RESISTENZA CHANGE: Agenti di recettori cambiamento e il cambiamento

1. stabilire un senso di urgenza attraverso un attento esame del mercato
2. formano una potente coalizione di manager in grado di guidare il cambiamento
3. creare una visione di gestire il cambiamento e le strategie per raggiungere tale visione
4. comunicare la visione in tutta l'organizzazione
5. spronare gli altri ad agire sulla visione eliminando gli ostacoli, i sistemi cambiano e promuovendo l'assunzione di rischi
6. Piano e condurre prestazioni visibile breve termine miglioramento
7. consolidare il miglioramento, rivalutare il cambiamento e apportare le modifiche necessarie nel nuovo programma.
8. articolare il rapporto tra nuovi comportamenti e il successo organizzativo.

Errori comuni manager fanno

Oltre al piano di otto (8) passi, il primo punto di stabilire un senso di urgenza, lavora e contro le realtà e scopo del cambiamento. Creare o stabilire un senso di urgenza è in aumento & # 39; tensione & # 39; che può portare a solidificazione resistenza. La strategia è un processo in corso e cambia a seconda dell'ambiente. L'agente di cambiamento non deve essere "miope" per entrare in una posizione di & # 39; reagiscono & # 39;, piuttosto che & # 39; proattivo & # 39; . L'introduzione del "senso di urgenza" mostra la mancanza di visione e prevede che l'agente di cambiamento è & # 39; miope .

Anche in questo caso, "formare una potente coalizione di manager capaci di guidare il cambiamento" suona come & # 39; il confronto & # 39;. Il fattore di cui sopra è come creare & # 39; confine entro un limite di & # 39; si sta conducendo l'opposizione. Formare una potente coalizione è un linguaggio di "servizio civile" dove "il profitto e la soddisfazione del cliente" non sono la "roccia". Formare una coalizione genera malcontento e rafforza la resistenza dei ricevitori. Allora, qual è il modo migliore per andare?

Le fasi sequenziali per superare i problemi del cambiamento:

• Per rimuovere le regole autorevoli che invita la resistenza. In risposta a Wick (1979) e Berger & Luckmann (1966), agenti di cambiamento non possono emanare loro ambiente e possono costruire le loro realtà. Possibilità di successo nella gestione del cambiamento è la "cooperazione"
• Lavorando come una squadra e partner di cambiare il destinatario. Contrariamente ad alcune delle otto (8) punti base al piano di Kotter (1995), agenti di cambiamento non può costringere i destinatari. In tal modo, solidificare resistenza. I fattori che favoriscono sono "la partecipazione e la visione condivisa"
• coinvolgimento del recettore dal punto di inizio alla fase di attuazione. Ciò alleviare la tensione. Alcuni gestori di distruggere l'applicazione prima ancora ha cominciato a creare tensione attraverso la sua azione a causa di "incompetenza"

avanti

• Piano e stabilire un sistema per gestire le emozioni.
• Per comunicare continuamente il motivo e il fine ultimo di cambiamento. Comunicazione e il mantenimento di un buon rapporto tra l'agente di cambiamento e il ricevitore partirà dalla concezione del cambiamento e agire come un "avvertimento" che è necessario un cambiamento. Attenzione il destinatario che non fare nulla non è un'opzione, perché potrebbe portare a seri problemi che possono interessare tutti. Inizia dal punto di concezione per spiegare i benefici del cambiamento e di "perdita" a causa di inazione. I beneficiari sono esseri umani e sarà ragionare con voi quando si rendono conto che il cambiamento è una buona cosa per tutti. non opporsi, esse collaboreranno con voi.
• Creare un clima di collaborazione, visione condivisa ed entusiasmo all'interno del sistema in modo che il destinatario ha un senso di "partecipazione e collaborazione"
• Identificare un "educatore capo cum" che operano allo stesso livello come il ricevitore, fungendo da "ponte" tra l'agente cambiamento e ricevitore. Il loro dovere è quello di spiegare dove c'è fraintendimento. Degli shock assorbente molle .
• per condurre dagli esempi anteriori e mostrare identificati in un leader. Un leader non è "prepotente" e non "autorevole". Un leader è simpatico, affettuoso, forte, intelligente, visionario, educativo e affidabile

.

cambiamento Programma e la sua attuazione possono comprendere i fattori di cui sopra per raggiungere gli obiettivi desiderati. Alcuni degli 8 passi Kotter per creare urgenza e formare una coalizione di manager in materia di cambiamenti creare problemi e aggiungere per rinforzare la resistenza.

In aggiunta ai fattori di cui sopra, è importante per discutere la gestione delle emozioni a parte perché ha conseguenze di vasta portata.

Gestire le emozioni:

L'emozione è descritto come "Affetto" dal professor Barsade Wharton University. Trascurando la gestione delle emozioni è ciò che porta alla variazione di resistenza. Questo è l'errore principale che i manager fanno in sede di attuazione il cambiamento all'interno di un'organizzazione. La cattiva gestione di emozioni porta alla paura e la paura conduce alla resistenza o sottomissione. Resistere o sottoposti a coercizione o il confronto porta a inefficienza e inefficacia. "I processi di contagio emotivo che permettono la condivisione o trasferire emozioni da un individuo ad altri membri del gruppo, si verifica spesso senza consapevolezza cosciente" (Barsade e Gibson, 2007).

L'emozione è contagiosa e deve essere trattato con cura, competenza e professionalità. un membro del personale di sentirsi è necessaria l'insicurezza e questo viene trasmesso come il furioso incendio e fagocitare tutti i dipendenti con il malcontento. manager inesperti pensano o credono di poter costringere loro membri del personale o la costruzione di promulgare la loro realtà. Un buon rapporto richiede semplicemente di cooperazione. Non male, l'emozione è buono e altrettanto male.

