Change agents must always anticipate the fact that some employees in the organization are always on the look out for reasons that will authenticate their resistance to the intended changes as Parrier’s case reveals.
In this particular scenario, the mere thought of downsizing in an attempt to return to productivity appears to rattle employees to the core, implying that either the management did not communicate the decision effectively or the employees were unwilling to bulge. Second, the issue of acquisition, it seems, did not go well with the employees, and as such, many appeared to be resisting Nestle – the company – rather than the policies being implemented by management.
The CGT union cannot escape mention as another key element that was actively engaged in resisting the intended changes. Here, the Union could be accused of blocking attempts by Nestle to improve its financial performance.
Other elements, it appears, include employee frustration for not realizing adequate profit for the organization, a nondescript factory setting that has all the hallmarks of a power station, and an obvious communication breakdown between the management and the employees as witnessed in the ‘Badoit Rouge’ water issue. As such, resistance to the intended changes was inevitable.
A change management strategy describes the approach required to manage certain organizational changes, given the unique circumstances of the project or initiative. In Perrier’s case, it is imperative to construct a change management strategy that effectively deals with the sources of resistance mentioned above.
As such, the first phase for Perrier is to undertake situational awareness analysis. Here, the change team must first understand the intended changes, their scope, nature, and magnitude. In doing so, the team must evaluate how many employees are to be affected, and if organizational processes, systems, procedures, or job roles will also be affected. The time-frame for the intended changes should also be clearly articulated (Kanter 137).
Afterwards, the team must vehemently attempt to understand the employees being impacted by the organizational changes in relation to the history and culture of the enterprise. The team must then workout the factors behind the need to implement the intended changes, and must also evaluate how past changes have been managed and if personnel shares in the organization’s vision. A map should then be created depicting who will be affected and how they will be impacted by the changes (Kanter 139).
The second phase entails the creation of a supporting structure. Here, the change management team must identify the personnel that will be charged with facilitating the changes within the organization. It is imperative for the team to be specific and make educated decisions when assigning responsibility and resources to the change implementers (Kanter 140). Also, the sponsor coalition, consisting of leaders and managers, must be brought on-board in any decision making process for the intended changes to be successful.
The last phase in the creation of an effective change management strategy is the strategy analysis. Here, the change management team must conduct a risk assessment on managing the employees’ side of change to avoid possible confrontations as it was the case at Perrier. Analysts argue that changes that have far-reaching ramifications such as job losses have a much higher chance of management risk.
The change management team should then engage in formulating anticipated resistance by identifying how the intended changes will impact different departments, and how the departments and groups would perceive the changes. Finally, the team must identify any specialized tactics that can be utilized to make the whole process a success.
Anticipated changes, more often than not, turns into recipes for a confrontation between the employees and the management. It is, therefore, imperative to identify some approaches to managing resistance. Employee participation is one of the approaches that have been effective in addressing issues of resistance to change.
Perrier Employees must be engaged in the change process, and the reasons for downsizing explained to them by management. This way, their fears and anxieties are reduced, and they no longer feel threatened by the impeding changes. The second approach entails educating the employees about the relevancy of the anticipated changes. Perrier employees may reduce their resistance when they comprehensively understand the ramifications involved in blocking the anticipated changes.
Third, the management needs to adopt an open communication strategy, whereby employees are free to request from the management any information and explanation deemed necessary.
An open door policy in times of change implementation, not only reduces the level of uncertainty among employees, but also makes them feel that they are firmly in control of whatever is happening in the organization. Lastly, the management must only deal with those changes that are viewed as absolutely fundamental for the proper functioning of the organization.
Such changes must be announced well in advance to allow the employees make necessary adjustments (Kanter 249). Employees may, indeed, restrain from resisting changes if they have the right information that they are not mere pawns in the chessboard of Perrier’s restructuring efforts.
Works Cited
Kanter, R.M. The Challenge of Organizational Change. Free Press. 1992. ISBN: 00291 69917