What is Employee Psychological Resistance to Change?
Humans are creatures of habit in that they enjoy daily routines and standards of procedure that do not constantly change on a daily basis, it is only in instances that change is introduced that it is met with significant resistance due to the inherent desire to keep things as they were (Strebel 1996, pp. 86-92).
Such a case is often seen in various corporations wherein changes implemented by the company is often met with significant resistance due to the desire of employees to retain the operational procedures that they have grown accustomed to (Strebel 1996, pp. 86-92).
What you have to understand is that when employees are exposed to a particular procedural element for daily operations over an extended period of time they develop a certain sense of complacency in that they tend to prefer the current way of doing business.
Not only that, it is often the case that employees are often not informed as to why specific changes are occurring in the first place which results in them feeling threatened. The end result is that employees tend to associate change within the company as having the potential for them to lose their jobs as a direct result of the changes being implemented.
For example, it was noted by the study of Wu et al. (2012) that employees in certain companies tended to oppose certain degrees of automation involving internal operational processes due to the perception that such changes would eliminate the need for their job (Wu et al. 2012, pp.178-199 ).
Even if such changes would make their jobs easier changes within the company still continued to be met with significant degrees of skepticism and fear. It should also be noted that psychological resistance to change occurs not only in employees but in managers as well (Lloyd and Mey 2010, pp. 1-12). It is often the case that managers fear change due to the fact that they fear losing power over their employees.
Managers perceive change as a negatively impacting their autonomy over their work place environments and the various factors that they have control over. In fact, it is at times perceived as a direct attack on the managers themselves despite the fact that nothing could be farther from the truth. It should also be noted that managers resist such changes due to their perception that they may lose their jobs as a direct result.
What must be understood is that change often comes with the implementation of new practices that managers may or may not be able to sufficiently cope up with (Mittal 2012, pp. 64-71).
As such, those who are under the belief that they would be unable to adapt to the new changes are the most resistant to them being implemented since it would be likely that they would be replaced by another person that has the necessary capacity to implement the changes as need be.
It should also be noted that managers often suffer from the same perception regarding complacency and, as a result, are often skeptical when changes are implemented within the company. They often view such changes as completely unnecessary with the potential of negatively impact the status quo within the office.
Manifestation of Employee Resistance to Change
Passive Resistance
One the most common manifestations of the resistance of employees to change comes in the form of passive resistance. This particular aspect of employee resistance takes the form of general negative opinions and feelings regarding the changes being implemented within the company (Koen and Maaike 2011, 284-305).
One of the most noticeable impacts of this particular resistance to change manifests itself through employee performance in the workplace. It is often the case that individuals who are resistant to change within certain organizations often develop a distinct aversion towards working in such an environment which impacts their productivity at work.
Based on the study of Oreg & Sverdlik (2011), it was determined that employee motivation played an important role in work performance due to its correlation in creating employees that are more motivated to work, more interested in their job and, as a result, stayed longer with their respective companies (Oreg & Sverdlik 2011, pp. 337-349).
Motivation, as stated by Pardo and Martinez (2003) is a crucial aspect of operations management since no matter how well a company develops its employees through a plethora of training programs and seminars, if said employees find little willingness to actually apply what they were taught in a productive and enthusiastic manner then the training itself would have been a useless venture (Pardo and Martinez 2003, pp. 148-155).
What you have to understand is that resistance to change results in a distinct level of de-motivation which impacts the willingness of an employee to actually perform their job. As a result, companies that implement new changes within their operational structure often encounter initial significant dips in performance levels due to the way in which employees react negatively to the new method of operation.
It should also be noted that passive resistance also manifests itself in other forms such as various forms of disrespect, withholding of information and various forms of neglectful behavior that are meant to passively indicate displeasure at the current way in which operational methods at the company have been changed.
Instances of passive resistance often occur due to changes in management styles, scheduling, minor procedural changes and other small changes within the company (Van Dijk & Van Dick 2009, pp. 143-163). One of the most recent examples of this particular type of change within corporations can be seen in the case of Wal-Mart and its use of selective scheduling for its part time employees.
As a direct result of such a change the company experienced significant reductions in employee performance due to the considerable degrees of inconvenience employees suffered as a direct of an erratic schedule that impacted their daily lives.
It should be noted though that this particular internal change was done in order to save the company money and maximize employee outputs, however, it was not viewed as such by employees and, as a direct result, they lost sufficient motivation to work at a proficient level resulting in falling standards of operational performance.
Studies such as those by Oreg and Cornell (2003) indicate that passive resistance to change is the most prevalent practice seen within organizations at the present and is often caused by insufficient transitions to new management or operational practices (Oreg and Cornell 2003, pp. 680-693).
When it comes to changes within workplace environments it is recommended that change occurs in stages consisting of steady transitions. By utilizing such a method this maximizes the ability of employees to get used to the changes and minimizes the potential for negative reactions.
Active Resistance to Change
Another manifestation of employee resistance to change comes in the form of active resistance, in this particular instance instead of impacting employee performance this resistance actually impacts the entirety of the company’s performance since it often comes in the form of strikes or increased levels of employee absenteeism.
