What are some of the individual and group †level factors that affect organisational change and development? How can these be managed?

IntroductionChange and foeman go hand in hand flip implies resistance and resistance means that variety show is taking roll (Gravenhorst, 1993). This definition exemplifies the importance of the human element in organisations as it is this constituent that ultimately becomes the face of all organisation. Due to the unvoiced economic and political lieu nationally and internationally, many organisations have transportd their working practices it has never been much critical for managers to handle multifariousness efficiently by avoiding habitual errors made by wobble agents and become what Tushman and OReilly call an Ambidextrous Organisation. Implementing change in organisations has proved to be a lot tougher than originally thought, as success depends on the stakeholders involved in the process, the organisational context for facilitating change, as well as many otherwise internal and external factors. This essay testament argue the well-nigh heavy aspect of organis ation change is the human element in change processes, due to the aflame dimension that humans bring with them into organisational life.This essay depart foremost will discuss change resistance generally, stating reasons wherefore people resist change and offering ideas for how to everyplacecome resistance. Then the impact of emotions will be dealt with why they ar grievous in change processes referring to scholarly texts and theories. The last sub-section of the essay will address group level factors, making distinctions between different cases of groups and teams. A discussion and analysis on group norms and how they piece of tail prove to be problematic will follow. Finally, solutions will be provided for combating group factors of resistance and how they potty be seen as an opportunity to oversee past management behaviour. The conclusion will reiterate the main arguments put forward and will summarise the essay findings.What is foeman to Change?From an internal progn osticate of view, resistance to change is situated at individual and group levels. Beer and Nohria (2000) argue that 70 per cent of change programs fail beca persona of a lack of strategy and vision, inadequate communication and trust, poor commitment from top management, a lack of resources, poor change management skills, and resistance to change from inwardly organisations. shelter to change inside organisations has been understated in the past, and many organisations continue to neglect emphasis on the internal factors of change. Resistance towards change encompasses behaviours that are acted proscribed by change recipients in order to slow down or terminate an intended organisational change (Lines, 2004, cited in Hughes, 2010, p 33). This quote exemplifies that behaviours of change recipients swindle a key office staff in the implementation of change, which dejection act as a barrier during transition processes. Resistance to change can be delineate in many different ways , barely traditionally resistance is acquired negatively in organisations, with management viewing resistance as a stumbling block, delaying mechanism, and enemy of necessary changes. However, Ford and Ford (2009) and Waddell and Sohal (1998) have argued that the way managers interpret resistance is wrong and posit that in many cases management do not truly understand such behaviour, instinctively interpreting objections as a form of resistance from employees. This point has validity since it is very common for managers to see any form of feedback as resistance from their subordinate counterparts (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999).Why Resistance OccursResistance to change occurs for many reasons, whether at the individual or group level. The first point to consider is whether change processes benefit employees or not. There are such cases where change is structured in favour of employees, but where the change is still resisted. This type of self-sabotaging behaviour can be directly rela ted to organisational misunderstanding and a lack of trust between staff and management (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). The word change itself is defined in such a way so as to bring an element of surprise to organisational structure and processes altering the status quo (Hughes, 2010 p.164). Whenever changing a process, there will always be a sense of anxiety and fear amongst recipients, especially if organisations have previously failed in adopting to change and implementing naked as a jaybird practices (Hughes, 2010). This will development the likelihood of change resistance from the shop-floor, regardless of the change proposals put forward. Change agents often unintentionally alienate employees in the decision making process, acting without the assume of other groups within the organisation and assuming they have all the knowledge pauperisati unrivaledd for implementing the best changes (Ford and Ford, 2009 and DAmelio, 2008). Fransella (1975, p135) states individuals hav e to negotiate and manage change on a daily basis this point validates the argument of Ford that resistance will occur if there is no input from the employee purview. