This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The conflict process can be seen as comprising five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. The process is diagrammed in Exhibit 13-1.
Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility
The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary if conflict is to surface. For simplicity’s sake, these conditions
member–goal compatibility. and personal variables. Structure The term structure is used. The filtering process that occurs as information is passed between members and the divergence of communications from formal or previously established channels offer potential opportunities for conflict to arise. Too much information. Evidence demonstrates that semantic difficulties arise as a result of differences in training. an increase in communication is functional up to a point. the channel chosen for communicating can have an influence on stimulating opposition. can lay the foundation for conflict. jargon. selective perception. Apparently. jurisdictional clarity. as well as too little. whereupon it is possible to overcommunicate. leadership styles. to include variables such as size. Research has further demonstrated a surprising finding: The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. Much of this discussion can be related back to our comments on communication in Chapter 10. reward systems. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities. and noise in the communication channels. degree of specialization in the tasks assigned to group members. Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. A review of the research suggests that differing word connotations. the greater the likelihood of conflict. and inadequate information about others. Furthermore. misunderstandings. structure. and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. with a resultant increase in the potential for conflict. and the degree of dependence among groups.214 Part III Groups in the Organization EXHIBIT 13-1 The Conflict Process Stage III Intentions Stage IV Behavior Stage V Outcomes Stage I Stage II Potential opposition Cognition and or incompatibility personalization Perceived conflict Antecedent conditions • Communication • Structure • Personal variables Felt conflict Increased group performance Conflict-handling intentions • Competing • Collaborating • Compromising • Avoiding • Accommodating Overt conflict • Party’s behavior • Other’s reaction Decreased group performance (which also may be looked at as causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication. Tenure and conflict appear inversely .4 Communication The communication source represents the opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties. in this context. insufficient exchange of information.
tension. then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage. Say that an employee thinks he is worth $55. some people are conflict oriented and others are conflict aversive.000. frustration. Say that John dislikes African-Americans and Dana believes John’s position indicates his ignorance. “A may be aware that B and A are in serious disagreement . One or more of the parties must be aware of the existence of the antecedent conditions. but it may not make A tense or anxious. Emotions can also cause conflict. In addition to personality traits. A close style of leadership—tight and continuous observation with general control of others’ behaviors—increases conflict potential. Stage III: Intentions Intentions intervene among people’s perceptions and emotions and overt behaviors. Reward systems. meaning the potential for conflict tends to be greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high. when individuals become emotionally involved. perception is required. meeting. These intentions are decisions to act in a given way. individuals who are highly authoritarian and dogmatic—lead to potential conflict. research indicates that individuals in Japan and in the United States view conflict differently. too. Americans are more likely to see offers from their counterparts as unfair and to reject such offers. Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. However.”6 It is at the felt level. which may lead to a tension-filled meeting. as well as the rewards one deserves. As our definition of conflict notes. Value differences are the best explanation of diverse issues such as prejudice and disagreements over one’s contribution to the group. Compared to Japanese negotiators.Chapter 13 Conflict and Negotiation related. In other words. are found to create conflict when one member’s gain is at another’s expense. A lot of conflicts are escalated merely by one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other party. In . which are important sources for creating the potential for conflict.000 a year but his boss believes him to be worth $50.5 215 Stage II: Cognition and Personalization If the conditions cited in stage I negatively affect something that one party cares about. It is also important to note that culture can be a source of differing values. opposing forces are stimulated. and it may have no effect whatsoever on A’s affection toward B.M. that parties experience anxiety. Evidence indicates that certain personality types—for example. And if a group is dependent on another group (in contrast to the two being mutually independent) or if interdependence allows one group to gain at another’s expense. an employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that anger to her 9:00 A. differing values can explain conflict. . The problem? Her anger can annoy her colleagues. because a conflict is perceived does not make it personalized. but the evidence is not particularly strong. . For example. Personal Variables As practical experience has taught us. apparently because participation encourages the promotion of differences. or hostility. For example. Intentions are separated out as a distinct stage because you have to infer the other’s intent to know how to respond to that other’s behavior. Research tends to confirm that participation and conflict are highly correlated. These are all value differences.
