Employee Resistance to Change

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Categories of change
Resistance to Change
Early research on employees’ resistance to change
Potential causes of employees’ Resistance Change
Avoiding and reducing employees’ resistance to change before the change happens
Identifying early signs and symptoms of employee’s resistance to change
Managing employees’ resistance to change after change happens
Works Cited

Introduction

An organization is a social unit whose building blocks are individuals united together with a unity of purpose and with a collective goal which is to achieve the organization’s mission as it is outlined in its mission statement (Change 3). There are a lot of dynamics at play within an organization’s internal environment and also in its external environment.

These dynamics make change in the organization inevitable and thus a constant variable (MTD Training 6). Change is according to WebFinance a process that brings about difference (1). Organization change therefore brings about difference in an organization.

Change depending on certain factors can have a desirable effect on the organization or an undesirable one. An organization can trigger its own change whether it has a positive or negative impact and the change might be a necessity or not depending on the current state of affairs in the organization (Kezar 1- 4).

Change can also be triggered by some other force that is beyond the control of the organization. In whatever the case it is imperative that change with a positive impact to the organization is embraced and that which has a negative impact is countered and its effects weathered (Passenheim 7).

This is the reason for the concept of change management in organizations. Change management enables an organization to have a definition of what change is, determine the changes it should embrace and those it should refuse and if the change is accepted introduce it into the organization in a manner that maximizes the benefits to be realized from it and minimize the costs and risks it comes with (Passenheim 7).

Yes, there is a risk and cost factor associated with change, especially that which the organization introduces for its own benefit. When change is necessary in an organization, change management enables it to introduce the change in its systems in a manner that is budget friendly and risk unfriendly.

As pointed out above, change in an organization is the direct result of dynamics at play within an organization’s internal and external environments. According to Passenheim one reason for change is the market situation or the market place, which mostly applies to business organizations (7).

This is dynamic that is at play within the organization’s external environment. To illustrate this dynamic lets consider a typical business organizational scenario. Let’s say there is stiff competition in the market and an organization wants to stay on top or compete significantly with its rivals.

As a strategy to deal with the stiff competition the organization can raise the quality standards for its products and in tandem improve the production processes. Thus the strategy is dominated by change that arises from dynamics in play within the organization’s external environment.

Passenheim continues to point out that technology is another reason for change (7). Technology is another dynamic in play within the organization’s external environment. Technology is changing and thus organizations have to change in tandem with it so that they can enjoy its benefits.

Another reason for change as given by Passenheim is a Government’s laws and regulations (7). This is a dynamic that is in play within an organization’s external environment.

A Government’s laws and regulations have to be revised for the reason that they don’t become obsolete in the face of new contexts that arise with time. The revisions can result in changes and the changes might impact organizations in ways that necessitate change in it.

Another reason for change as given by Passenheim is economics (7). This is also another dynamic in play within an organization’s external environment. The economics of the environment surrounding an organization are direct causers of change in organizations.

Another reason for change as given by Passenheim is an organization’s corporate strategy (8). This is a dynamic that is in play within an organization’s internal environment. An organization’s corporate strategy rarely changes but when it does it triggers a chain of changes within the body.

For instance, if an organization merges with another one its corporate strategy is more likely to change and the change has to be reflected in the systems of the organization. Another reason for change as given by Passenheim is an organizations workforce (8).

This is a dynamic that is also in play within an organization’s internal environment. Naturally an organization’s workforce does not remain the same throughout as individuals are replaced by others.

The replacements change the complexion of the workforce in various aspects, namely, gender age and education. Due to this fact an organization’s managers have to redesign jobs and job requirements as often as necessary to ensure smooth flow of work in the organization.

Another reason for change as given by Passenheim is technology and equipment (8). This is a dynamic that is in play within an organization’s internal environment.

Technology and equipment as workforce are ever-changing. Technology is replaced by newer technology and equipments replaced by more advanced equipments. Such scenarios again necessitate the need for managers in an organization to redesign jobs and processes to ensure smooth flow of work.

Another reason for change as given by Passenheim is an organization’s employees attitudes (8). This is a dynamic that is in play within an organization’s internal environment.

Employee attitudes can cause employee turnover be it internal or external which again will force the organization managers to redesign human resource policies, job requirements and the jobs themselves. Employee attitudes are heavily impacted by the organizational culture in place at the organization.

It is therefore important that an organization understands and monitors the organizational culture in place in it. Organizational culture as been defined by Lægard and Bindslev as a basic pattern of assumptions created, derived and developed by a particular group of people during the process of learning within the context of problems arising from external adaptation and/or internal incorporation (77).

