’s decisions, some of the team members chose to quit. Naturally, their departure caused the firm to provide services of lower quality. Not surprisingly, the inability to deliver the product caused the loss of customers and falling revenues. As a result, the firm went from a successful and reputable software provider to a business struggling to keep both customers and employees due to the organization’s failure to understand the importance of remote work.
Application and Analysis
The primary reason behind the firm’s failures revolved around the organization’s resistance to change. It was apparent both before and after the lockdown that management rejected the idea of introducing a remote work option, and the employees were not willing to return to the office after it. Iverson’s (2010) perspective provides insight into why management and employees were so reliant on the accustomed way of working. It proposes five reasons for resistance to change, the most appropriate of which is the negative future projections. Essentially, management feared that allowing employees to work from home would distract them from work and plummet the team’s productivity.
This barrier permeated management’s decisions before and after the lockdown. Before the pandemic, managers were convinced that working in the office was an essential part of the firm’s efficiency. They were anxious that remote work would eliminate corporate culture. When the firm’s results deteriorated during the lockdown, management attributed it to remote work. By projecting results before the lockdown on the future, managers assumed that the problem would be solved once the staff would be back in the office. However, the reality was that employees actually favored working from home to the office and saw it as a limiting factor.
Solution and Recommendations
The most effective measure that I could have taken was suggesting the necessity to change in a delicate and non-aggressive manner. The employees’ mistake was that they protested against management’s decision in a blunt and off-putting manner. I would point out the growing concern among staff members and accentuate that many fear the possibility that unwillingness to implement evolving technology in business practices would lead to the firm losing its competitive advantage (Campbell, 2014). Meanwhile, the gradual implementation of remote options would actually help the firm adapt while respecting the corporate culture.
Another step would be approaching the team after the lockdown and suggesting that management’s decision to return to office had merit. I would accentuate that they were using the short-term perspective while ignoring the long-term strategy, which is a direct pathway to corporate demise (Butt & Ivanov, 2017). Specifically, returning to the office would indeed improve the sense of physical belonging and the corporate atmosphere, which was not sustained during remote work. I would also emphasize that their negative projections were wrong since work would not be the same after the lockdown (Davidson, 2009). Even the office environment would be affected by the availability of tools allowing distant communication.
Conclusion
Ultimately, my goal would be to show a different viewpoint to both managers and dissatisfied employees. Management’s fear that remote work would have a negative impact was as damaging as the employees’ reluctance to return to the office. In both cases, negative projections clouded judgment and created a conflict that led to the departure of valuable team members. The fear of change was so strong that neither side was willing to acknowledge the benefits presented by the alternative (Davidson, 2009). If managers and employees had realized that small changes were not as radical as they seemed, the firm might have retained its developers and quality of services.
References
Butt, J., & Ivanov, S. (2017). Study of a large office supply retail organization: How good companies slowly go out of business. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 9(4). 1-6. Web.
Campbell, H. (2014). Managing organizational change: A practical toolkit for leaders. Kogan Page.
Davidson, J. (2009). 5 ways to overcome resistance to change. Breathing Space Institute.
Iverson, L. (2010). The science of change management: The 7 phases of change and breaking through resistance to change. Made For Success, Incorporated.