Non ci sono due facce della stessa medaglia. Un ben gestito porta eccitazione e cooperazione positiva, e l'emozione porta la resistenza cattiva gestione e fallimento. E 'perfettamente naturale per uno a difendere i loro intrusi ambiente. studiare biologia ci dice che il corpo fa la stessa cosa, & # 39; difendere & # 39;. La prima risoluzione a resistenza è "negoziazione". Ciò si verifica per l'organizzazione, e avviene anche nel "nuovo ordine" nel mondo. La forza è solo il risultato di una trattativa fallita. I manager dovrebbero smettere di mettere cambiamento nelle posizioni di scontro. E 'un male per un'organizzazione, ed è un male per la gestione.

I fattori che facilitano la gestione del cambiamento:

Avendo descritto la resistenza al cambiamento e errori commessi da gestori per l'attuazione del cambio, ha individuato alcuni dei fattori che promuovono buone facilitators relazioni tra agenti di cambiamento e ricevitori. La mia opinione è che la chiave per attuare con successo il cambiamento in un'organizzazione è "la cooperazione e la partecipazione collettiva", come menzionato sopra e sotto:

• Partecipazione dei beneficiari nella fase di apertura (concepimento)
• condividere la visione con i recettori in fase di progettazione
• articolare i benefici attraverso una comunicazione efficace
• La nomina "ponte" tra l'agente di cambiamento e il destinatario.
• creare un ambiente favorevole che sancisce la cooperazione e l'entusiasmo
• Evitare di emanare o costruire il proprio ambiente di costringere il destinatario
• evitare che il ricevitore nella concezione di cambiamento
• stabilire un "sistema di feedback" per affrontare gli squilibri
• Attenzione i primi segni di emozione negativa.
• intensificare la comunicazione con il contatto personale (cura, simpatia, empatia, etc.)
• portano sempre dalla parte anteriore, piuttosto che la parte posteriore

Avendo evidenziato alcuni dei fattori e contro resistenza al cambiamento e aver ampiamente discusso gli effetti della cooperazione e partecipazione di entrambi i lati dei partecipanti (l'agente di cambiamento e ricevitore), concludo che la gestione di un'organizzazione che prevede il cambiamento e la sua attuazione si adopererà per condividere la loro visione con i ricevitori ed educare agenti di cambiamento per condurre dalla parte anteriore ed evitare strategie che richiedono i destinatari a presentare. Gestione può avviare la consultazione e la negoziazione con i beneficiari, al fine di compromettere il loro entusiasmo e le aspettative, e prevede anche di gestire la loro emozione.

Bibliografia:

Ford, Ford & D & # 39; Amelio (2008) la resistenza al cambiamento: il resto della storia, Academy of Management Review

J D Ford (2008) Contributo della resistenza agente di cambiamento.

Ford Ford & McNamara (2002), e resistenza Cambiamento conversazione Sfondo, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) variazione di resistenza

Weick (1979), la psicologia sociale dell'organizzazione, Addison-Wesley

Berger & Luckmann (1966) La costruzione sociale della realtà, New York: Anchor Books

Ford et al (1995) Il lato positivo della variazione di resistenza

Birra, Eisenstart e Spector (1990) il motivo per cui programmi di cambiamento non producono il cambiamento, Harvard Business Review

Kanter et al (1992) Una vista diversa della resistenza al cambiamento

Schaffer & Thompson (1992), a fare ciò che funziona: il successo dei programmi di cambiamento inizia con i risultati, Harvard Business Review

Spreitzer & Quinn (1996) Concettuale, l'elaborazione delle transazioni e

J P Kotter (1995), guidare il cambiamento: perché gli sforzi di trasformazione Fail, Harvard Business Review OnPoint

Barsade & Gibson (2007) Perché colpiscono le questioni nell'organizzazione, Academy of Management Perspectives

la resistenza al cambiamento

Come agenti di cambiamento possono contribuire a cambiare la resistenza?

agenti di cambiamento possono contribuire a cambiare la resistenza in molti modi. Gli agenti del cambiamento sono la resistenza al cambiamento come uno degli aspetti più difficili della loro responsabilità. E 'vero? Il cambiamento è un fattore necessario per il successo, ma gli agenti di cambiamento fraintendere e applicarlo con l'intenzione di controllare il ricevitore. A causa della mancanza di una pianificazione efficace, resiste cambiare a tutti i livelli, a seconda di dove punta. Ci sono due partecipanti opposte cambiano, cioè, "agente di cambiamento" e "destinatari del cambiamento".

Ci sono molti modi che cambiano gli agenti possono aiutare a cambiare la resistenza. Meglio spiegare questo applicando la teoria accademica ed esperienza pratica. Gli agenti del cambiamento, in molti casi, contribuiscono alla resistenza imponendo le condizioni cambiano ai destinatari, senza un'adeguata consultazione, educazione e comunicazione. implementazione strategica aziendale non riesce a causa di "inactivities e reazioni" (birra, Eisenstart & Spector, 1990) da parte degli agenti di cambiamento, l'incapacità di visualizzare i destinatari del cambiamento, per coinvolgere dalla fase di progettazione. Gli agenti del cambiamento non condividono la visione comune dei benefici del cambiamento con i recettori. Modificare gli agenti vengono utilizzati per istruire destinatari senza l'intenzione di educarli prima della modifica. Si può vedere dagli agenti di cambiamento che destinatari resistere a qualsiasi cambiamento, ma questo non è vero come Professor Ford giustamente sottolineato. Come ogni strategia per raggiungere gli obiettivi e lo scopo fondamentale, il cambiamento ha bisogno di essere pensato, pianificato e documentato in modo efficace in ogni fase.

agenti di cambiamento possono contribuire a cambiare la resistenza:

L'agente di cambiamento ha bisogno di imparare come implementare il cambiamento. Si presume che il cambiamento è un processo continuo. Non c'è bisogno di essere in ritardo rispetto le altre strategie aziendali. Alcuni agenti di cambiamento vedono il cambiamento come un problema culturale, e altri lo vedono come un fattore di comportamenti individuali, ma in generale, può essere visto come uno strumento strategico aziendale per gestire e rispondere ai cambiamenti ambientali e devono essere continui. L'agente di cambiamento, alla ricerca di una corretta attuazione del cambiamento può contribuire nel modo seguente:

• identificare la necessità di un cambiamento e i benefici del cambiamento
• identificare destinatari interessati
• comprendere i fattori che possono contribuire alla resistenza, quali la cultura, livello di istruzione e la comprensione, l'emozione a seguito dello shock e le aspettative, ecc
• modalità di progettazione e comunicazione lingua
• comunicare la necessità di un cambiamento ai destinatari
• hanno riportato benefici come l'accumulo di cambiamento
• la progettazione di un sistema di gestione dei beneficiari colpite per incoraggiarli a partecipare come, dopo tutto, il cambiamento non può essere una cosa negativa, ma essere visto come un bisogno positivo per la crescita e l'espansione dell'organizzazione di competere in modo efficace all'interno del loro ambiente.

Si dice che "il contributo della resistenza agenti del cambiamento va oltre l'etichettatura derivante dalla propria costruzione del significato di rompere l'accordo e violano la fiducia, false dichiarazioni e di altri guasti di comunicazione e la propria resistenza cambiare "2008).

Nel mio riconoscimento della citazione di cui sopra, uno dei più importanti fattori di cambiamento efficace è quello di cambiare l'agente di cambiamento. Ford ha detto "agenti di cambiamento sono presentati come vittime immeritevoli di risposte irrazionali e disfunzionali recettori cambiamento" (Ford, 1995). Gli agenti del cambiamento devono essere istruiti per capire la paura e l'eccitazione del destinatario. Modificare i destinatari devono essere evitati, aggiornati e comunicati al necessità e benefici del cambiamento. Modificare gli agenti hanno bisogno di capire le paure e le esigenze del destinatario, poiché in alcuni casi il cambiamento porta alla perdita di posti di lavoro, i benefici, la libertà, soldi, ecc Modificare gli agenti possono fermare se stessi ritrarre come vittime. Anche se ci sono alcuni elementi di verità nella concezione dell'agente cambiamento di resistenza da parte dei ricevitori, i fattori che contribuiscono alla resistenza sono "incomprensione e la mancanza di una comunicazione efficace" .

Non ci sono stati gli argomenti a favore e contro il concetto di un agente di cambiamento nella resistenza come "resistenza è un assegnato dagli agenti di comportamenti di cambiamento di interpretazione e comunicazione dei destinatari del cambiamento, e le interpretazioni sono egoisti o auto (Ford, Ford e D & # 39; Amelio, 2008). la citazione di cui sopra rappresenta l'equivoco e la mancanza di fiducia da parte dell'agente di cambiamento, come ha etichettato i recettori senza dare la mano verde "partenariato e cooperazione" per raggiungere lo scopo fondamentale del cambiamento. vediamo che se i recettori cambiano sono cooptato in qualità di partner, il cambiamento potrà godere di un'applicazione armoniosa in cui sia l'agente di cambiamento e il ricevitore condividere il successo e anche premiare, dopo tutto, lo scopo di eventuali modifiche di posizionarsi un'organizzazione di essere competitivi, garantire la crescita e l'espansione, e la redditività.

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) riconosce che "la resistenza è rappresentata come ingiustificato e nocivo", "mancanza di interazione e rapporti tra agente di cambiamento e recettori". Questo dimostra che se l'agente di cambiamento impara a migliorare il rapporto e interagire condividere in modo appropriato la visione e collabora con il recettore come partner El stereotipo equivoco è alleviato, per cui destinatari iniziano cambiando in associazione con l'agente cambiamento invece di resistere cambiamento.

1. stabilire un senso di urgenza attraverso un attento esame del mercato
2. formano una potente coalizione di manager in grado di guidare il cambiamento
3. creare una visione di gestire il cambiamento e le strategie per raggiungere tale visione
4. comunicare la visione in tutta l'organizzazione
5. spronare gli altri ad agire sulla visione eliminando gli ostacoli, i sistemi cambiano e promuovendo l'assunzione di rischi
6. Piano e condurre prestazioni visibile breve termine miglioramento
7. consolidare il miglioramento, rivalutare il cambiamento e apportare le modifiche necessarie nel nuovo programma.
8. articolare il rapporto tra nuovi comportamenti e il successo organizzativo.

Errori comuni manager fanno

Oltre al piano di otto (8) passi, il primo punto di stabilire un senso di urgenza, lavora e contro le realtà e scopo del cambiamento. Creare o stabilire un senso di urgenza è in aumento & # 39; tensione & # 39; che può portare a solidificazione resistenza. La strategia è un processo in corso e cambia a seconda dell'ambiente. L'agente di cambiamento non deve essere "miope" per entrare in una posizione di & # 39; reagiscono & # 39;, piuttosto che & # 39; proattivo & # 39; . L'introduzione del "senso di urgenza" mostra la mancanza di visione e prevede che l'agente di cambiamento è & # 39; miope .

Anche in questo caso, "formare una potente coalizione di manager capaci di guidare il cambiamento" suona come & # 39; il confronto & # 39;. Il fattore di cui sopra è come creare & # 39; confine entro un limite di & # 39; si sta conducendo l'opposizione. Formare una potente coalizione è un linguaggio di "servizio civile" dove "il profitto e la soddisfazione del cliente" non sono la "roccia". Formare una coalizione genera malcontento e rafforza la resistenza dei ricevitori. Allora, qual è il modo migliore per andare?