Categories of change

Change in an organization can be categorized into five main categories each of which reflects the level at which it is implemented. The first four categories are mission, operational, strategic and technological changes (Change Management 2).

The fifth category is attitude and behavioral changes of an organization’s personnel (Change Management 2). Mission change captures the change of an organization’s mission, which is outlined in its mission statement. Organization mission change indicates a new version of the mission statement.

Strategic change captures the change in an organizations strategy, mainly its corporate strategy. As pointed out earlier in our discussion an organization can change its corporate strategy.

Changes in an organization’s corporate strategy imply changes in its business model. For instance, the business model of an organization has changed to accommodate mergers, acquisitions or new markets that the organization wants to venture into.

Operational changes capture changes affecting an organizations systems and workforce. Operational changes are mainly done to enhance smooth flow of work in an organization. Technological changes mainly target the infrastructure of an organization.

Technology is ever-changing creating a situation where organizations have to replace older technology with new in an effort to ensure success in performance. Attitude and behavioral changes target the organization’s personnel.

These changes are important in ensuring success in the performance of an organization. To implement attitude and behavioral changes it is imperative that an organization changes its organizational culture (Laegard 15).

Resistance to Change

In response to major organisational change, employees undergo a reaction process when they are individually confronted. This reaction process is made up of four stages: the initial denial, resistance, gradual exploration and eventual commitment.

Unconscious reactions arise as the employees respond to the intentions of change (Bovey and Hede 534). The employees unconsciously apply well-thought as well as habitual defence tactics to defend themselves from the possibilities of change and from the feelings of anxiousness to the causes of change.

Nevertheless, the tactics of defence can often create obstacles as well as barriers against an employee adapting to change (Bovey and Hede 372). The organization should view resistance to the change process as natural and thus expect it to be there.

The fact that change is part of moving from the known to the unknown is the key driver to resistance. In most cases, employees prefer to be in a comfortable level of arousal and stimulation and tend to oppose any force seeking to change that state (Bovey and Hede 372).

There are various degrees of ability and willingness to embrace the demands of organizational change (Bovey and Hede 534). The reason behind this is that employees tend to experience the paradigms of change from varied perspectives.

Some of the employees rather embrace and adapt to the requirements of the change process relatively faster, while others become overwhelmed and stall along the way. Furthermore, another genre of employees may rather go through multiple transitions (Bovey and Hede 372). The inability of many large scale corporate change programs to achieve is attributable to employee resistance.

A longitudinal research done on about 500 large Australian organizations within the period of three years starting from 1993 showed the existence of employee resistance and that it was in most cases seen as an implementation problem faced by the top management especially when implementing the processes of change (Bovey and Hede 535).

According to this research, more than half of the organizations involved had the pockets of employee resistance. Regarding these research revelations, there are more questions than answers on how the management of the organizations deal successfully with aspects of resistance when rolling out change processes.

Based on this research it is evident that handling employee resistance becomes a major hurdle for the agents of change and this overwhelms the rest of the components of change process (Bovey and Hede 373).

Arguably, most of the cases of the organizational change are handled from a technical perspective regardless of recognizing or understanding the way the human factors function to affect the achievement of success or failure as regards to the demands of a change process.

It is far much possible for the management to direct their focus on as well as dedicate efforts on the technical approach to change process. These deals with quantifying and predicting aspects like formulating strategies as well as action plans, deducing profit rationales and resource allocation reasons (Bovey and Hede 373).

There is tendency of the management to be negligent and ignorant to show that it is of equal importance to have a human dimension especially when engaging on the activities of change within the organization.

By embracing and applying the technical approach, it is possible to suppress the tendencies of resistance by employees. In doing this, resistance by employees is thus viewed as opposition rather than a managerial issue (Bovey and Hede 535).

While in most cases it is debated that the process of change is frequently handled from a technical approach devoid of due consideration to the humanitarian grounds, however, there are occasions when the humane aspect is accounted for in token and instrumental way. Take for instance, when the management allocates most of the resources in order to achieve the intended change, but hardly will invest in the relaying, training and follow-up necessary to fully implement the process of change (Bovey and Hede, 2001, 373).

The junior employees may as well find their appealed contribution into procedures for implementing change are ultimately not noticed by the management, leaving staff disillusioned.

Some scholarly quarters report that in most cases staff of an organization demand that there views be heard and handled with a lot of respect by their seniors.

