Resistance to change: enemy or ally?

The recent spate of acquisitions, redundancies and CEO sackings ensure that change is an inevitability for many organizations. However, nearly two-thirds of major
changes are unsuccessful and, according to Fortune 500 executives, the primary reason for this is not a lack of skill or resources, but resistance. Resistance to change
takes a look at this relatively unexplored issue.

One-half to two-thirds of all major corporate change programs fail. These are frightening figures considering the increasingly turbulent business climate that we operate in.

Change fails for a variety of reasons - as with many concepts there is no "silver bullet" with which to address difficulties brought about by change. However, our focus here is the little
recognized yet critically important contributor to change failure - resistance.

Resistance defined
In an organizational setting, resistance is an expression of reservation which normally arises as a response or reaction to change. Management often interpret this as any actions
perceived as attempting to stop or alter change.

Traditional management thinking views resistance as the enemy - the foe to be quashed at all cost.

Resistance as an enemy

* During the 1940s, management theorists considered unity of purpose to be the hallmark of a technically efficient and superior organization. Resistance was therefore understood to be detracting from the proficiency of the organization, and quickly became the enemy of change.
* Early HR theory portrayed resistance as a negative consequence and saw it to be a conflict indicative of a breakdown in the normal interactions that can exist between individuals and group.

Understanding resistance
However, as the psychological, sociological and anthropological disciplines became more prominent in management, these opinions on resistance became challenged. Before long it
became clear that resistance was in fact a far more complex phenomenon than once thought, and was a function of several factors:

Rational
Resistance can occur where an individual's own rational assessment of change outcomes differ with those of management

Non-rational
Individual reaction to change is also a function of predispositions and preferences not necessarily based on a rational assessment of change

Political
Resistance is also influenced by political factors such as favouritism or "point scoring" against those initiating the change.

Management
Poor management styles also contribute to resistance

A consensus of opinion began to develop which suggested that resistance should not be approached in an adversarial way as it can play a useful role in organizational change efforts.

Resistance as an ally

As we have discussed, that resistance can play a useful role in organizational change certainly stands juxtaposed to a traditional mindset that would view it as nothing more than an
obstacle. However a variety of authors subscribe to this view and believe that resistance can assist the change effort.

* It is a fallacy to consider change itself to be inherently good. Change can only be evaulated through its consequences and these cannot be known until sufficient time has elapsed

* Resistance can help to balance the pressure of the internal and external environments encouraging change against the need for stability and constancy. The challenge therefore becomes a matter of finding the perfect balance between change and stability; avoiding the dysfunctionality of too much change while ensuring stability does not become stagnation
* People resist the uncertainties that change can cause and for this reason resistance plays a crucial role in drawing attention to the potential pitfalls of a change initiative. After all, because management has proposed a change does this automatically mean it is the correct way to proceed? Perhaps not, as many management decisions are non-rational and fail to generate enough alternative solutions without the input of others
* Resistance adds an influx of energy to the change process. There is a real danger of apathy when there is a need for growth and development. Where resistance occurs, it is possible to examine more closely the problems that exist
* Resistance encourages a search for alternative, perhaps superior methods and outcomes in order to synthesize the conflicting opinions being observed. Thus resistance becomes a useful source of innovation
* Without resistance there is the danger of proposals being accepted simply because they are favoured by management. This can be detrimental as an organization' s change will be limited to the prescriptive capabilities of those proposing the change

Manging resistance
For over 60 years the widely shared belief is that participative techniques are the best method of handling resistance. Quite logically, this is because involvement throughout a change
program will lead to greater commitment on behalf of those directly affected.

"Industrial progress finds one of its greatest handicaps in the frequent resistance of both management and workers to change of any sort" (McNurry, 1973)
However, most participative techniques meet resistance with resistance and attempt to "share" information by confronting resistors with data and reports which in fact resemble an
exercise in salesmanship rather than participation.

Conclusions
Resistance is a complex entity that directly affects the outcomes of change, both positively and negatively. To this day it still appears to be the case that the classical adversarial
approach remains the dominant means of managing resistance.

The evidence presented here seems to suggest that resistance management may improve if this classical approach is replaced by one that recognizes the potential benefits of
resistance.

Management Implications

Are you a manager who is currently proposing or involved with a change initiative? If so there a several key points to bear in mind:

* Resistance is not the enemy. It is much more complex than it may first appear. Make sure you fully understand the reasons why it exists in your situation (refer to the four factors of understanding resistance) and persevere in your attempts to get to the bottom of them
* Yes you are a manager, but does this in itself mean that you have all the answers? It may be of greater value in the long run to utilize the talents and energies of your staff so that as a team you can work towards fully achieving the objectives of your change program
* If your workplace is marked by passivity or apathy, implementing change will be a difficult task. Resistance and conflict brings with it the energy or motivation to seriously address the problem(s) at hand
* Encourage true participation in change. By involving employees and providing the opportunity to give feedback, many difficulties can be overcome and the overall outcome is far more likely to be beneficial than if a half-hearted "salesmanship" attempt at participation is used

Dianne Waddell and Amrik S. Sohal of the Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.