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) have, in their work, noted quaternion common factors as to why individuals resist change self-interest, misunderstanding and lack of trust, different assessments of the changes most needed, and a low tolerance to change. Parochial self interests are a very common reason for resistance since loss is always a difficult acceptance. Therefore, individuals will always try their utmost to keep what they have, and in an organisational context Zaltman and Duncan (1977) view threats to power and specify as one of the most important sources of resistance to change.How to Manage ResistanceManaging resistance to change can be very problematic, the reason being that managers have a tendency to view resistance as something oppositional, dangerous or purely self-serving (Brown and Humphreys, 2006). Ho wever, if managers adopt new behaviour patterns, dealings with resistance from an optimistic perspective where feedback loops can be seen as a positive means for discussion amongst employees and management (Ford and Ford, 2009), then stronger relationships can begin to be built across organisational hierarchies, and change can be more effectively managed. Seeing resistance from a more favourable perspective allows change agents to hear concerns and advice from change recipients, and it also gives employees the opportunity to address entrenched problems such as a lack of communication between management and employees and toothless organisational practices that continue to survive. However, such harmonious outcomes are easier espoused than achieved since management is intrinsically suspicious of giving over power, and placating disenchanted workers has proven to be a difficult task in the past (Coghlan, 1994). Cialdini (2001) suggests six principles of persuasion, based on communica tions which are very effective. Cialdini states that any leader has to harness the art of persuasion in order to win people over and overcome resistance to change, without creating negative feedback. However, management behaviour has proven to be a very path pendent model, where radical change is needed to convince people that past events will not reoccur. As soon as management behaviour has changed, it is vital to set new incentives achievable, where benefits and outcomes are in tandem and there is no confusion or lack of knowledge on the part of employees that would inhibit them from delivering satisfactory outcomes (Vroom, 1964). office staff of Emotions in Change ProcessesEmotions and responses to change can be so intensive that the literature in organisational change has compared them with individual responses to traumatic changes such as oddment and grief (Grant, 1996 Elrod and Tippet, 1988 Kubler-Ross, 1969). Emotions are such that they are experienced by everyone, mainly by individuals but also collectively in groups as well as by change agents themselves. This point is consistent with Myers et al.s (2010) claim that emotions are not just experienced by those on whom change is imposed on those who lead change may experience transitions as equally emotional (p. 63). From an organisational perspective, emotions play a key role they can directly affect execution and emotions have an impact on the overall culture within organisations (Hofstede, 1989).Organisational change can be seen as either a challenge or an opportunity triggering positive emotions such as excitement and anticipation or negative feelings such as fear, anxiety and the anticipation of a tangible threat to the veridical position of staff within an organisation. The challenge for change agents is to carefully manage such emotions to ensure that they do not affect the transition process change entails. Negative emotions have proven in the past to be a major hurdle in organisational cha nge (Hofstede, 1989). The impact of negative change will leave an impact on the collective morale of staff, which can be an obstacle for future successful change processes.Emotional contagion is also an important unintended consequence of change and little explored facet of organisational life to be highlighted here. It refers to situations when emotions can be directly picked up from other people (Myers et al, 2012 p. 66). In other words, emotions can initiate and spread amongst all members of an organisation, for example if organisational change has adverse effects on a few individuals, their negative emotions will affect their peers. Therefore, emotions can move from individuals to other individuals, and as a result become an prestigious group dynamic and even epidemic.Emotion Coping CycleTo understand emotions from a theoretical perspective, the works of Elizabeth Kubler Ross (1969) are informative to the debate. She puts forward six stages of emotional responses that effect in dividuals her work is especially relevant to organisational change discourses since employees and change agents go by similar stages of emotions during periods of change and transition. Mark and Mirvis 1992 study based on a failed merger of two computer companies is also an intriguing example of emotional interplay and its role within organisational change. Mark and Mirvis discovered individuals involved in the merger feared a loss of control, unknowns associated with their new work responsibility, and also how they would be judged in the future.Since organisations often use mergers as a cost cutting strategy, likely resulting in people being made redundant, such negative emotions associated with mergers are founded on previous experience and hence validated. During the redundancy process, employees affected will go through and through stages where emotions vary Ross (1969). From an appraisal theory perspective, individuals affected will make their own interpretation of events and emotions will trigger behaviour.It is vital for change agents to possess excellent communication skills in order to manage the emotional cycle individuals will likely go through as the anxiety of the merger spreads amongst employees (Mark and Mirvis, 1992). The most dangerous stage of the redundancy process is the depression stage, which can take months to subside, especially if the redundancy is not effective immediately. Change agents need to deploy sympathetic communication methods and be reasonable in explaining why change is taking place by taking nibble away from the individual and ensuring employees move to the acceptance stage as fast as possible.Solutions (Emotional Intelligence)Emotional Intelligence encompasses a multi-dimensional framework of thought which raises awareness, facilitation, knowledge and commandment of emotions. Emotional intelligence allows