Nevertheless, some of the managers instead of initiating change are rather engaged in questionable techniques so that to deal against resistance. Some of these techniques include manipulation and use of threats as well as force (Bovey and Hede 374).

Taking an organization through the process of change entails to usefully match the humanitarian wants with those of the organization. Because these organizations consist of people thus to achieve organizational change significantly entails anl individual character change.

This transition demands the participation of people who primarily embrace change themselves to achieve organizational change so that to be successful. When employees show signs of being resistant it is of paramount importance to differentiate these from the real causes behind it (Bovey and Hede, 2000, 536).

According to Bovey and Hede (2000, 544), employees who are unconsciously influenced to apply maladaptive defences have the likelihood to be resistant to the process of change within the organization. While, those employees that have the character of unconsciously adopting adaptive defences have lower likelihood of being resistant to the process of change within the organization.

By and large, maladaptive defences have a sturdy relationship with behavioural desires to be resistant to the process of change. The character desires supersede the adaptive defence tactics adopted. There is established positive association linking the maladaptive defences to character desires to be resistant.

The association is modest. However, there exists a negative association linking the adaptive defence humour to character desires to be resistant to the process of change. Nevertheless, the association is low. Thus, it is possible that employees who have trend of applying humor to manage the feelings of anxiety have a lower likelihood to be resistant to the process of change within the organization.

Humors have a sturdy and positive influence on the mechanism of coping and replicate the employee’s capacity to be in agreement with a situation harbouring conflicts. This happens while taking the edge off its painful aspects.

In a situation where an employee decides to laugh at any problem it may be they are introducing a new dimension, possibly by viewing the stupidity or absurd aspects, thus having some control over it. Taking the vantage perspective of these as amusing or cynical characteristics of change, the employee is showing proper management skills to the anxiety related to the process of change (Bovey and Hede, 2000, 545).

Thus, those employees who have the capacity to properly manage their sensations of anxiety have the lower likelihood to resist change which is a contributory factor to negative relationship existing between adaptive defences and character desires to be resistant to the process of change.

An employee’s value exists in their capacity to differentiate as well as be able to demarcate the boundary delinking the self from the rest of the world. Projection probably can blur this boundary while changing the reality.

In this case what originally occurred as an internal threat forthwith is perceived by the employee to be external. Considering the perspective of the employee, the origin of the anxiety is quite externalised being something objective that one has to be resistant to. The intensity of anxiety has the likely possibilities to rise when the organization is experiencing major processes of change.

In such case some employees may resort to projection as a tool of defence mechanism. These kind of employees have the tendency to externalise their internal notions and sensations, thinking that change is the root cause of their anxiety, thus, counter this by being resistant.

By the time the employee comprehends the inherent cause of the anxiety, it persists to manifest itself as a threat originating from an external source (Bovey and Hede, 2000, 546).

Based on some scholarly quarters, this is a development of bringing unconscious material of our inherent life into our conscious alertness as well as accepting it. It is of significance to note that defences can be more acute based on the degree of anxiety in one’s individual life.

Take for instance an employee going through high degree of anxiety as well as stress because of a relationship divorce, loss of loved one or any other psychological trauma has more tendencies to unconsciously project unfinished grieving to other aspects of their life.

This may include transition occurring within the working set up. During the time of implementing change, those at the management level ought to know the ways that personal issues would influence employee’s thinking, feelings as well as character.

It is of significance to properly manage when enforcing change. In order to be in a position to manage the true cause of human resistance, it is necessary to comprehend the personality of the employee (Bovey and Hede, 2000, 545).

In the effort to achieve change within the organization, at times it is necessary to go further than the obvious aspects of an employee’s character and tackle the unconscious inspiration in order to achieve a change of attitude. At the instance of implementing quality change, the management has to be conscious of how the mechanisms of defence are influenced by the employee’s character desires.

When the paybacks of operating with the humanitarian aspects are comprehended and embraced, the management has the likelihood of initiating, supporting and executing the necessary intervention approaches (Vakola et al. 89).

There exist two kinds of intervention approaches proposed as ways to assist the management in working with employee resistance.

These include information-based as well as counselling interventions. Information-based interventions entail providing the employee with the necessary information to form the basis of awareness as well as comprehending of unconscious procedures and how these affect an employee’s inspirations and character in a varying surrounding. Information-based interventions if possible need to be sustained through counselling interventions.

Counselling interventions centre on activities designed to help out employees, both singularly and jointly as a group, to evaluate, infer as well as comprehend how their own defence mechanism affect their discernments and inspirations towards change (Bovey and Hede, 2000, 546).