such as when you strive to achieve your goal at the expense of the other party achieving his.. such as when you give in just to please someone else. 5. where the pie is sliced down the middle). 668 . “Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organizations” M. but the approach also will vary by the situation (e.216 Part III Groups in the Organization addition. and reactions made by the conflicting parties. 3. Handbook of Organizational Psychology. there is typically a great deal of slippage between intentions and behavior. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions.M. some people are competitive in most situations). a strategy one intends to use in a conflict with a loved one will often differ from a conflict with strangers). 2. Competing: assertive and uncooperative. The behavior stage includes the statements. 2/e. they tend to focus on stage IV because this is where conflicts become visible. so behavior does not always accurately reflect a person’s intentions. Collaborating: assertive and cooperative—intending to find a win–win solution that makes both parties happy.g. such as when you avoid a conflict based on the hope it will just go away.D. but they have a stimulus EXHIBIT 13-2 Dimensions of Conflict-Handling Intentions Assertiveness Unassertive Assertive Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding Uncooperative Cooperativeness Accommodating Cooperative Source: Dimensions of Conflict-Handling Intentions.. Dunnette & L. Avoiding: unassertive and uncooperative. actions. Accommodating: unassertive and cooperative. Vol. c 1992.g. Compromising: mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.7 People differ in the degree to which they generally rely on these strategies (e. Thomas. Exhibit 13-2 represents one author’s effort to identify the primary conflicthandling intentions. Consulting Psychologists Press. 4. p. K. Hough (eds). Stage IV: Behavior When most people think of conflict situations. Using two dimensions—cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns) and assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns)—we can identify five conflict-handling intentions: 1. 3.
Strikes. Conflict is constructive when it: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ improves the quality of decisions. I respond by arguing. such as a student questioning in class a point the instructor has just made. For example. The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of decision making by allowing all points.9 Many of GM’s problems. or it may be dysfunctional in that it hinders group performance. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum. Yet in a number of instances. stimulates creativity and innovation. these outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement in the group’s performance. riots. Motors to see a company that suffered because it had too little functional conflict. from the late 1960s to the late 1990s. and fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change. All conflicts exist somewhere along this continuum.ideas. It helps to think of stage IV as a dynamic process of interaction. it’s possible to envision how low or moderate levels of conflict could improve the effectiveness of a group. can be traced to a lack of functional conflict. inade. Because people often find it difficult to think of instances in which conflict can be constructive. Conflict reassessment of group challenges the status quo and therefore furthers the creation of new goals and activities. indirect.8 Conflict is status quo and therefore an antidote for groupthink. Functional Outcomes How might conflict act as a force to increase group performance? It is hard to visualize a situation in which open or violent aggression could be functional. It hired and promoted individuals who were yes-men. Note how all these examples focus on task and process conflicts and exclude the relationship variety. let’s consider some examples and then review the research evidence. and highly controlled forms of tension. provides the medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released. overt behaviors sometimes deviate from original intentions. As our model (see Exhibit 13-1) demonstrates. At the lower part of the continuum. Managers were. you threaten me. and wars clearly fall in this upper range. conflicts that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always dysfunctional. It doesn’t allow the group to passively furthers the creation of new rubber-stamp decisions that may be based on weak assumptions. For the most part. You don’t have to look further than automobile behemoth General to change. to be weighed in important decisions. and so on. I threaten you back. loyal to GM to the point of never questioning company actions. encourages interest and curiosity among group members. particularly the ones that are unusual —Conflict challenges the or held by a minority. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. you make a demand on me. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments. and ideas.Chapter 13 Conflict and Negotiation quality that is separate from intentions. promotes quate consideration of relevant alternatives. or other debilities. 217 Stage V: Outcomes The action–reaction interplay among the conflicting parties results in consequences. and increases increases the probability that the group will respond the probability that the group will respond to change. promotes reassessment of group goals and activities. we have conflicts characterized by subtle. for .