Le fasi sequenziali per superare i problemi del cambiamento:

• Per rimuovere le regole autorevoli che invita la resistenza. In risposta a Wick (1979) e Berger & Luckmann (1966), agenti di cambiamento non possono emanare loro ambiente e possono costruire le loro realtà. Possibilità di successo nella gestione del cambiamento è la "cooperazione"
• Lavorando come una squadra e partner di cambiare il destinatario. Contrariamente ad alcune delle otto (8) punti base al piano di Kotter (1995), agenti di cambiamento non può costringere i destinatari. In tal modo, solidificare resistenza. fattori favorevoli includono "la partecipazione e la visione condivisa"
• coinvolgimento del recettore dal punto di inizio alla fase di attuazione. Ciò alleviare la tensione. Alcuni gestori di distruggere l'applicazione prima ancora ha cominciato a creare tensione attraverso la sua azione a causa di "incompetenza"

avanti

• Piano e stabilire un sistema per gestire le emozioni.
• Per comunicare continuamente il motivo e il fine ultimo di cambiamento. Comunicazione e il mantenimento di un buon rapporto tra l'agente di cambiamento e il ricevitore partirà dalla concezione del cambiamento e agire come un "avvertimento" che è necessario un cambiamento. Attenzione il destinatario che non fare nulla non è un'opzione, perché potrebbe portare a seri problemi che possono interessare tutti. Comenzar desde el punto de concepción para explicar los beneficios del cambio y la "pérdida" como resultado de la inacción. Los beneficiarios son seres humanos y razonarán junto con usted cuando se dan cuenta de que el cambio es algo bueno para todos. No se opondrán a ustedes, ellos cooperarán con ustedes.
• Crear un ambiente de asociación, visión compartida y entusiasmo dentro del sistema para que el receptor tenga un sentido de "participación y colaboración"
• Identificar un "educador cum líder" que opera al mismo nivel que el receptor, actuando como un "puente" entre el agente de cambio y el receptor. Su deber es explicar dónde existe malentendido. Proporciona los resortes amortiguadores .
• Para dirigir desde el frente y mostrar ejemplos identificados en un líder. Un líder no es "mandón", y no "autoritario". Un líder es simpático, cariñoso, firme, inteligente, con visión de futuro, educativo y digno de confianza

.

Planificar un cambio y su implementación puede incluir los factores antes mencionados para lograr los objetivos deseados. Algunos de los 8 pasos de Kotter para crear urgencia y formar una coalición de gerentes al tratar con el cambio crean problemas y agregan para reforzar la resistencia.

Además de los factores anteriores, es importante discutir la gestión de la emoción por separado, ya que tiene consecuencias de gran alcance.

La gestión de la emoción:

La emoción es descrita como "Afecto" por el profesor Barsade de la Universidad de Wharton. El descuido de la gestión de la emoción es lo que conduce a la resistencia del cambio. Este es el principal error que los gerentes hacen cuando implementan el cambio en una organización. El mal manejo de la emoción lleva al miedo, y el miedo conduce a la resistencia oa la sumisión. Resistir o someterse a la coerción conduce a la confrontación o ineficacia e ineficiencia. "El contagio emocional como procesos que permiten compartir o transferir las emociones de un individuo a otros miembros del grupo, ocurre a menudo sin conocimiento consciente" (Barsade y Gibson, 2007).

La emoción es contagiosa y debe tratarse con cuidado, habilidad y profesionalidad. Se necesita un miembro del personal para sentir la inseguridad y esto se transmitirá como el fuego furioso y engullir a todos los empleados con descontento. Los gerentes inexpertos piensan o creen que pueden coaccionar a sus miembros del personal promulgando o construyendo su realidad. Una buena relación simplemente requiere cooperación. No lo malo, la emoción es buena y es igual de malo.

Hay dos lados de una moneda. A well managed emotion brings co-operation and positive result, and a badly managed emotion brings resistance and failure. It is perfectly natural for one to defend his environment to intruders. The study of Biology tells us that the body does the same thing, ‘defend'. The first resolution to resistance is ‘negotiation'. This happens in organisation, and it also happens in the world ‘new order'. Force is only a result of failed negotiation. Change managers should stop putting themselves in positions of confrontation. It is bad for an organisation, and it is bad for management.

The Enabling Factors to Change Management:

Having discussed the resistance to change and the mistakes managers make during the implementation of change, I identify some of the enabling factors that promote good relationships between the change agents and the recipients. My view is that the key to successful implementation of change in an organisation is ‘co-operation and collective involvement' as mentioned above and below:

• Involvement of recipients at the initiation (conception) stage
• Sharing the vision with recipients at the designing stage
• Articulate the benefits through effective communication
• Appoint the ‘bridge' between the change agent and the recipient.
• Create an enabling environment that enshrines co-operation and enthusiasm
• Avoid enacting or constructing your environment to coerce the recipient
• Forewarn the recipient at the conception of change
• Establish a ‘feedback system' to address imbalances
• Watch out for early ‘signs' of negative emotion.
• Intensify communication with personal contact (care, sympathy, empathy, etc)
• Always lead from the front and not at the back

Having highlighted some of the factors for and against the resistance to change, and having discussed at length the effects of co-operation and involvement on both part of the participants (the change agent and the recipient), I conclude that the management of an organisation planning for a change and its implementation shall endeavour to share their vision with the recipients, and to educate the change agents, so as to lead from the front and avoid strategies that coerce the recipients into submission. The management may initiate consultation and negotiation with the recipients, so as to engage their enthusiasm and expectations, and also plan to manage their emotion.

Bibliography:

Ford, Ford & D'Amelio (2008), Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story, Academy of Management Review

J D Ford (2008) Change agent's contribution to resistance.