Early research on employees’ resistance to change

Alvin Zander is one of the early researchers in the topic of employee resistance. One of his main contributions to the subject is his definition of resistance. Resistance in his definition is considered and described as behavior whose aim is to shield an individual from the effects of change that is either real or imagined (Bolognese, 2002, 1).

Much of the early research work in the subject of employee resistance to change is mainly aimed at developing suitable definitions of what resistance is. Kurt Lewin a 1940’s social psychologist introduced the idea of managing employees’ resistance to change with respect to changes proposed by the top management of the organization.

Kurt Lewin research was directed towards individual behavior or aspects of it that should be altered in order for a company to realize effective organizational change (Bolognese, 2002, 2).

Kurt Lewin in his work pointed out that potential organizational change is resisted by forces working in the opposite direction, which are mainly from dynamics in play within an organization’s internal and external environment (Bolognese, 2002, 2).

The forces usually put a halt to the efforts directed at realizing the change creating a situation that Lewin calls dynamic equilibrium (Bolognese, 2002, 2). To this end, Lewin suggests that for the change to be realized one of two things should be done (Bolognese, 2002, 2).

The first is enhancing the forces that are driving the change and the second is eliminating the forces that are resisting the change. When either of these two is done change starts to take progress (Bolognese, 2002, 2). Lewin additionally suggests that at a point as the change takes progress equilibrium should be set artificially (Bolognese, 2002, 2).

The first published work on employee resistance to change was the work of two researchers, namely, Lester Coach and John R.P French (Bolognese, 2002, 2). The work was entitled “Overcoming Resistance to Change” and it sought to address two issues (Bolognese, 2002, 2).

The first issue was to enlighten organizations on why employees resist change and the second was to again enlighten organizations on how they can overcome the resistance to proposed changes in it (Bolognese, 2002, 2).

Another early research work entitled “Resistance to Change-Its Analysis and Prevention” by Alvin Sander took into account the symptoms of resistance to change and created distinctions between them (Bolognese, 2002, 2).

Potential causes of employees’ Resistance Change

Within any organizational set up, there are potential or underlying reasons as to why an employee may resort to resist change. The employee may be disillusioned or possessed with fear of the unknown (Garrisson 8).

In this case, the employee’s anticipations of new developments may overwhelm them in such a way that they become resistant to the proposed changes within the organizational set up. The fear of the unknown by the employee is associated with expectations of new and harsh realities which may be difficult to cope with.

The fear of failure is another causal reason for the resistance to change (Garrison 8). It is against the norms for any employee to be contented when branded as a failure at their workplace. Individuals interpret failure as lack of competency to deal with organizational responsibilities or challenges.

This fear can be great especially in organizations with high end goals. This fear is demonstrated when organizations adopt performance indicators. Influence by mates not to conform to demands may drive resistant to change. This is common when one is avoiding to be seen as indifferent from others. This is the case in order to maintain company or popularity within the organization.

Another cause for employee resistance to change is lack of understanding with respect to the vision and need driving the change (Prosci, 2004, 4). When employees lack information about the change about to happen in the organization they are totally disoriented and therefore, feel that they are justified to oppose the proposed change.

Another cause of employee resistance to change is fear of change and comfort with the organization’s status quo (Prosci 5). Employees will insist on having things remain the same as they are for in this way they know how to do things in the organization. Changes are scary to employees as they may land them in uncomfortable situations e.g. working with people they don’t like or doing jobs they don’t approve of.

Another causal reason for employee resistance to change is an organization’s corporate history and culture (Prosci 6). If an organization’s corporate history and culture is made up of failed change projects there is likely to be employee resistance to future change projects. Another causal reason for employee resistance to change is the actual change (Prosci 7).

The actual change can bring about a situation whereby the employees have to take more responsibilities, work and undergo stricter and more performance measures. Mostly, such situations don’t auger well with the employees and thus they may be more resistant to change since in resisting it they ensure that such situations will never occur.

Another reason for employees’ resistance to change is fear of loosing jobs (Prosci 4). Employees can resist change because they perceive it as bringing job cuts with it.

Avoiding and reducing employees’ resistance to change before the change happens

Problems within the organizational set up are not given but rather are constructed caused by novel, problematic as well as discrepant circumstances considered to be troublesome, riddling or uncertain to those involved in the issue (Ford et al., 2008, 363).

