One of the most perplexing issues that business leaders face is employee resistance to change. This resistance can manifest in various ways, such as consistent drops in productivity, an increase in resignations and transfer requests, ongoing conflicts, resentful attitudes, unexpected strikes or work slowdowns, and a barrage of seemingly logical arguments against the change. Even minor forms of resistance can cause significant problems.
Resistance to change is a normal phenomenon and should be expected in organizations. Management of change influences the style and characteristics of resistance. Embrace resistance to change and frame it as a valuable feedback helps minimize dips and unintended fluctuations.
Executives often encounter this resistance and dismiss it with the common saying, “people resist change,” without delving deeper into the reasons. However, changes in the workplace are inevitable and necessary. This is especially true for the numerous “small” changes that regularly occur, such as modifications in work methods, routine office procedures, the placement of equipment or desks, and adjustments in personnel roles and job titles.
None of these changes grab headlines, but collectively, they significantly boost productivity. They aren’t the dramatic, once-in-a-lifetime technological shifts that lead to massive layoffs or render traditional skills obsolete, but they are crucial for business progress.
Does this mean that business management must always “force” change upon unwilling employees? My answer is no. The main argument of this article is that people don’t inherently resist technical change, and most resistance that does occur is unnecessary.
Here are some key points:
- A popular solution to resistance is to involve employees in the change process by having them “participate.” However, in practice, this approach can be problematic for management and might cause more issues.
- The real key is to understand the nature of resistance. Employees usually resist not the technical change itself but the social change—the alteration in their human relationships that often accompanies technical changes.
- Resistance often arises due to certain blind spots and attitudes among staff specialists, who are primarily focused on the technical aspects of new ideas.
- Management can address these attitudes constructively by setting new performance standards for staff specialists, encouraging different ways of thinking, and recognizing that signs of resistance can be useful indicators for directing and timing technological changes.
- Top executives can enhance their effectiveness in meetings about change by shifting focus from schedules, technical details, and work assignments to understanding what these discussions reveal about resistance and acceptance of change.
Causes
Not knowing how -> Disorientation -> Uncertainty
Not being empowered -> fear of failure -> social fears
Not being motivated -> basic refusal of innovation, change, new products
Reasons | Actions to be taken |
Lack of information regarding goals and benefits, such as understanding my individual impact and benefits under a new boss, with new tasks, or in a new team, as well as unfamiliarity with new incentives, rewards, and sanction mechanisms. | Understand how the change impacts me personally, including under a new boss, with new tasks, or in a new team. Clarify new incentives, rewards, and consequences promptly. Ensure comprehensive and rapid communication. Approach discussions with empathy, openness to new perspectives, mindfulness, and humility. Provide detailed and specific information quickly, tailored to the recipient’s needs. |
New requirements that excced my professional, methodological, or individual skills. Concerns that I may never acquire the necessary qualifications. | Address doubts or insecurities during annual performance reviews. Collaborate with others to identify needed qualifications and pursue coaching as needed. Foster empathy and empowerment among team members. |
Feeling proud of my current performance and being hesitant about changes that conflict with my personal values, preferring stability and continuity in life | empathy, change of perspectives, resilience, demonstrate urgency, honor past results Listen actively, address concerns, and encourage the sharing of new ideas without judgment. |
To understand the nature of resistance to change, let’s examine two studies that provide contrasting insights on this issue and ways to manage it in daily administration.
Is Participation Enough?
The first study, conducted by Lester Coch and John R.P. French Jr. in a clothing factory, systematically examined resistance to change. They worked with four groups of factory operators, each paid on a modified piece-rate basis. Each group underwent a minor change in work procedure, introduced by different methods to observe resistance levels.
- No-Participation Method: The first group was informed about the change by staff who explained the new procedures and reasons for the change, then sent them back to work.
- Participation-Through-Representation Method: The second group experienced a minor variation of this method, which showed little significance in the results.
- Total-Participation Method: The third and fourth groups were involved in discussions about the need for cost reduction, agreed on new work methods, and were trained accordingly.
Research Findings:
- No-Participation Group: This group saw a significant drop in output, aggressive behavior towards management, conflicts with the methods engineer, and a high quit rate of 17% within 40 days.
- Total-Participation Groups: These groups had a smaller initial drop in output and quickly recovered to exceed previous production rates. They showed no hostility or quits during the experimental period.
Appraisal of Results:
The study concluded that involving employees in the change process could overcome resistance. However, “participation” is not merely a mechanical act but a genuine feeling of being respected and valued. Simply calling people to meetings or asking questions isn’t enough; true participation comes from how employees are treated consistently.
Resistance to What?
A second study in an electronics manufacturing factory provided further insights. It showed that employees often resist social change—alterations in their human relationships—rather than technical change itself. This was evident in two incidents involving a production operator and engineers:
- Positive Interaction: An engineer frequently collaborated with the operator, involving her in testing ideas, leading to a cooperative relationship with no resistance to changes.
- Negative Interaction: A new engineer approached the operator brusquely without prior interaction or explanation, leading to her deliberate mishandling of parts and resistance to the changes.
Key Takeaways:
- Technical vs. Social Change: Changes have both technical and social aspects. Employees’ resistance often stems from how changes affect their social relationships within the organization.
- Management’s Role: Executives can mitigate resistance by focusing on how changes impact human relationships and fostering a respectful and inclusive environment.
Understanding these dynamics can help management navigate and reduce resistance to change, emphasizing genuine participation and consideration of employees’ social contexts.