Change MGMT at Nokia and GM PDF

Sundus Tanweer Khan et al, International Journal of Research in Management, Economics and Commerce,
ISSN 2250-057X, Impact Factor: 6.384, Volume 07 Issue 1, January 2017, Page 16-25
Resistance to Change in Organizations: A

Case of General Motors and Nokia
Sundus Tanweer Khan1, Sarah Saleem Raza2 and Shaju George3
1,2
(MBA Student,University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain)
3
(Assistant Professor, Department of Management & Marketing, College of Business Administration
University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain)
Abstract: Managing change effectively is a main challenge in the sphere of change management. The present
study explores how change factors affect individuals, organization as whole and its stakeholders. This article
focuses on understanding the core concept of organizational change, how it works, forces that drive change and
resistance to change. To study the practical change management, cases from different industries are analyzed,
General Motors and Nokia. GM’s case provided a general understanding about the change process in terms of
revisiting sources and scope of change and also the huge impact of environmental aspects of change, whereas
Nokia’s case provided a very rich content for describing different kinds of resistance from stakeholders. The
change management will be evaluated using the Force-field analysis, The Grief Model and Bridges Model.
Recommendations and conclusion forms the last part of the paper.
Keywords: Organization change, Resistance, Bridges model, Force field analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
The era of rapid innovation, technology and competition has forced organizations to embrace change;
in order to remain relevant and competitive in their respective fields. According to Martin, (2006) organizational
change is a salient feature of organizational development. Organizational development refers to particular
techniques that improve an organizational structure. Whether the degree of change is big or small, it is occurring
at an accelerated rate, as organizations need to respond to new technology, customers’ tastes & preferences,
market demands, new opportunities, mergers, reengineering (D’Ortenzio, 2012).No matter what the
organization’s response is, adjusting to internal and external environment with respect to resistance is a major
challenge (Yılmaz & Kılıçoğlu , 2013)
OD also recognizes the reciprocal relationship between individuals and organizations and
acknowledges that for organizations to change, individuals must change (Debra L. Nelson, 2013). However, the
focus is usually on the overall organization; the role of an individual in the change process is given less
consideration. In order to successfully initiate and facilitate change efforts, individual employees must also be
willing to engage in the change process. (Winum, Ryterband, & Stephenson, 1997).
Employees and Stakeholders values and attitudes contribute to successful implementation of
organizational change. Therefore careful analysis of the change process on employees and stakeholder leads to
successful implementation of the organizational; while the other way around will lead to negative results, like
active, passive or aggressive resistance to change (Spector, 2007). Under this study our focus is mainly on
resistance to change by employees and stakeholders under organizational setting.
To successfully implement change initiatives, organizations must recognize the vital role of its
employees, and their reactions to change which are influenced by a number of factors, including their emotions
and cognitions, communication, and participation in decision making. Organizations that can manage the
complex changes and adaptations effectively, will not only survive, but thrive (Cahill, 2011). From a change
management perspective, drivers that influence an employee’s resistance to change must be studied (Fine,
1986).
This study attempts to explore the various forces that drive change and how people are affected by the
pervasive organizational change. The aim of this research is to provide an overview of change in the
organizational context and to examine the reasons of resisting change and finally overview of the ways in which
organizations should manage resistance to change in the workplace.
Significance of the study
The study of resistance to change can serve as a learning paradigm for academic research by enhancing
student knowledge about how change was derived at Nokia and General motors and how the restraining forces
were tackled. The research provides information on resisting forces and stakeholder attitudes towards the
change. Furthermore, this study highlights the emotional and psychological impact on the stakeholders using the
Kübler-Ross grief model, which can aid managers in learning about their own organization and implement a
change strategy taking the stakeholder effect into consideration. To the future researchers studying change
management, this study can provide as baseline knowledge on resistance by stakeholders and the overall change
management process.
http://indusedu.org Page 16
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Any organization practicing change faces resistance towards change (Senior & Swailes, 2010). This
section presents a review of existing literature on organizational change, defines change management, discusses
some basic reasons for change, and focuses on overall resistance to change in organizations and how to
overcome it.