Shea & Gould.” he said. if managers accept the interactionist view toward conflict. A reasonable summary might state that uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent. It was at this point that Yahoo!’s most critical problem became exposed: The company was too insulated and void of functional conflict. By the spring of 2001. of course. homogenous: conservative white males raised in the midwestern United States who resisted change: They preferred looking back to past successes rather than forward to new challenges. They were almost sanctimonious in their belief that what had worked in the past would continue to work in the future. did Yahoo! begin to successfully solve its problems. performance tended to improve more when conflict occurred among members than when fairly close agreement was prevalent. The demise of an organization as a result of too much conflict isn’t as unusual as one might expect.14 As one legal consultant familiar with the organization said. Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of conflict. investigators found the average improvement among the high-conflict groups was 73 percent greater than that of those groups characterized by low-conflict conditions. with a new CEO who openly challenged the company’s conflict-free climate. Yahoo! provides a more recent example of a company that suffered because of too little functional conflict. Moreover. which acts to dissolve common ties. “This was a firm that had basic and principled differences among the partners that were basically irreconcilable. Managers and staff were too comfortable with each other to challenge the status quo. You hate each other!” Creating Functional Conflict In this section we ask. Only when Koogle was replaced in 2001. a substantial body of literature documents how conflict—the dysfunctional varieties—can reduce group effectiveness. among established groups. and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting among members. This kept new ideas from percolating upward and held dissent to a minimum. the company further insulated managers from conflicting perspectives.11 Others have found similar results: Groups composed of members with different interests tend to produce higher-quality solutions to a variety of problems than do homogeneous groups. conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and potentially threaten the group’s survival.13 Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication. reductions in group cohesiveness.” That same consultant also addressed the partners at their last meeting: “You don’t have an economic problem. by sheltering executives in the company’s Detroit offices and encouraging them to socialize with others inside the GM ranks. At the extreme. The source of the problem was the company’s CEO.com stocks hit. And. For instance. demonstrating that. When groups analyzed decisions made by its individual members. “You have a personality problem. Tim Koogle. and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. what can they do to encourage functional conflict in their organizations?15 . Yahoo!’s advertising sales were plunging and the company’s stock was down 92 percent from its peak. one of New York’s best-known law firms.12 Dysfunctional Outcomes The destructive consequences of conflict on a group’s or organization’s performance are generally well known. by 1999 Yahoo! had become one of the best-known brand names on the Internet. It couldn’t respond to change.218 Part III Groups in the Organization the most part. He set the tone of nonconfrontation.10 Begun in 1994. closed down solely because the 80 partners couldn’t get along. Then the implosion of dot.
S. No tirades. When the policy committee at AnheuserBusch considers a major move. As one consultant put it. such as getting into or out of a business or making a major capital expenditure. If the disagreement can’t be resolved. business hush up when their opinions are at odds with those of their superiors. however. Negotiation and conflict are closely related because negotiation often resolves conflict. Royal Dutch Shell Group. in which members are increasingly finding themselves having to work with colleagues over whom they . General Electric. One common ingredient in organizations that successfully create functional conflict is that they reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders. the system provides a third party for counsel. or people who stay with the ideas they believe in even when those ideas are rejected by management. There’s the not so obvious: Managers negotiate with employees. IBM also has a formal system that encourages dissension.” Another suggests that at least 7 out of 10 people in U. They don’t like hearing negatives. occurs when they hear news that they don’t want to hear. has a formal system in which employees evaluate and criticize their bosses. Having considered conflict—its nature.Chapter 13 Conflict and Negotiation Consultants generally agree that creating functional conflict is a tough job. They frequently make it up the ladder in part because they don’t irritate people on the way up. Organizations that don’t encourage and support dissent may find their survival threatened. even-tempered questions: “Can you tell me more about what happened?” “What do you think we ought to do?” A sincere “Thank you for bringing this to my attention” will probably reduce the likelihood that managers will be cut off from similar communications in the future. purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. Such anticonflict cultures may have been tolerable in the past but not in today’s fiercely competitive global economy. allowing bosses to make mistakes even when they know better. The news may make their blood boil or their hopes collapse. They have to learn to take the bad news without flinching. it often assigns teams to make the case for each side of the question. 219 NEGOTIATION Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organizations. they don’t like saying or thinking negative things. salespeople negotiate with customers. Hewlett-Packard rewards dissenters by recognizing go-against-the-grain types. And there’s the subtle: An employee agrees to answer a colleague’s phone for a few minutes in exchange for some past or future benefit. peers. Rather. In today’s loosely structured organizations. The real challenge for managers. no tight-lipped sarcasm. “A high proportion of people who get to the top are conflict avoiders. but they can’t show it. no eyes rolling upward. and bosses. managers should ask calm. an office furniture manufacturer. particularly in large U. There’s the obvious: Labor bargains with management. Employees can question their bosses with impunity. Let’s look at some approaches organizations are using to encourage their people to challenge the system and develop fresh ideas. causes. and Anheuser-Busch build devil’s advocates into the decision process. and consequences—now we turn to negotiation.S. This process frequently results in decisions and alternatives that hadn’t been considered previously. no gritting of teeth. corporations. Herman Miller Inc..
