COMMUNICATION AND CHANGE
by
Charles Lamson
 |
WHY PEOPLE RESIST CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS
People resist change for numerous reasons. Probably the most significant reason people resist change, is that they are fearful that their position or status in the organization might change - for the worse. This is not to suggest that people are always opposed to change, for some changes would enhance their position in the organization. However, many persons are satisfied with their position, or at least secure, in it, and do not want to play with fire. The possibility of making things significantly better is not worth the risk of making them significantly worse. For example, take a manager who has been supervising a unit for eight years. She has the routine down in terms of who does what, when reports are due, how to do things, and she is competent at what she does. Any change within the system might impact her role, and ultimately change her position, so that she would have to start all over, and learn a new role. With all that effort, she would only get back to where she was before the change. Is it any any wonder she would be resistant?
In conjunction with this, many employees fear change, because it might require their workload to be increased (or altered), so they would have to do something they disliked. Many employees are satisfied having a routine job, with routine functions, and do not want to change the routine. Whether you are a teacher or a factory worker, you have scheduled routines that you have established. And you feel comfortable with things the way they are. Granted, some routines can be boring, but most people would rather have a boring routine than have to learn a new job, or have their workload increased. And many times change means altering one's workload or increasing it, for a time at least.
People also resist change because they have had past experiences with change, processes that have been failures. Changes can fail for a multitude of reasons. For example, if most people are not in favor of the change, it will be undermined. If the organization does not have the resources for funding the change, it will probably fail. Many schools have tried to implement the use of computers to teach computer literacy for their students. However, only those schools with sufficient funding to buy and maintain a sufficient number of machines, have successfully created a high-quality computer program for all. In many schools, only a select few get to use the computers, because there are not enough for all students and teachers.
Employees also fear that a change might alter their economic status in a negative fashion. One of the first questions people will ask in organizations when approached about a change is, "How will this change impact my salary?"
People also resist change, because they are fearful that it will create chaos. In other words, the system will be disorganized and dysfunctional for an indeterminate amount of time. The writers of this book, Organizational Communication for Survival, know of a system that discontinued the graduate school, in favor of centralizing graduate processing functions in various departments and units. It took several years before personnel knew how to transfer students from one unit to the next, new forms had to be created, new rules and policies had to be created, and of course new personnel had to be hired, and some older personnel were moved, or their jobs changed. This type of a major change can cause incredible amounts of chaos, which makes the process so unpleasant that the next time someone mentions a change of such magnitude, many in the system will say, "Hell no, the last time we did something like this, it was a mess for years."
In conclusion, people resist change because they have had past experiences that have not been positive, fear an economic decrease, or workload increase, and most of all, are afraid of all the chaos that can accompany a change. The primary argument given by most persons against change goes something like this: "It will cause confusion, more work, and a lot of chaos, so why should we change." The majority of the workforce is generally reluctant to accept a change, unless it is a clearly desirable change for the majority of the personnel. How then, do we get a change (or new idea) successfully diffused throughout a system?
Everett Rogers, along with a number of co-authors, has published several in-depth comprehensive reviews of research, and theory, related to the diffusion of innovations in societies and organizations. The upcoming articles will draw heavily on the Rogers influence; it reviews the types of persons involved in the change process, and their impact on diffusion and change.
Before we review the types of persons involved in the diffusion process, we need to define what we mean by an innovation or change. We use the definition posted by Rogers (1995): An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual. It matters little, so far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an idea is objectively new, as measured by the lapse of time, since its since its first use of discovery. If the idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation. We use the words innovation and change interchangeably. Rogers suggestS that he does "not find it fruitful to make much of the distinction. The communication patterns for change and innovation in organizations are rather similar" (Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers, 1976, p. 153).
Regardless of the innovation being anticipated, persons with both the formal (and the informal) communication networks, must support the change. It is clear to most, that if they are going to introduce a change (and want a chance for success), their immediate manager (a person who is clearly part of the organization's formal structure), must support the change The people in the informal network (those not clearly found on the organization's hierarchical chart) may have the potential to be influential, and are an integral and necessary component of any successful change process. Upcoming articles review roles of people in the informal network, who might influence the success of an innovation's diffusion.
To be continued...
*ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 154-156*
END
|
No comments:
Post a Comment