individuals to form substantiated, reasoned opinions about emotions during periods of transition without allowing e motions to turn their subjectivity against their goal of better understanding the emotions they are feeling. However, personalities initially dictate the levels of emotional intelligence individuals have to a certain extent an individual who possesses traits of a sensing and judging person will likely resist change as they will see radical change as a violation of the psychological contract.However, instilling employees with high levels of emotional intelligence requires an overall organisation transformation. Senge (1992) emphasises that organisations and employees need to develop personal mastery and take account for their own actions as well as learning how decisions based on emotions are dangerous for one to make. Organisations should not buy into the fact that emotions cannot be tampered with, they should invest heavily in developing staff and training them to become more emotionally intelligent, so they can adopt the practice of monitoring their own actions which will help fac ilitate transition. stem level DynamicsIndividual factors of resistance to change are a tumid issue for change practitioners, but it is unrealistic for such practitioners to work with every individual who comprises an organisation, especially when working within big corporations. Almost every individual in an organisation belongs to at least five or six groups inside that organisation. Groups have a direct impact on change processes moreover, change agents must devise strategies where they do not cause anger and resentment to groups as they have more of an influence than individual resistors of change. However, focusing on group dynamics is a realistic way of tackling organisational change and development, as consistent with Lewins (1966) idea of group decision making being more effective and more likely to be pursued. McKinley et al. (2010) have distinguished between groups and teams, stating that groups are two or more people working to a common goal, where there is no psychologi cal contract between them. Teams are seen by Katzenbach and Smith (1991) as differentiated to other working groups by performance results, since exactly teams produce individual results and collective work-products , the results from several members working together. Teams and groups can come in many different forms, such as formal and knowledgeable groups, two of which are vital to life within organisations. Informal groups are dangerous to management as they do not possess any form of institutional rules and are governed by ideas which are not always in the best interest of employers.Causes Of group Resistance (Group Norms)Group norms can be a big stumbling block for organisations and can be a root cause for resistance to change. Coghlan (1994) has described group norms as unwritten rules which constitute the atmosphere within groups and teams. Group norms in a formal setting can be governed and overlooked by organisations. However, since informal groups are self-organised by t he thoughts and identities of individuals it is not so easy for organisations to influence them. The dangerous aspect of group norms is that they can easily become viral as personalities differ in groups in which a very outspoken and influential figurehead can influence the thinking of the quiet individuals getting them to comply with their frame of mind, this is in line with Watsons (1969) argument where he posits that team resistance is based on conformity to group norms. In an organisational context group norms can cause difficulties for change processes due to the influence they have. During change processes, where there is a great deal of uncertainty, there is a strong possibility that this will result in people joining informal groups since these may wield hidden but significant power within organisations and be able to influence decisions on organisational process due to such power. This will also have a positive impact on groups as they will broaden their capacity.Solutions Group dynamics can be an extremely difficult question for organisations however, winning groups over can benefit organisations in terms of morale, productivity and cultural cohesion that results from positive networking It has been argued that the modern organisation is no longer a collection of individuals, but rather a network of interconnected teams (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). This way of imagining organisations exemplifies the importance of groups and collective thinking in this context, and how such thinking can shape the outcomes of organisational change. It is therefore vital that organisations include groups in change processes or else they will run the risk of engendering demotivated and disempowered work forces, as well as the possibility of employees joining informal groups resisting top-down transitions and changes in order to exercise power and feel valued as individuals. Solutions presented by Ford and Ford (2009), where change processes are seen as an opportunity to c hange the status quo by changing norms within groups, have been seen to produce positive results in Coch and Fords 1948 case study among others. These solutions also coincide with the thoughts of Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), where methods of dealing with resistance which emphasise the importance of participation and communication are put forward as the best resolution to issues of organisational change. Change agents are seen as needing to win cross-organisational participation and dialogue, and to see resistance as a resource and a necessary feedback loop in order for change to be implemented successfully through the medium of groups.ConclusionThis essay has discussed internal factors of organisational change and development from the human element perspective. Resistance to change is something which has traditionally been assumed as a