Distributive Bargaining Let’s say you see a used car advertised for sale in the newspaper. distributive and integrative bargaining differ in goal and motivation. interests. So the essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie. focus. every dollar more the seller can get from you comes at your expense. Because every cent more that labor negotiates increases management’s costs.220 Part III Groups in the Organization have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common boss. every dollar you can get the seller to cut from the car’s price is a dollar you save. and duration of relationship. any gain I make is at your expense. Its most identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions. Probably the most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labor–management negotiations over wages. and vice versa. negotiation skills become critical. We define negotiation as a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them. EXHIBIT 13-3 Bargaining Characteristic Goal Motivation Focus Interests Information sharing Duration of relationship Distributive Versus Integrative Bargaining Distributive Bargaining Get as much of the pie as possible Win–lose Positions (“I can’t go beyond this point on this issue. Bargaining Strategies There are two general approaches to negotiation: distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. It appears to be just what you’ve been looking for. they tend to bargain distributively. Referring back to the used-car example. The two of you then negotiate over the price. The negotiating strategy you’re engaging in is called distributive bargaining. It’s great and you want it. As Exhibit 13-3 shows. labor’s representatives come to the bargaining table determined to get as much money as possible out of management.16 Note that we’ll use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. fixed pies are zero-sum games. The owner tells you the asking price. That is. Therefore. Conversely. The fixed pie concept means the bargaining parties believe there only a finite amount of goods or services are available to be divvied up.”) Opposed Low (sharing information will only allow other party to take advantage) Short term Integrative Bargaining Expand the pie so that both parties are satisfied Win–win Interests (“Can you explain why this issue is so important to you?”) Congruent High (sharing information will allow each party to find ways to satisfy interests of each party) Long term . You go out to see the car. Typically. When parties believe the pie is fixed. information sharing. You don’t want to pay that much. Let’s examine the differences between these two approaches.
but the clothing store’s owner will provide a bank guarantee that will ensure payment if the bill isn’t paid within 60 days. In contrast to distributive bargaining. integrative bargaining operates under the assumption that one or more settlements can create a win–win solution. all things being equal. The two openly review their options. When engaged in distributive bargaining. arguing that your target is fair. She is told that the firm can’t approve credit to this customer because of a past slow-payment record. Integrative Bargaining Let’s say a sales representative for a women’s sportswear manufacturer has just closed a $15. which marks the lowest acceptable outcome—the point below which they would break off negotiations rather than accept a less-favorable settlement. they agree on a solution that meets both of their needs: The credit manager will approve the sale. Parties A and B represent two negotiators.Chapter 13 Conflict and Negotiation each party bargains aggressively and treats the other as an opponent who must be defeated. Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to achieve.000 order from a small clothing retailer. This sales-credit negotiation is an example of integrative bargaining. there is a settlement range in which each one’s aspirations can be met. The area between these two points makes up each one’s aspiration range. but he also doesn’t want to get stuck with an uncollectible debt. one’s tactics focus on trying to get one’s opponent to agree to a specific target point or to get as close to it as possible. The sales rep calls in the order to her firm’s credit department. Each also has a resistance point. In terms of intraorganizational behavior. while your opponent’s isn’t. Neither does the credit manager. Examples of such tactics are persuading your opponent of the impossibility of getting to his or her target point and the advisability of accepting a settlement near yours. The next day. After considerable discussion. integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the former builds long-term 221 EXHIBIT 13-4 Staking Out the Bargaining Zone Party A’s aspiration range Settlement range Party B’s aspiration range Party A’s target point Party B’s resistance point Party A’s resistance point Party B’s target point . the sales rep and the firm’s credit manager meet to discuss the problem. The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 13-4. The sales rep doesn’t want to lose the business. and attempting to get your opponent to feel emotionally generous toward you and thus accept an outcome close to your target point. As long as A’s and B’s aspiration ranges have some overlap.