Ford, Ford & McNamara (2002), Resistance and the Background Conversation of Change, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 15

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) Resistance to change

Weick (1979), the social psychology of organizing, Addison-Wesley

Berger & Luckmann (1966) the social construction of reality, Anchor Books New York

Ford et al (1995) The positive side of resistance to change

Beer, Eisenstart & Spector (1990,) why change programs don't produce change, Harvard Business Review

Kanter et al (1992) A different view on resistance to change

Schaffer & Thompson (1992), doing what works:  the success of change programs begin with results, Harvard Business Review

Spreitzer & Quinn (1996) Conceptual, transformational and transaction

J P Kotter (1995), leading change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review OnPoint

Barsade & Gibson (2007) Why does Affect matter in organization, Academy of Management Perspectives

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

In what way change agents can contribute to change resistance?

Change agents can contribute to change resistance in many ways.  Change agents view resistance to change as one of the most difficult aspects of their responsibilities. Is it true? Change is a necessary factor of success but change agents misunderstand it and apply it with intention to control the recipient. Due to lack of effective planning, change is resisted at all levels, depending where it is aimed at. There are two opposing participants of change, namely, ‘the change agent' and the ‘change recipients'.

There are many ways change agents can contribute to change resistance. It is better to explain this by applying both academic theory and practical experience. The change agents, in many cases, contribute to the resistance by imposing the conditions of change on the recipients, without proper consultation, education and communication. Corporate strategic implementation fails as a result of "inactions and reactions" (Beer, Eisenstart & Spector, 1990) on the part of the change agents inability to consult the Change recipients, so as to get them involved from the designing stage. Change agents fail to share the common vision of the benefits of change with the recipients. Change agents used to give instructions to recipients without planning to education them before change takes place. It may be viewed by the change agents that recipients resist any change, but this is not true as Professor Ford rightly pointed out. Like any other strategy to achieve the objectives and the fundamental purpose, change needs to be thought through, planned and documented effectively at every stage.

The change agents may contribute to change resistance:

The change agent needs to learn on how to implement change. Change supposed to be a continuous process. It does not need to be lagging behind other corporate strategies. Some change agents see change as a cultural issue and others see it as an individual behavioural factor, but in general, it may seen as a corporate strategic tool to manage and to respond to environmental changes and it must be continuous. The change agent, seeking a smooth implementation of change may contribute as follows:

• identify the need for a change and the benefits of change
• identify the affected recipients
• understand the factors that may contribute to the resistance, such as culture, level of education and understanding, emotion as a result of shock and expectations, etc
• design mode and language of communication
• communicate the need for a change to the intended recipients
• communicated the benefits as the accrual of change
• design a system of managing the affected recipients so as to encourage them to participate as after all, change may not be a bad thing but to be seen as a positive necessity for the growth and expansion of the organisation to compete effectively within its environment.

It is said that "the contribution of change agents to resistance goes beyond the labelling that results from their own sense-making to breaking agreement and violating trust, misrepresentation and other communication breakdowns, and their own resistance to change" (Ford, 2008).

In my acknowledgement to the above quotation, one of the most important factors of effective change is to change the change agent. Ford said that "change agents portrayed as undeserving victims of the irrational and dysfunctional responses of change recipients" (Ford, 1995). Change agents need to be educated to understand the fear and emotion of the recipient. The change recipients need to be forewarned, up-dated and communicated to on the need and benefits of change. The change agents need to understand the fear and needs of the recipients, as in some cases, change lead to lose of job, benefits, freedom, money, etc. The change agents may stop portraying themselves as victims. While there are some elements of truth in the change agent's conception of resistance by the recipients, the obvious contributing factors to resistance are ‘misunderstanding and lack of effective communication'.

There have been arguments for and against the change agent's conception of resistance, such as "resistance is an interpretation assigned by change agents to the behaviours and communications of change recipients, and the interpretations are either self-serving or self-fulfilling" (Ford, Ford & D'Amelio, 2008). The above quotation represents misunderstanding and lack of trust on the part of the change agent as he labels the recipients without offering the olive hand of ‘partnership and co-operation' for the achievement of the fundamental purpose of change. It is viewed that if the recipients of change are co-opted as partners, change will enjoy a harmonious application where both the change agent and the recipient share the success and rewarded equally, after all, the purpose of any change is to position an organisation to be competitive, ensure growth and expansion, and to be profitable.

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) agreed that "resistance is portrayed as unwarranted and detrimental", "lack of interaction and relationships between change agent and recipients". This demonstrates that if the change agent learns to improve the relationship and interact appropriately by sharing the visionand co-operates with the recipient as a partnerthe stereotype and misconception will ease, thereby, leading to recipients initiating change in partnership with the change agent rather than resisting change.

How can organisation use resistance to change as a change agent?

A good number of writers, such as Beer, Eisenstart, & Spector (1990), Kanter et al (1992), Schaffer & Thomson (1992), and Spreitzer & Quinn (1996) have identified that some of the factors affecting the implementation of change are due to "actions and inactions owing to the ignorance, incompetence and mismanagement" on the part of the change agent. For an organisation to use resistance to change as a change agent, it has to address the misconception and relationships between the change agent and the recipient. Implementation of change will be effective if the imbalances and ‘ineptitude' of the change agent is properly planned for at the initial stage, and co-opted rather than ‘coerce' the recipients into submission. The planning will include adequate training to deal with the ‘emotion and fear' of the recipients. The management may apply the 8 step plan for implementing change (J P Kotter, 1995) as mentioned below:

1. establish sense of urgency through careful examination of the market
2. form powerful coalition of managers able to lead change
3. create a vision to direct change and the strategies for achieving that vision
4. communicate the vision throughout the organisation
5. empower others to act on the vision by removing barriers, changing systems and encouraging risk taking
6. plan for and celebrate visible short term performance improvement
7. consolidate improvement, reassess change, and make necessary adjustment in the new programme.
8. articulate the relationship between new behaviours and organisational success.

