May 30, 2011
Pamela Bonner, M.P.A
In order to successfully and effectively implement change all of the employees should have a good understanding of how the changes will benefit the organization, their positions, and how it might impact their routines. To many employees the implementation of change is not always properly communicated, and the process of change on paper as it is being implemented can be threatening as well as confusing. Also, the people behind the scenes making the changes may not have taken specific details into consideration regarding effective changes that perhaps the employees can point out. When this situation arises the employee can feel threatened since the change is perhaps seen as not being effective or fully planned out. There are obvious ways to avoid this situation and put employee’s minds and morale in a good position, it is called communication. As a manager one should communicate the idea of change to the employees, either through group meetings or on a one-on-one basis. This type of communication of change will provide management with the employee’s feedback and in many ways empower the employee’s to respect their positions, influence co-workers attitudes, and accept the change. Also, this form of communicating change may help management see changes that possibly would not be beneficial to the organization or its goals. Everyone knows that change does not happen in one day or even overnight, there needs to be continuous oversight to monitor the process of changes and to support the employees in finding processes that will make the change work, while being respectful of all co-workers and the different demands that come with implementing change (McConnell, 2010). In implementing change the manager should not focus on one thing as though it is the solution to the problem, they need to look at the whole picture.
The process of change is uncommonly met with full support from every single person throughout an organization. In most cases there will be people who balk or resist whatever changes are being made or suggested. The resistance can be in many different forms such as: being overt or convert, being well intentional or subversive, or being active or passive. The common practice is for those who are resisting doing so by fighting the changes in such ways that reflect their own personalities. In these cases the forms of retaliation can vary on many different spectrums. As a Manager it can be difficult to not mistaken a lack of overt opposition for a form of support, while others employees make it difficult to see by disguising their resistance as being politically correct. Unfortunately, the different tactics used by employees can cause them to be very cunning when opposing change, resisting cooperation, and fighting with co-workers to reduce the chance of being caught and reprimanded. According to McConnell, there are several ways that individuals can be subtle in the sabotage of change and some of these ways are: intentionally forgetting duties, not speaking up about operations that might cause problems but instead doing them so problems do arise, encouraging others to resist the change as well, and possibly creating obstacles for the change to not successfully be implemented.
The position of manager requires that you look for all signs of passive resistance from employees such as procrastination, unwillingness to cooperate, or the unwillingness to comply with procedures and guidelines. However, there are two sides to every situation and there are times where resistance to change is a good thing, as it can bring light to certain changes that could result in critical mistakes for the organization. An organization should encourage employees to speak up when they think critical mistakes might be made and to point out problems that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document