don’t we see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed. 2. allowing them to leave the bargaining table feeling that they have achieved a victory. Preparation and planning Definition of ground rules Clarification and justification Bargaining and problem solving Closure and implementation17 Preparation and Planning Before you start negotiating. however. Also. The Negotiation Process Exhibit 13-5 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. 5. Why. then. Distributive bargaining. and what are their perceptions of the conflict? EXHIBIT 13-5 The Negotiation Process Preparation and planning Definition of ground rules Clarification and justification Bargaining and problem solving Closure and implementation . Because these conditions often don’t exist in organizations. you often need to inquire about the other party’s interests and to be sensitive to their needs. it isn’t surprising that negotiations often take on a win-at-any-cost dynamic. It tends to build animosities and deepen divisions when people have to work together on an ongoing basis. 4. and this requires a certain amount of trust. 3. What’s the nature of the conflict? What’s the history leading up to this negotiation? Who’s involved. To bargain integratively. you need to disclose your true interests to the other party. you need to do your homework. leaves one party a loser.222 Part III Groups in the Organization relationships and bonds negotiators. It views negotiation as made up of five steps: 1.
both you and the other party will explain. an airline may find that at a certain level of settlement. you’re ready to begin defining the ground rules and procedures with the other party for the negotiation itself. you shouldn’t expect success in your negotiation effort unless you’re able to make the other side an offer it finds more attractive than its BATNA. you are better equipped to counter arguments with the facts and figures that support your position. This needn’t be confrontational.”18 Once you’ve gathered your information. and your goal is to get a significant cost reduction from your supplier of keyboards. We were on good terms with the wife’s attorney and we learned the seller’s net worth. For example. If you go into your negotiation having a good idea of what the other party’s BATNA is. 223 . bolster. “Once when we were negotiating to buy a business. even if you’re not able to meet it. so we knew he had to pay her half of everything. Conversely. and get a better price. you might be able to get it changed. use it to develop a strategy. California is a community-property-law state. We knew what he was willing to part with and what he was not. Thus. hiring replacement workers would be its BATNA. The importance of sizing up the other party is illustrated by the experience of Keith Rosenbaum. the cost of hiring replacement workers is the same. What are they likely to request? How entrenched are they likely to be in their position? What intangible or hidden interests may be important to them? What might they be willing to settle on? When you can anticipate your opponent’s position. Definition of Ground Rules Once you’ve done your planning and developed a strategy. for instance. we found that the owner was going through a nasty divorce. It often helps to put your goals in writing and develop a range of outcomes—from “most hopeful” to “minimally acceptable”—to keep your attention focused. it’s an opportunity for educating and informing each other on the issues. will apply? To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached? During this phase. This is the point at which you might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support your position. We were able to twist him a little bit. Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse. a partner in a major Los Angeles law firm.Chapter 13 Conflict and Negotiation What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? If you’re a supply manager at Dell Computer. We knew his time frame. why they are important. and justify your original demands. Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. They know ahead of time how they will respond to any given situation. you should determine yours and the other side’s Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). amplify. in negotiating. clarify. Rather. make sure that this goal stays paramount in your discussions and doesn’t get overshadowed by other issues. Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints. You also want to prepare an assessment of what you think the other party’s goals are. As part of your strategy. the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands. expert chess players have a strategy. Clarification and Justification When initial positions have been exchanged. if any. and how each of you arrived at their initial demands. We knew a lot more about him than he would have wanted us to know. For example.
Major negotiations—labor–management negotiations. negotiating a job offer for a senior management position—will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. however. . For most cases. It is here where concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties. closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake. bargaining over lease terms. buying a piece of real estate.224 Part III Groups in the Organization Bargaining and Problem Solving The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take involved in hashing out an agreement. Closure and Implementation The final step in the negotiation process is formalizing the agreement that has been negotiated and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring.
organizational behavior would take on the characteristics of chaotic .RESISTANCE TO CHANGE One of the most well-documented findings from studies of individual and organizational behavior is that organizations and their members resist change. In a sense. this is positive: It provides a degree of stability and predictability to behavior. Without any resistance.