Active resistance often comes as a direct result of operational initiatives that impact employee benefits (i.e. health insurance, retirement benefits, etc,) or even aspects that even control the work environment experienced by employees on a daily basis.
This was seen in a variety of strikes experienced by the airline industry within the U.S., the U.K. and the Philippines between 2004 to 2011 wherein due to management initiatives to lower costs and maximize employee output airline pilots and stewardesses were reduced within certain airlines while the remainder were made to work longer shifts at reduced pay.
The direct result of this particular change was strikes that lasted several days that subsequently grounded flights in the U.S., Europe and Asia. What you have to understand is that not all instances of change within organizations can be considered positive.
There are many instances such as the previous example that result in considerable levels of employee resentment over the changes that are implemented especially in instances that negatively impact employees. It should be noted that such employee resistance to change in such instances is often due to the insufficient means by which the managers of a company place the changes within the necessary context.
It is often the case that changes are implemented not only without the input of the employees that it impacts but it is often that properly explained as to why such changes are being implemented in the first place. As a direct result, employees resist significant changes since they do not have sufficient enough context to understand all the variables that went into the change being implemented.
Studies such as those by ( ) have indicated that while change that negatively impacts employees is at times necessary in order to save the company (ex: Airline Industry, General Motors employee reduction etc.), managers need to be able to phrase such changes within the appropriate context for employees to understand why these particular changes are being implemented in the first place.
Without such contexts in place employees become that much more resistant to change as evidenced by the example shown earlier.
Aggressive Resistance
The last employee manifestation of resistance to change comes in the form of aggressive resistance. In such instances employees exhibit distinct behavioral actions that actively attempt to block the changes from taking place through a variety of methods such as sabotage or internal subversion.
Forms of active resistance can often be seen in cases where department heads often disagree over the changes in management being implemented within an office and take steps in order to ensure that the changes are considered detrimental and, as a result, are removed in favor of the previous practices that were utilized.
Examples of this come in the form of intentional delays in operation, intentional miscommunication between departments as well as an assortment of self-sabotaging actions aimed at ensuring that whatever change is implemented within a company is viewed in a bad light.
Given the negative impact of aggressive resistance on company performance, this particular resistance to change is often considered the most destructive and is actively banned within most companies. Interestingly enough, this particular method of resistance is often that manifested by lower level employees but is actually enacted by management or upper level employees within companies.
It is thought that the reason this particular demographic of employees are the most likely to institute methods of aggressive resistance is due to the fact that they are the ones that are the most invested into the previous method of performance and would like to maintain the âstatus quoâ so to speak.
Understanding Employee Resistance to Change
One of the more interesting aspects of Tolman’s theory are his ideas regarding reinforcement expectancy and cognitive dissonance. It was noted by Tolman that when expectations were not met for a particular experiment (i.e. an individual being given only $1 for a successfully completed experiment as compared to the $5 they were originally given) performance significantly declines.
For Tolman such a response is actually quite similar to cognitive dissonance since the discrepancy between an expected outcome (i.e. receiving a $5) and the result (i.e. receiving $1) results in a negative drive state which people would normally seek to avoid or reduce.
Such a concept is quite valuable in understanding employee psychological resistance to change since managing expectations regarding certain lessons or methods of accomplishing a particular task greatly influences the drive and motivation employees have towards performing a particular task which affects their overall level of performance (Baer and Brown 2012, pp.60-71).
For example, in instances where a manager places unfounded expectations on employees when new changes are implemented within the company such as promising that the new work setup would be easy or that anyone with marginal intelligence would be able to understand it yet presents employees with an overly complicated method of working that is difficult at best and impossible at worst (Chamorro and Furnham 2010, pp. 24 – 50).
This creates a situation where there is a certain “negative dissonance” regarding the change that this particular manager implemented thus creating a certain degree of hesitance, even fear when starting on a new method of work since the promised result was not as expected.
This would be similar to the case of a college course promising a very enlightening and in-depth view of a topic that a student truly enjoys yet gives him/her a subpar lesson that is generalized and has little intellectual value (Grey 2009, pp. 44-64).
This also creates a certain degree of cognitive dissonance resulting in negative behavior towards not only the course but the college itself which will most likely result in poor performance. In the case of employees this often results in a distinct resistance to change within their workplace environment.
One way of rectifying this situation is to help ease employees into an understanding of what they are getting into. Rather than presenting employees with a reward (i.e. a salary bonuses and benefits) managers should inform them truthfully of what a particular change in their workplace environment entails and give them a brief overview of its positive and negative elements (Conley 2007, pp. 43-71).
The point is not to create any set expectations but rather to ease employees into making their own choices and decisions.
It was detailed by Joslin, Waters, and Dudgeon (2010) that human choice is actually a contributing factor towards performance since in instances where people were given a choice of actions, no matter how negative the outcome, performance levels did not decrease as much as compared to instances where people were either not given a choice or were given a false set of assumptions (Joslin, Waters, and Dudgeon 2010, pp.22-43).