The Common Mistakes Managers Make:

In addition to the eight (8) step plan, the first point of establishing a sense of urgency, works for and against the realities and the purpose of change. To create or establish a sense of urgency is to increase ‘tension' which may lead to solidification of resistance. Strategy is a continuous process and changes according to the environment. The change agent must not be ‘short-sighted' as to be put in a position of ‘reacting', rather than be ‘proactive'.  The introduction of "sense of urgency" demonstrates lack of vision and establishes that the change agent is ‘myopic'.

Again, to "form powerful coalition of managers able to lead change" sounds like ‘confrontation'. The above factor is like creating ‘boundary within boundary' which leads to opposition. To form powerful coalition is a language of the ‘civil service' where ‘profit and customer satisfaction' are NOT the ‘bedrock. The formation of a coalition breeds discontent and re-enforces the resistance from recipients. Here then, what is the best way forward?

The Sequential Steps to Overcome the Problems of Change:

• To remove the authoritative rules that invites resistance. In response to Wick (1979) and Berger & Luckmann (1966), change agents cannot enact their environment neither can they construct their realities. The bane of success in managing change is ‘co-operation'
• To work as a team and partners of change with the recipient. In opposition to some of the eight (8) step plan according to Kotter (1995), the change agents cannot coerce the recipients. In doing so, will solidify resistance. The enabling factors are ‘involvement and shared vision'
• To involve the recipient from the point of initiation to the implementation stage. This will ease tension. Some managers destroy the implementation before it even began by creating tension through their action as a result of ‘ineptitude'
• To plan ahead and establishes a system to manage emotion.
• To continually communicates the reason and ultimate purpose of change. Communication and maintenance of good relationship between the change agent and the recipient shall begin from the conception of change, and acting as ‘forewarning' that a change is needed. Forewarning the recipient that doing nothing is not an option, as it could lead to serious problem that may affect everyone. Begin from the point of conception to explain the benefits of change, and the ‘loss' as a result of inaction. Recipients are human being and they will reason along with you when they realise that change is something good for everyone. They will not oppose you, they will co-operate with you.
• To create an environment of partnership, shared vision, and enthusiasm within the system to enable the recipient have a sense of ‘involvement and collaboration'
• To identify a ‘leader cum educator' who operates at the same level as the recipient, acting as a ‘bridge' between the change agent and the recipient. His duty is to explain where misunderstanding exists. He provides the shock absorbing springs.
• To lead from the front and show examples as identified in a leader. A leader is not ‘bossy', and not ‘authoritative'. A leader is sympathetic, caring, firm, intelligent, long-sighted, educative, and trustworthy.

To Plan for a change and its implementation may include the above mentioned factors so as to achieve the desired objectives. Some of the Kotter's 8 step plan of creating urgency and forming a coalition of managers when dealing with change create problems and add to re-enforce resistance.

In addition to the above factors, it is important to discuss the management of emotion separately, as it has far reaching consequences.

Managing Emotion:

Emotion is described as "Affect" by Professor Barsade of Wharton University. The neglect of managing emotion is what leads to resistance of change. This is the major mistake managers make when implementing change in an organisation. Mismanagement of emotion leads to fear, and fear leads to resistance or submission. Resisting or submitting to coercion leads to confrontation or ineffectiveness and inefficiency.  "Emotional contagion as processes that allow the sharing or transferring of emotions from one individual to other group members, often occurs without conscious knowledge" (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).

Emotion is infectious and should be treated with care, skill and professionalism.  It takes one member of staff to sense insecurity and this will be transmitted like raging fire and engulf the whole employees with discontent. Inexperienced managers think or believe that they can coerce their staff members by enacting or constructing their reality. Good relationship simply takes co-operation. Do not get it wrong, emotion is good and it is equally bad.

 There are two sides to a coin. A well managed emotion brings co-operation and positive result, and a badly managed emotion brings resistance and failure.  It is perfectly natural for one to defend his environment to intruders. The study of Biology tells us that the body does the same thing, ‘defend'. The first resolution to resistance is ‘negotiation'. This happens in organisation, and it also happens in the world ‘new order'. Force is only a result of failed negotiation. Change managers should stop putting themselves in positions of confrontation. It is bad for an organisation, and it is bad for management.

The Enabling Factors to Change Management:

Having discussed the resistance to change and the mistakes managers make during the implementation of change, I identify some of the enabling factors that promote good relationships between the change agents and the recipients. My view is that the key to successful implementation of change in an organisation is ‘co-operation and collective involvement' as mentioned above and below:

• Involvement of recipients at the initiation (conception) stage
• Sharing the vision with recipients at the designing stage
• Articulate the benefits through effective communication
• Appoint the ‘bridge' between the change agent and the recipient.
• Create an enabling environment that enshrines co-operation and enthusiasm
• Avoid enacting or constructing your environment to coerce the recipient
• Forewarn the recipient at the conception of change
• Establish a ‘feedback system' to address imbalances
• Watch out for early ‘signs' of negative emotion.
• Intensify communication with personal contact (care, sympathy, empathy, etc)
• Always lead from the front and not at the back

Having highlighted some of the factors for and against the resistance to change, and having discussed at length the effects of co-operation and involvement on both part of the participants (the change agent and the recipient), I conclude that the management of an organisation planning for a change and its implementation shall endeavour to share their vision with the recipients, and to educate the change agents, so as to lead from the front and avoid strategies that coerce the recipients into submission. The management may initiate consultation and negotiation with the recipients, so as to engage their enthusiasm and expectations, and also plan to manage their emotion.

Bibliography:

Ford, Ford & D'Amelio (2008), Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story, Academy of Management Review

J D Ford (2008) Change agent's contribution to resistance.