adjusting to the new office layout. taking a new set of streets to work. In short. Education and Communication: Resistance can be reduced by communicating with employees to help them see the logic of a change. Life is complex enough. Resistance to change can also be a source of functional con. introduces a new software system. finding a new parking place. if management changes the technological processes without simultaneously modifying the organization’s structure to match. Formalization provides job descriptions. Perhaps the most obvious individual sources of resistance is habit.Chapter 16 Organizational Change and Development randomness. One can’t change without affecting the others. But there is a definite downside to resis. So. Every day. limited changes in subsystems tend to get nullified by the larger system. Training and other socialization techniques reinforce specific role requirements and skills.and organizational behavior tance to change. change agents can take actions to lessen this resistance. per. this structural inertia acts as a counterbalance to sustain stability. Another individual factor that often leads to resistance to change is security. you find a single route and use it regularly. they are then shaped and directed to behave in certain ways. Organizations have built-in mechanisms to produce stability: ■ ■ ■ 269 The selection process systematically selects certain people in and certain people out. Let’s briefly examine five of them: 1. For example. we all rely on habits. the change in technology is not likely to be accepted. So when your department is moved to a new office building across town. Communication can reduce . It hinders adaptation and progress. By its very nature. When an organization is confronted with change. and so on. So. we’re creatures of habit. the people who are hired into an organization are chosen for fit. and needs.—One of the most wellflict. If you’re like most people. is that organizations and People often resist change due to individual reasons. do you continually use the same route and streets? Probably. many employees feel insecure—that they may lose their jobs or be unable to learn new skills. When GM announces another major layoff or when Davis Controls. Organizational factors also lead to resistance to change. we don’t need to consider the full range of options for the hundreds of decisions we have to make every day. sonalities. As human beings. Organizations are made up of interdependent subsystems. resistance to a reorganization plan or a change in a documented findings from product line can stimulate a healthy debate over the merits of the idea studies of individual and result in a better decision. an Ontario-based manufacturer of process-control instrumentation.change. change leads people into the unknown. Another organizational factor that leads to resistance to change is the limited focus of change. when you go to work or school. change often threatens our security. and procedures for employees to follow. Overcoming Resistance to Change While numerous forces act to resist change. For example. where resistance their members resist to change resides in basic human characteristics such as perceptions. it means you’re likely to have to change many habits: waking up 10 minutes earlier. or programmed responses. To cope with this complexity. this tendency to respond in our accustomed ways becomes a source of resistance. developing a new lunchtime routine. rules. One major organizational source of resistance is structural inertia. When we are confronted with change.
270 Part IV The Organization System resistance on two levels. Selecting People Who Accept Change: Research suggests that the ability to easily accept and adapt to change is related to personality. It appears that people who adjust best to change are those who are open to experience. Building Support and Commitment: Change agents can offer a range of supportive efforts to reduce resistance. coercion has its limits—used alone. 3. The study authors suggested that organizations could facilitate the change process by selecting people who score high on these characteristics. Other examples of coercion are threats of transfer. coercion would be the label attached to its change tactic. obtain commitment. Second.6 So. their involvement can reduce resistance. If the corporate management really is determined to close a manufacturing plant if employees don’t acquiesce to a pay cut. they favor the status quo and resist it. Assuming that the participants have the expertise to make meaningful contributions. As we learned in Chapter 12. 4. are willing to take risks. it fights the effects of misinformation and poor communication. energizing employees can also help them emotionally commit to the change rather than embrace the status quo. the disadvantages of this approach include the potential for a poor solution and great consumption of time. Another study found that selecting people based on a resistance-to-change scale worked well in winnowing out those who tended to react emotionally to change or to be rigid. or a short paid leave of absence may facilitate adjustment.7 Coercion: Last on the list of tactics is coercion—that is. the application of direct threats or force on the resisters. If employees receive the full facts and get any misunderstandings cleared up. and are flexible in their behavior. First. communication can be helpful in promoting the need for change. Research on middle managers has shown that when managers or employees have low emotional commitment to change. One study of managers in the United States. . take a positive attitude toward change. loss of promotions. Indeed. those opposed can be brought into the decision process. negative performance evaluations. Prior to making a change. However. research shows that the way the need for change is sold matters: Change is more likely when the necessity of changing is packaged properly. and increase the quality of the change decision.” 2. and a poor letter of recommendation. When employees’ fear and anxiety are high. Europe. 5. and Asia found that those with a positive self-concept and high risk tolerance coped better with organizational change. new-skills training. it’s likely to harden resistance to change or lead to “hidden revolts. resistance should subside. employee counseling and therapy.5 Participation: It’s difficult for individuals to resist a change decision in which they participated.