Change brings with it an interruption of usual routines of the organization and requires the parties taking part to adapt fresh patterns. In addition, this entails an interchange of intentional as well as emergent processes that can deeply be vague.

During this situation, both those agitating for change and change recipients employ the strategy of sense-making. In the concept of sense-making, those agitating for change work towards their accomplishments, while change recipients worry and guard on what befalls on them (Ford et al., 2008, 363).

The process of sense-making is active and entails the interplay of information research, meaning ascription and allied feedbacks. This encompasses exploring for specific character traits and communications out of streams of continuing activities, inferring to the parties to provide sense and then taking actions based on the outcome of inference. As result of this, actions and meanings turn out to be commingled.

This state of affairs is referred to as net presentation. With net presentation, actions and meanings are considered as one, seamless reality (Ford et al., 2008, 363). Those agitating for change act steadily and parallel to net presentation. They act while reifying and objectifying to appear as if it occurs independently of them.

Under this state of affairs, change agents are motivated to think they have nothing to be associated with as regards to the change. Sense-making by incorporating the authoring, conceptualizing and inventions means that an advanced rank of change causes be involved rather than an undemanding reporting or interpretation (Ford et al., 2008, 364).

When overcoming resistance it is the concern of those agitating for change to effectively cope with how they relate with change recipients. This is by creating an environment where change recipients and those agitating for change through sense-making become a public part of the dialogue aimed at achieving change.

In this case some scholars propose for the parties to actively interact and to avoid the perspective that resistant is one-sided (Ford et al., 2008, 372). The nature and quality of relationship between the agents of change and recipient is a function of the participants’ interaction.

The understanding of the term relationship is a context of conditional discussions on whose basis occur precise foreground actions and communications. Background discussions result from experiences and habits that are either direct or inherited. This gives room for possibilities and influence on character of how people choose to pay attention to what is said and the unsaid.

This state of affairs influences the functional explanation of what is being communicated whether it is in spoken or action form, correct or incorrect, acceptable or unacceptable (Ford et al., 2008, 372).

One of the strengths for those agitating for change in sustaining relationship with change recipients is their willingness to take responsibility for their own sense-making. The willingness of those agitating for change is a functional subset of resistance to be seen in actions and sense-making of parties involved.

This makes them to be fully responsible for their contribution to its occurrence. This makes them to be more empowered to and useful in interpreting change recipients’ actions (Ford et al., 2008, 372). Take for instance, a change opportunity and proposal can be regarded as a request that can be turned down or counter-offered.

In a simple interpretation, when someone declines a proposal it means that the person will do it, while, in counter-offering it can be interpreted as if one is willing but with some reservations. In both cases of declining and counter-offering, the absence of fully accepting the request could be construed as resistance by those agitating for change (Ford et al., 2008, 372).

However, a counter-offer is a strategy during a discussion used by an individual showing the desire and is receptive to the request and on top of that asks for some accommodation. Asking for some space may look like being demanding or taking a stand which is challenging.

Thus, those agitating for change should be strategic not to interpret such actions from the change recipients as refusals to put up with, take part in or make a contribution to change. In case that happens, then they forgo the chance to consider the counter-offer as proposed (Ford et al., 2008, 373).

Those agitating for change can choose to be logical with recipients’ dissatisfactions and grievances by committing to listen to it all as if it is a counter-offer that can renew and improve the expected change to be further flourishing. Relationships are flexible and progressive while varying with the time of change.

Recipients with well founded employment relationships have the likelihood of adapting to introduce norms brought about by change (Ford et al., 2008, 373). This is in contrast to those with low-quality relationship. The significant reliability of communication by those agitating for change is a superset of change instrumentality.

This is construed to mean that the value of the relationship between those agitating for change and recipients is more robust at the initial phases of change than later on. In cases where there is a healthy relationship between agents and recipients of change, the frequency of recipient actions being labelled as resistant is low (Ford et al., 2008, 373).

Identifying early signs and symptoms of employee’s resistance to change

Employee resistance to change can be an individual action or a collective action (Changing Minds 6 – 7). When the employee resistance is individual it is manifested in a number of ways depending on the individual’s level of power in the organization.

Resistance by employees yielding considerable power can be manifested trough open criticism whereas that of employees yielding no power at all can be manifested by passive refusals to work (Changing minds 6). When the employee resistance is collective action it is an indication that the employees have serious issues with the proposed organizational change (Changing minds 7).

Whether the employees’ resistance to change is individual or collective it has certain early signs and symptoms. It is imperative that organizational managers are able to identify these early signs and symptoms of employee resistance so that they plan on how to successfully impliment change in the organization.