It is based on this that in order to maintain a certain degree of employee performance for new work related operational changes it is important to adjust expectation levels early on so as to ensure that employees are fully presented with a choice and know what they are getting into so as to ensure steady performance levels instead of subsequent drops.
When it comes to human motivation Tolman presents the notion that the concept of “motive” drives a personâs behavior and until this internal state is either “fixed” or rectified that person will continue to behave in that particular manner (Vithessonthi & Schwaninger 2008,pp. 141-157).
The implications of this on employee resistance to change is considerable since it presents the notion that resistance will continue to exist to new workplace operational changes even after a long period of time has passed.
As a result, this could significantly impact the ability of a company to continue to operate properly given the correlation between operational performance and employee resistance to the changes implemented (Vithessonthi & Schwaninger 2008,pp. 141-157).
Changing Employee Mindsets on Change
One of the first techniques necessary in managing change is to change the way in which employees think about the way in which they work. It is often the case that employees develop a certain mindset regarding work which makes them far less apt to change when the need arises (Dam 2008, pp. 313-334).
It is based on this that what is needed is slowly change internal company policies and workplace culture so as to make it more amenable to the desired change rather than implement it all at once. This conforms with the first principle of change in which a person is adjusted via a change in the system that they work.
Implementing a workplace culture of open communication
Earlier it was stated that people tend to fear change, while this is true the fact remains that there are actually method of mitigating this.
One of them is implementing a workplace culture of open communication, by doing so not only can employee fears be addressed and taking into account when implementing change within the organization but it can be used as way in which to dampen the unforeseen and adverse effects the might happen should change be implemented (Jones 2012, pp.207-239).
Establish Goals/ Purpose driven work
In their study examining employee performance it was discovered by Hilton and Whiteford (2010) that it is often the case that employees work better and adapt to change faster if there is a given goal or rather their work is driven by a specific purpose (Hilton and Whiteford 2010, p.435).
Taking the third principle chosen into consideration it can be assumed that by creating a defined vision by which employees can work towards not only would this result in a smooth transition during change but can actually result in improved employee performance as well.
Reference List
Baer, M, and Brown G 2012, âBlind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adoptâ, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, vol. 118, no. 1, pp.60-71
Chamorro, T, and Furnham, P 2010, âThe psychology of personnel selectionâ, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge
Conley, C 2007, âPeak how great companies get their mojo from Maslowâ. Jossey-Bass,1sted, San Francisco
Dam, K 2008, âDaily Work Context and Resistance to Organizational Change: The Role of Leader-Member Exchange, Development, Climate and Change Process Characteristicsâ, Applied Psychology, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 313-334
Grey, C 2009, âHuman relations theory and people managementâ, 2nded, Sage Publications Ltd,London, pp. 44-64
Hilton, M, and Whiteford, H 2010, âInteracting with the public as a risk factor for employee psychological distressâ, BMC Public Health, vol. 10, no.1, p.435
Jones, R 2012, âOrganizational design and strategy in a changing global environment.6thed. Upper Saddle, New Jersey. pp.207-239
Joslin, F, Waters, L, and Dudgeon, P 2010, âPerceived acceptance and work standards as predictors of work attitudes and behavior and employee psychological distress following an internal business merger, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp.22-43
Koen D, and Maaike, A 2011,â Linking leadership empowerment behaviour to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions: Testing the mediating role of psychological empowermentâ, Personnel Review, vol.40, no.3, pp. 284-305
Lloyd,H, and Mey, M 2010, âAn Ethics Model to develop an ethical organisationâ, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, vol.8, no.1, pp. 1-12
Mittal, S 2012, ‘Managing employee resistance to change a comparative study of Indian organisations and mncs in delhi-ncr region’, Researchers World: Journal Of Arts, Science & Commerce, vol.3, no. 4, pp. 64-71
Oreg, S, & Sverdlik, N 2011, ‘Ambivalence Toward Imposed Change: The Conflict Between Dispositional Resistance to Change and the Orientation Toward the Change Agent’, Journal Of Applied Psychology, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 337-349
Oreg, S, and Cornell, U 2003, âDept of Organizational Behaviorâ, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 680-693
Pardo, D, and Martinez, C 2003, âResistance to Change: a Literature Review and Empirical Studyâ, Management Decision, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 148-155
Strebel, P 1996, ‘Why Do Employees Resist Change?’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 86-92
Van Dijk, R, & Van Dick, R 2009, ‘Navigating Organizational Change: Change Leaders, Employee Resistance and Work-based Identities’, Journal Of Change Management, vol. 9, no.2, pp. 143-163
Vithessonthi, C, & Schwaninger, M 2008, ‘Job motivation and self-confidence for learning and development as predictors of support for change’, Journal Of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 141-157
Wu, L, Yim, F, Kwan, H, and Zhang, X 2012, âCoping with Workplace Ostracism: The Roles of Ingratiation and Political Skill in Employee Psychological Distressâ, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 49, no. 1, pp.178-199