negative development by managers. This perception was shown to be a cause for change attempts being resisted. How resistance to change is helpful to organisations where poor employee participation has been a prevalent feature during past transitions has also been discussed. The points made by Ford and Ford (2009) are useful as they see resistance as a resource which encourages organisations to start afresh and change the employee base instead of gratifying the self-interest instinct. Emotions have been shown to play a key role in change processes, where negative emotions have a big influence not only on individuals but also on groups, as they can be exceedingly contagious and effect organisational cultures. It is clear that managers need to carefully manage emotions during transitions, since a prolonged coping cycle can prove to be disastrous for organisations. dealings with emotions can be complicated however, having a high level of emotional intelligence among staff will make the probability of resistance lower without allow emotional subjectivity surpass objectivity at work. As mentioned above, almost every individual b elongs to several groups within their organisation. The most dangerous types of groups are informal ones due to their hidden power agendas and circumventing influence they can have on individuals, which can be a direct form of resistance to change. This essay has argued that the most feasible solution to coping with emotions during organisational change periods is winning over groups through interpersonal ways where groups are the sole focus of change, and groups can participate and consecrate towards change. This may take up time and resources, but in the long run the organisations will benefit hugely.References and BibliographyAckroyd, S., Thompson, P., 1999. Organizational Misbehaviour. SAGE capital of the United Kingdom pp. 46-49Beer, M. and Nohria, N., 2000. Cracking the label of change. Harvard Business Review. pp. 133-41.Boreman, D.R., Ilgen and I.B., Weiner (eds), Handbook of industrial and Organisational Psychology. Vol. 12. New York Wiley, pp. 333- 76.Brown, Humphreys, 2 006. Organizational Identity and Place A Discursive Exploration of Hegemony and Resistance. Management Studies. Vol. 43 No. 2 pp. 231-257Buchanan, D., and Huczynski, A., 2010. Organisational Behaviour, Cialdini, R., 2001. Harnessing the cognizance of Persuasion. Harvard Business Review. Coch, L. and French, J., 1948. Overcoming Resistance to Change. humane Relations. (1 512-32). Coghlan, D., 1994. Managing Organizational Change through Teams and Groups. Leadership & Organization Development ledger, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 18 23Elrod D., and Tippet D., 1988. The death valley of Change. Organisational Change Management. Vol. 15 No. 3 pp 273-291Ford, J., and Ford, L., 2009. Decoding Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review.Ford, G, Ford, L., & DAmelio, A., 2008. Resistance to Change The Rest of the Story. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 33, No. 2, 362377. (2), P. 1-16. Grant, R. M., 1996. thrive in Dynamically-Competitive Environments Organizational Capability as Knowledge Inte gration. Organisation Science. Vol. 7 No. 4 pp. 375-387Hofstede, G., 1989. Organising for Cultural Diversity. European Management Journal. Vol. 4 No. 7 pp 390-397 Hughes, M., 2010. Managing Change A Critical Perspective. 2nd ed. London Chartered Institue of Personnel & Development Jordan, P. J., 2003. Dealing with Organisational Change Can Emotional Intelligence Enhance Organisational LearningInternational Journal of Organisational Behaviour. Vol. 81, p. 456-471 Katzenback, J, R., Smith, D, K., 1991. The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review online Available at Accessed on 14/12/12Kotter, J. S. L., 1979. Choosing strategy to Change. Harvard Business ReviewKozlowski, S.W.J. and Bell, B., 2003. Work Groups and Teams in Organisations. In W.C Kubler-Ross, E., 1969. On Death and Dying. Touchstone New York. pp. 33-66Lau, C.M. and Woodman, R.W., 1995. Understanding organizational change a schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 537-54Lewin, K., 1966. Gro up Decisions and Social Change. In Maccoby, E, Newcomb, E, and Hartley, E., Readings in Social Psychology, London Marks, M.L and Mirvis, P.H., 1992. Rebuilding after the merger dealing with survivor sickness. Organisation Dynamics, Vol. 21, No 2, P. 18-35McKinlay, A., Carter, C., Pezet, E., Clegg, S., 2010. Using Foucault to make strategy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Vol. 23 No. 8, pp.1012 1031Mirvis, P. H., and Marks, M. L., 1992. The Human Side of Merger Planning Assessing and Analyzing Fit. Human Resource Planning, 15 (3), 69- 92. Myers, P., Hulks, S., and Wiggins, L. 2012. Organizational Change Perspectives on Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Oxford OUP Senge, P. M., 1992. Mental Models. Strategy and Leadership. Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 4-44Schein, E.H. (1978). Career Dynamics Matching Individual and Organisational Needs. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.Tushamn, M., and OReilly, C., 2006. Ambidextrous Organisations Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. In Mayle, D. , 2006. Managing Innovation and Change. SAGE Publications London pp. 170-184 Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., Nikolaou, I., 2004. The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change. Managerial Psychology Vol. 19 No. 2 pp. 88 110 Vroom, V. H., 1964. Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass. Waddell, D., and Sohal, S. A., 1998. Resistance a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, Vol. 36 Iss 8 pp. 543 548Watson, G., 1969. Resistance to Change. In Bennis, W., Benne, K., and Chin, R., (Eds), The Planning of Change. (2nd ed). Holt, Rinehart & Winston New York pp. 27-46Zaltman, G. and Duncan R., 1977. Strategies for Planned Change. J. Wesley & Sons New York.