Ford, Ford & McNamara (2002), Resistance and the Background Conversation of Change, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 15

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) Resistance to change

Weick (1979), the social psychology of organizing, Addison-Wesley

Berger & Luckmann (1966) the social construction of reality, Anchor Books New York

Ford et al (1995) The positive side of resistance to change

Beer, Eisenstart & Spector (1990,) why change programs don't produce change, Harvard Business Review

Kanter et al (1992) A different view on resistance to change

Schaffer & Thompson (1992), doing what works:  the success of change programs begin with results, Harvard Business Review

Spreitzer & Quinn (1996) Conceptual, transformational and transaction

J P Kotter (1995), leading change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review OnPoint

Barsade & Gibson (2007) Why does Affect matter in organization, Academy of Management Perspectives

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

In what way change agents can contribute to change resistance?

Change agents can contribute to change resistance in many ways.  Change agents view resistance to change as one of the most difficult aspects of their responsibilities. Is it true? Change is a necessary factor of success but change agents misunderstand it and apply it with intention to control the recipient. Due to lack of effective planning, change is resisted at all levels, depending where it is aimed at. There are two opposing participants of change, namely, ‘the change agent' and the ‘change recipients'.

There are many ways change agents can contribute to change resistance. It is better to explain this by applying both academic theory and practical experience. The change agents, in many cases, contribute to the resistance by imposing the conditions of change on the recipients, without proper consultation, education and communication. Corporate strategic implementation fails as a result of "inactions and reactions" (Beer, Eisenstart & Spector, 1990) on the part of the change agents inability to consult the Change recipients, so as to get them involved from the designing stage. Change agents fail to share the common vision of the benefits of change with the recipients. Change agents used to give instructions to recipients without planning to education them before change takes place. It may be viewed by the change agents that recipients resist any change, but this is not true as Professor Ford rightly pointed out. Like any other strategy to achieve the objectives and the fundamental purpose, change needs to be thought through, planned and documented effectively at every stage.

The change agents may contribute to change resistance:

The change agent needs to learn on how to implement change. Change supposed to be a continuous process. It does not need to be lagging behind other corporate strategies. Some change agents see change as a cultural issue and others see it as an individual behavioural factor, but in general, it may seen as a corporate strategic tool to manage and to respond to environmental changes and it must be continuous. The change agent, seeking a smooth implementation of change may contribute as follows:

• identify the need for a change and the benefits of change
• identify the affected recipients
• understand the factors that may contribute to the resistance, such as culture, level of education and understanding, emotion as a result of shock and expectations, etc
• design mode and language of communication
• communicate the need for a change to the intended recipients
• communicated the benefits as the accrual of change
• design a system of managing the affected recipients so as to encourage them to participate as after all, change may not be a bad thing but to be seen as a positive necessity for the growth and expansion of the organisation to compete effectively within its environment.

It is said that "the contribution of change agents to resistance goes beyond the labelling that results from their own sense-making to breaking agreement and violating trust, misrepresentation and other communication breakdowns, and their own resistance to change" (Ford, 2008).

In my acknowledgement to the above quotation, one of the most important factors of effective change is to change the change agent. Ford said that "change agents portrayed as undeserving victims of the irrational and dysfunctional responses of change recipients" (Ford, 1995). Change agents need to be educated to understand the fear and emotion of the recipient. The change recipients need to be forewarned, up-dated and communicated to on the need and benefits of change. The change agents need to understand the fear and needs of the recipients, as in some cases, change lead to lose of job, benefits, freedom, money, etc. The change agents may stop portraying themselves as victims. While there are some elements of truth in the change agent's conception of resistance by the recipients, the obvious contributing factors to resistance are ‘misunderstanding and lack of effective communication'.

There have been arguments for and against the change agent's conception of resistance, such as "resistance is an interpretation assigned by change agents to the behaviours and communications of change recipients, and the interpretations are either self-serving or self-fulfilling" (Ford, Ford & D'Amelio, 2008). The above quotation represents misunderstanding and lack of trust on the part of the change agent as he labels the recipients without offering the olive hand of ‘partnership and co-operation' for the achievement of the fundamental purpose of change. It is viewed that if the recipients of change are co-opted as partners, change will enjoy a harmonious application where both the change agent and the recipient share the success and rewarded equally, after all, the purpose of any change is to position an organisation to be competitive, ensure growth and expansion, and to be profitable.

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) agreed that "resistance is portrayed as unwarranted and detrimental", "lack of interaction and relationships between change agent and recipients". This demonstrates that if the change agent learns to improve the relationship and interact appropriately by sharing the visionand co-operates with the recipient as a partnerthe stereotype and misconception will ease, thereby, leading to recipients initiating change in partnership with the change agent rather than resisting change.

How can organisation use resistance to change as a change agent?

A good number of writers, such as Beer, Eisenstart, & Spector (1990), Kanter et al (1992), Schaffer & Thomson (1992), and Spreitzer & Quinn (1996) have identified that some of the factors affecting the implementation of change are due to "actions and inactions owing to the ignorance, incompetence and mismanagement" on the part of the change agent. For an organisation to use resistance to change as a change agent, it has to address the misconception and relationships between the change agent and the recipient. Implementation of change will be effective if the imbalances and ‘ineptitude' of the change agent is properly planned for at the initial stage, and co-opted rather than ‘coerce' the recipients into submission. The planning will include adequate training to deal with the ‘emotion and fear' of the recipients. The management may apply the 8 step plan for implementing change (J P Kotter, 1995) as mentioned below:

1. establish sense of urgency through careful examination of the market
2. form powerful coalition of managers able to lead change
3. create a vision to direct change and the strategies for achieving that vision
4. communicate the vision throughout the organisation
5. empower others to act on the vision by removing barriers, changing systems and encouraging risk taking
6. plan for and celebrate visible short term performance improvement
7. consolidate improvement, reassess change, and make necessary adjustment in the new programme.
8. articulate the relationship between new behaviours and organisational success.