One of the early signs and symptoms of employee resistance to change is grumbling once the change to be effected is announced (Changing minds 3). The grumbling is an indication that the employees dislike the changes that are about to be introduced.

Increased absenteeism at the workplace is also another of the signs and symptoms of employees resistance to change (Identifying resistance to change 4). The increased absenteeism might be as a result of the employees arriving late for work or just deciding not to report to work.

Another early sign and symptom of employee’s resistance to change is increased difficulty in constructive communication at the workplace (Identifying resistance to change 5). In such a scenario communication at the workplace is characterized by harsh tones and propaganda about the potential change.

Another early symptom of employee’s resistance to change is low productivity especially when the employees appear to be always busy at their work (Identifying resistance to change 6). Narcissism is another of the early signs and symptoms of employee resistance to change (Identifying resistance to change 6). Narcissism is characterized by dampened team spirit and wrangles between employees.

Another of the early signs and symptoms of employee resistance to change is low morale and motivation or even a lack of these (Identifying resistance to change 7). In such a scenario employees are reluctant to take on new projects and/or responsibilities. Another of the early signs and symptoms of employee resistance to change is unexplained physical illnesses (Identifying resistance to change 3).

Certain unexplainable ailments plaguing employees such as headaches are at times early signs and symptoms of employee resistance to change.

Managing employees’ resistance to change after change happens

Once change has occurred it is critical to manage still existing employee resistance as this can easily reverse the change and its gains. Managing employee resistance after change mainly involves strengthening performance and commitment to the change.

One way to strengthen performance and commitment to change is through establishing a communication channel where employees can ask for support (MTD Training 45). For instance if the change brought about new technology in the organization and some of the employees do not know how to use this new technology then resistance to this change is likely to recur as the employees feel alienated and frustrated.

But by having a communication channel where the employees can ask for support means that eventually the employees will learn how to use new systems and thus adapt relatively well to the changes.

Another way of strengthening performance and commitment to change is through conducting follow-ups on measures of change implementation as often as needed (MTD Training 45). This activity is important in identifying areas that are deviating from the original change plan.

Once such areas are identified corrective measures can be implemented to ensure that the changes are successful. It is important that change is implemented successfully as employees will only commit to the change they can see.

Another way of strengthening performance and commitment to change is staff encouragement in such a manner that the employees share their experiences with the new change with one another (MTD Training 45). The objective of this exercise is to encourage the employees not to limit themselves but to explore the change in new situations.

Another way of strengthening performance and commitment to change is having the change manifested in various aspects of the organizations (MTD Training 45). These aspects include staff expectation, language and the documentation of the organization.

Another way to strengthen performance and commitment to change is driving employee behavior to conform to the change through the use of positive reinforcements (MTD Training 45). If negative reinforcements are used employees’ attitude towards the change shifts from bad to worse depicting the resentment they have towards it. The resentment and bad attitude to change only fuels the employees’ resistance to change more.

Another way to strengthen performance and commitment to change is through provision of incentives, reward systems and competitions (MTD Training 45). Such provisions motivate and encourage employees to accept and embrace the change that has taken place as the norm in the organization.

Works Cited

Bolognese, F. Albert. “Employee resistance to organizational change”. 2002. Web.

Bovey, H. Wayne and Hede, Arnold. “Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes”. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22. 8 (2001) 372-382. Web.

Bovey, H. Wayne and Hede, Arnold. (2000). “Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16.7 (2000): 534-548. Web.

Change management. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2011. Web.

Change. Web Finance. 2011. Web.

Ford, D. Jerold, Ford, W. Leon, and D’amelio, Alfreck. “Resistance to Change: the Rest of the Story”. Academy of Management Review 33. 2 2008: 362-377. Web.

Garrison, Wynn. “Change management”. Web.

Identifying resistance to change. Bright Hub Inc. 2011. Web.

Kezar, J. Amanda. “Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21^st century”. 2001. Web.

Laegard, Jorgen. and Bindslev, Mille. Organizational theory. Ventus Publishing ApS, 2010.

MTD Training. “Managing through change.” Ventus Publishing ApS, 2010. Web.

Passenheim, Otto. “Change management.” Ventus Publishing ApS, 2010. Web.

Prosci. Early findings from Prosci’s change management study. 2002. Web.

Vakola, Maria, Tsaousis, Idyle, and Nikolaou, John. “The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19. 2 (2004): 88-110.

Click Here To Order Now!