EMPLOYEES’ REACTION TO CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Name

Course, Class, Semester

Institution

Instructor

Date

Introduction

Change is inevitable in every organization. Just like change affects individuals in their daily endeavors, organizations have to undergo various transformations so as to continue surviving and operations as going concerns. It is essential to note that change receives various reactions from the employees of an organization. Typically, the average employee will resist change. While reasons have yet to be established for this behavior, it is a matter of common knowledge that change instills fear of the unknown in employees (Tobin 2009). As such, they tend to oppose change. At such a time, the managers must learn to subordinate individual interest to organizational interest. By subordination of individual interest, change has to be introduced and effected accordingly. Worth noting, though, is that not all employees are bound to resist change. Some employees are receptive to change, and take a positive challenge in all changes introduced by the management. One of the most common causes of change, apart from technology, is business combination (Hiatt 2006). There are many forms of business combinations, mergers being the most common. This paper is an explication of the likely reactions of employees to pending change, and the skills and abilities to be employed in effectively making the change work within time and budget.

Likely reactions of employees to the pending change

The reactions of the employees will vary from individual to another with most of the work force resisting the change. The likely reactions could be positive or negative depending on personality. Whether a person is an optimist or a pessimist depends significantly on their personalities and how they perceive challenges (Palmer 2004). Notably, I, as the line manager would not expect unanimous approval of the pending change. Similarly, I would not expect unanimity is resisting the pending changes. The expected reactions would be as follows.

Fear of the unknown

Research indicates that this is the most common reaction to organizational change. The main reason why employees will exhibit fear is primarily because they do not know the coming changes are likely to affect their careers. The organization’s workforce will always fear that with the changes come new tasks, which they may be unable to perform. As such, they tend to imagine that the changes may affect their job security. Typically, change is associated with new ways of doing things. This may cause the workforce to resist as they are already used to the status quo. Gurus in change management describe the status quo as a comfort zone for the employee that is unwilling to learn new things (Blokdijk 2008). As such, the organizational management must learn how to use industrial and organizational counseling in preparing the minds of the employees for the coming change. As a line manager, I would endeavor to make the entire staff see that there is no need to fear since the pending change is for the betterment of all.

Anger and anxiety

Employees may get angered and anxious about the changes that the management endeavors to introduce. Worth mentioning is the actuality that when the change is announced, the employees will be angry because, in most cases, they do not have control over the decisions to introduce change. Such anger is motivated by anxiety in the sense that the employees do not know their fate after the changes. They cannot tell whether or not the changes will lead to their dismissal or demotion. In a merger especially, it is anticipated that some employees are bound to lose their jobs (Burke 2010). This may the cause of excessive anger and anxiety in this case. Notably, organizations will always endeavor to cut down such costs as the labor overheads. This is the main reason why people will be angered by the changes as cost reduction implies many layoffs.

Grapevine

This is a common tendency in organizations especially during the times of change. Grapevine refers to the process of spreading rumors and gossip. Rumors are a common part of everyday life. When the change is announced, the employees may resort to such things as gossip with the managers and their perceived malicious agenda being the primary topic (Palmer 2004). Gossip may cause conflicts in the organizations. Such conflicts are a result of a cold war that emerges between the management and the work force. It is imperative to mention that grapevine and gossip are causes of tension in an organization.

Panic and tension

Just a student would get tensed up just before an examination they are not well prepared for, so will an employee get tensed because they are never prepared for change. The fact that they are aware of impending layoffs will bring panic, and this may degenerate into some bitter reactions. Panic and tension may make an individual fail to work or even develop some mental problems if the period for which change remains pending is considerably long (Cameron & Green 2012). Apparently, fear of the unknown, anger, panic and tension are the most common reactions to change in an organization.

Quitting and resignation

As a line manager, I would expect the organization’s work force to react negatively with the extreme negative reaction being quitting. Apparently, the organizational workforce may be shaky during the transitional period (Burke 2010). In a business combination, all the employees may panic and quit as a way of taking proactive measures in securing their job. Quitting early is a way of trying to start looking for greener pastures because that will be the only solution in the event that layoffs accompany the changes.