The Common Mistakes Managers Make:

In addition to the eight (8) step plan, the first point of establishing a sense of urgency, works for and against the realities and the purpose of change. To create or establish a sense of urgency is to increase ‘tension' which may lead to solidification of resistance. Strategy is a continuous process and changes according to the environment. The change agent must not be ‘short-sighted' as to be put in a position of ‘reacting', rather than be ‘proactive'.  The introduction of "sense of urgency" demonstrates lack of vision and establishes that the change agent is ‘myopic'.

Again, to "form powerful coalition of managers able to lead change" sounds like ‘confrontation'. The above factor is like creating ‘boundary within boundary' which leads to opposition. To form powerful coalition is a language of the ‘civil service' where ‘profit and customer satisfaction' are NOT the ‘bedrock. The formation of a coalition breeds discontent and re-enforces the resistance from recipients. Here then, what is the best way forward?

The Sequential Steps to Overcome the Problems of Change:

• To remove the authoritative rules that invites resistance. In response to Wick (1979) and Berger & Luckmann (1966), change agents cannot enact their environment neither can they construct their realities. The bane of success in managing change is ‘co-operation'
• To work as a team and partners of change with the recipient. In opposition to some of the eight (8) step plan according to Kotter (1995), the change agents cannot coerce the recipients. In doing so, will solidify resistance. The enabling factors are ‘involvement and shared vision'
• To involve the recipient from the point of initiation to the implementation stage. This will ease tension. Some managers destroy the implementation before it even began by creating tension through their action as a result of ‘ineptitude'
• To plan ahead and establishes a system to manage emotion.
• To continually communicates the reason and ultimate purpose of change. Communication and maintenance of good relationship between the change agent and the recipient shall begin from the conception of change, and acting as ‘forewarning' that a change is needed. Forewarning the recipient that doing nothing is not an option, as it could lead to serious problem that may affect everyone. Begin from the point of conception to explain the benefits of change, and the ‘loss' as a result of inaction. Recipients are human being and they will reason along with you when they realise that change is something good for everyone. They will not oppose you, they will co-operate with you.
• To create an environment of partnership, shared vision, and enthusiasm within the system to enable the recipient have a sense of ‘involvement and collaboration'
• To identify a ‘leader cum educator' who operates at the same level as the recipient, acting as a ‘bridge' between the change agent and the recipient. His duty is to explain where misunderstanding exists. He provides the shock absorbing springs.
• To lead from the front and show examples as identified in a leader. A leader is not ‘bossy', and not ‘authoritative'. A leader is sympathetic, caring, firm, intelligent, long-sighted, educative, and trustworthy.

To Plan for a change and its implementation may include the above mentioned factors so as to achieve the desired objectives. Some of the Kotter's 8 step plan of creating urgency and forming a coalition of managers when dealing with change create problems and add to re-enforce resistance.

In addition to the above factors, it is important to discuss the management of emotion separately, as it has far reaching consequences.

Managing Emotion:

Emotion is described as "Affect" by Professor Barsade of Wharton University. The neglect of managing emotion is what leads to resistance of change. This is the major mistake managers make when implementing change in an organisation. Mismanagement of emotion leads to fear, and fear leads to resistance or submission. Resisting or submitting to coercion leads to confrontation or ineffectiveness and inefficiency.  "Emotional contagion as processes that allow the sharing or transferring of emotions from one individual to other group members, often occurs without conscious knowledge" (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).

Emotion is infectious and should be treated with care, skill and professionalism.  It takes one member of staff to sense insecurity and this will be transmitted like raging fire and engulf the whole employees with discontent. Inexperienced managers think or believe that they can coerce their staff members by enacting or constructing their reality. Good relationship simply takes co-operation. Do not get it wrong, emotion is good and it is equally bad.

 There are two sides to a coin. A well managed emotion brings co-operation and positive result, and a badly managed emotion brings resistance and failure.  It is perfectly natural for one to defend his environment to intruders. The study of Biology tells us that the body does the same thing, ‘defend'. The first resolution to resistance is ‘negotiation'. This happens in organisation, and it also happens in the world ‘new order'. Force is only a result of failed negotiation. Change managers should stop putting themselves in positions of confrontation. It is bad for an organisation, and it is bad for management.

The Enabling Factors to Change Management:

Having discussed the resistance to change and the mistakes managers make during the implementation of change, I identify some of the enabling factors that promote good relationships between the change agents and the recipients. My view is that the key to successful implementation of change in an organisation is ‘co-operation and collective involvement' as mentioned above and below:

• Involvement of recipients at the initiation (conception) stage
• Sharing the vision with recipients at the designing stage
• Articulate the benefits through effective communication
• Appoint the ‘bridge' between the change agent and the recipient.
• Create an enabling environment that enshrines co-operation and enthusiasm
• Avoid enacting or constructing your environment to coerce the recipient
• Forewarn the recipient at the conception of change
• Establish a ‘feedback system' to address imbalances
• Watch out for early ‘signs' of negative emotion.
• Intensify communication with personal contact (care, sympathy, empathy, etc)
• Always lead from the front and not at the back

Having highlighted some of the factors for and against the resistance to change, and having discussed at length the effects of co-operation and involvement on both part of the participants (the change agent and the recipient), I conclude that the management of an organisation planning for a change and its implementation shall endeavour to share their vision with the recipients, and to educate the change agents, so as to lead from the front and avoid strategies that coerce the recipients into submission. The management may initiate consultation and negotiation with the recipients, so as to engage their enthusiasm and expectations, and also plan to manage their emotion.

Bibliography:

Ford, Ford & D'Amelio (2008), Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story, Academy of Management Review

J D Ford (2008) Change agent's contribution to resistance.

Ford, Ford & McNamara (2002), Resistance and the Background Conversation of Change, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 15

Dent & Goldberg (1999a) Resistance to change

Weick (1979), the social psychology of