Ambivalence

Some employees will have a neutral reaction to the pending changes. They will remain neutral and even optimistic because they understand that change is inevitable and is a way of forging ahead and achieving organizational objectives. This is a common reaction by members of the higher layers of management and those workers that have been in the firm for quite some time and have it grow from one change to another (Palmer 2004). Unlike the new employees, these are people that know all the procedures involved in the introduction, effecting and sustenance of change. It is quite pertinent to note that, with time, the employees will accept change, partially because the old employees act as guides and agents of change.

Enthusiasm

The optimist is an individual that is ready to handle challenges. Optimists are naturally risk takers as they are open and welcoming to change. It is necessary to point out that this is the most potent reaction expected by the management. Employees that are enthusiastic about new challenges are the most efficient agents of change (Tobin 2009). It is worth mentioning that the organization will always endeavor nurture enthusiasm in the employees during the times of change. Apparently, organizations will always discourage pessimism as such attitudes drag the process of change. Enthusiasm is, primarily, an aspect of optimism. The existence of enthusiastic employees is a clear indication that not every employee will resist change. Some will actually stand as advocates of change.

Skills, strategies and principles to be adopted in ensuring that the change is effective

One of the factors that make change implementation difficult is the actuality that change must be accomplished within a given deadline and within a set budget. Apparently, this is made difficult by the actuality that various factors resist the change. The resistance posed by employees may slow down the process making the change managers fail to meet the set deadline. Working beyond deadline can as well imply extra costs and this may call for expansion of the budget. Even so, there are various ways through which change implementation can be made efficient. Efficiency in this case refers to the ability of the managers to work within deadlines without exceeding the budget. As a line manager, I would employ various principles and strategies in making the efficiency achievable. Some of the principles and strategies would employ are as follows.

Addressing the human side of change

Apparently, the factors most affected by change in an organization are the human factors. Human factors are the human resources or the work force of an organization. Noteworthy is the reality that other resources and assets in an organization will not react to change as they are not capable of judgment. On the contrary, human beings perceive change differently. This means that the management will have to concentrate on the human resources. As a line manger, I would analyze the pending change, pick out the human aspects of the change and have them addressed and communicated to the workforce. By communicating such aspects to the organizational workforce, I would be sure that people will hardly resist the change. Addressing the human side of change will as well enable me and other line managers ensure that people will work with the management in speeding up such change.

Starting at the top

One way of getting things moving fast in an organization is through influencing the leadership. Through influencing the management, the other parties become easily manipulated. Essentially the management is the first significant advocate of change. By understanding what the change entails, the members of the management will educate the junior employees (Tobin 2009). Essentially, therefore, I would make the various members of management aware of their roles in change. This way, I could be sure that the change will have had an organization-wide outlook. According to various gurus of change management, change should touch on all parts of the organizational factor.

Involving every layer

The human resource function of every organization can be broken down into layers. Such layers commonly referred to as strata; define the different levels of management (Great Britain 2007). In introducing change, all the strata should be involved so as to ensure continuity. As a line manager, I would enable all members of the departments to participate in the change introduction and maintenance. I would ensure this starts from the strategic level to the shop floor operatives. The shop floor operatives are the people most likely to resist change as their positions are the most volatile. Involving all layers ensures uniformity, continuity and minimal conflicts.

Create ownership

The first and most beneficial way of creating ownership is initiating participation. As a line manager, I would make sure all the members of the workforce participate in the initiation and implementation of the change. The principal behind this is participative management. The principles of participative management require that all members of the workforce have a role to play in the implementation of change (Furnham 2005). By making the employees participate in the implementation of change, a sense of ownership is created in the minds of the employees. This makes them feel like the change is theirs and not a thing of the management. They, therefore, will find it difficult to resist something they consider their own.

Preparing for the unexpected

Apparently, when pursing change, all managers should be prepared for anything. As a line manager, I would expect anything from the employees. This means that I would have to get ready for the worst, including total revolting by the employees. The decision to resist change may go to the worst if and when the entire work force may unanimously decide to go against the change by striking or boycotting duty (Blokdijk 2008). Being ready for the worst does not just mean expecting it, but having strategies ready to deal such challenges. This, in straightforward terms, refers to having the relevant professionals ready to act. As such, I would ensure that all specialists and machinery should be ready to meet the challenges. Essentially, I would make sure that change managers and industrial counselors are well versed with the planned change so that they can guide the work force in understanding the pending changes.

Speaking to the individual

The most effectual way of communicating should be to speak to the individual. Speaking to the individual entails understanding the personal needs of the employees. This means that in introducing change, I in the capacity of a line manager would have to address the people’s needs at an individual level. I would, therefore, require people to feel free to speak out there issues. Discussing the problems would enable mean point out the personal problems of the individual workers (Creasey & Hiatt 2003). I would then summon the individuals that express concerns and give them reason as to why they should participate in the change. Apparently, speaking to the individual gives the addressee a sense of affiliation. The people that the manager speaks to would feel considered and affiliated to the organization. They feel part of the change.

Communicating the message

Apparently, the most detrimental way of trying to introduce change is to introduce alterations without informing the workforce. Failure to communicate the essence of the change makes the people in the organization feel secluded and ignored. They feel that the management is trying to impose the changes on them (Lewis 2011). The most prominent way of evoking revolution and resistance from the workforce is attempting to impose changes. As a line manager, therefore, I would ensure that the lines of communication are functional and effective. I would then channel the message into the right channels in a manner that all the affiliates of the organization receive the message and understand the essence of such change.

Assessing the cultural landscape

Organizational culture is critically important in change introduction and implementation. Change managers need to scan the entire organizational landscape because change impacts on all aspects of the structure. Understanding the culture of the organization can be of importance since it will help me as a line manger to check for consistency (Blokdijk 2008). Apparently, any change that is inconsistent with organizational culture should not be adopted as this may threaten the existence of the organization

Conclusion

From the foregoing change management and implementation is considerably difficult. The reactions from the employees vary widely from extreme positive to extreme negative. This calls for various strategies related to organizational change management. The reactions from the employees may be fear anger, ambivalence, fear, enthusiasm, resignation, panic and grapevine. Such feelings and reactions can be controlled and even eliminated through proper communication, addressing culture, creating ownership, speaking to the individual, starting from the top and preparing for the worst. Noteworthy is the actuality that change is inevitable in organizational management.

Reference list

Blokdijk, G. 2008. Change Management 100 Success Secrets: The Complete Guide To Process, Tools, Software And Training In Organizational Change Management. S.L, S.N.]

Burke, W. W. 2010. Organization Change: Theory And Practice. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Cameron, E., & Green, M. 2012. Making Sense Of Change Management A Complete Guide To The Models, Tools And Techniques Of Organizational Change. London, Kogan Page.

Creasey, T. J., & Hiatt, J. M. 2003. Change Management: The People Side Of Change. Madison, Wis, Prosci Learning Center Publications.

Furnham, A. 2005. The Psychology Of Behaviour At Work The Individual In The Organization (2nd Ed.). Hove [England: Psychology Press.

Great Britain. 2007. Continual Service Improvement. London, Tso.

Hiatt, J. 2006. Adkar: A Model For Change In Business, Government And Our Community. Loveland, Co, Prosci Research.

Lewis, L. K. 2011. Organizational Change Creating Change Through Strategic Communication. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K., Wiley-Blackwell.

Palmer, B. 2004. Making Change Work: Practical Tools For Overcoming Human Resistance To Change. Milwaukee, Wisc, Asq Quality Press.

Tobin, R. M. 2009. Overcoming Resistance To Change. London, Kogan Page.