Overview of Change in the Organizational context
Organizational change has been defined as the process of migration from a current situation to a
desired future state (Mack, Nelson, & Quick, 1998). Organizations adapt to change to adjust with internal and
external environment (Leana & Barry, 2000) or to improve performance and compete with competitors (Keck &
Tushman, 1993). When organizational change is implemented, resistance can be of two types; it can be
considered as a phenomenon that delays the change process by obstructing its implementation or rising costs
(Ansoff, 1990). Secondly, it can be any act that tries to keep the existing status quo that is tendency to do
nothing or to remain unchanged (Maurer, 1996). Resistance to change can also magnify certain aspects that
were overlooked previously (Waddell & Sohal, 1998).
Todnem, (2005) describes organization change as a process of continually renewing an organization’s
direction, structure and management of people in a changing environment.
According to Simmering (Simmering, Reactive vs. Proactive Change, n.d.), Change in any part or at
any level of the organization may have an effect on the entire organization and it could be proactive or reactive.
Proactive change includes effectively endeavoring to make modifications to the work place and its practices.
Organizations that adopt a proactive strategy to change are regularly attempting to maintain a strategic distance
from a potential future risk or to exploit a potential future open door (D’Ortenzio, 2012). A reactive change has
its origins from organization’s external environment; it is an automatic reaction to a change that has taken place
in the environment (Simmering, Reactive vs. Proactive Change, n.d.).
Factors that drive Change
Organizations function inside an increasingly unstable environment and are in a state of constant
change. According to Segal-Horn & Boojihawon, (2006) various internal factors such as strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats within an organization and external sources such as political, economic, social and
technological factors trigger the organizational change. External factors take place outside the organization and
cause changes within the organization such as technology, social condition, availability of resources, economy,
politics and business scenario may influence organizational change; Whereas the Internal factors refer to the
organizational structure, systems, people and performance. The internal forces that influence organizational
activities are employee behavior and attitude.
Change Management Defined
Change management has been defined as “the process of continually renewing an organization’s
direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers”
(Moran & Brightman, 2001). It also refers to the adoption of an idea, procedure, process or behavior that is new
to an organization (Pierce & Delbecq, 1977).
Major Objective of Change management is to maximize the collective benefits for all people involved
in the change and minimize the risk of failure to change. The major obstacle to change management is
Resistance to Change (K.Aswathappa, 2013).
Resistance to Change
Resistance is a phenomenon that affects the change process, delaying or slowing down its beginning,
obstructing or hindering its implementation, and increasing its costs (Ansoff, 1990).Oreg, (2006) defined
resistance to change as a “tri-dimensional (negative) attitude towards change, which includes affective and
behavioral components” and such kind of resistance needs to be overcome or eliminated (Mabin, Forgeson, &
Green, 2001).
Resistance to change is a repetitive theme in the change management literature (Cummings & Worley,
2015). Change process is delayed due to resistance (Ansoff, 1990); it is perceived as “collateral damage” of
change endeavors. Resistance can have many different appearances like intentional delays in work, resigning,
going on strikes, sabotaging organization’s property and whistle blowing (Carr & Brower, 2000).
The reasons why employees usually resist change are having fear of the unknown, misunderstanding of the need
for change and its repercussions, and a low tolerance towards change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). According
to Dent & Goldberg (1999) people don’t actually resist change they instead resist loss of status, pay, or comfort.
Responses to Change
According to the Organizational scholars the success of change initiatives can be determined by the
individual's response to the change. An organization's functioning is composed of the functioning of all its
members. Thus, it can only change when members' behavior changes. It is not possible for an organization to
change in meaningful ways unless employees believe differently, think differently and behave differently
(Woodman & Dewett, 2004).
Gardner, Pierce, & Dunham, (1989) suggested that there are three types of individual’s response
toward change; affective, cognitive and behavioral. Affective response refers to the feeling of being linked to
satisfaction or anxiety about change. Cognitive responses are opinions relating to usefulness and necessity and
about knowledge required to handle change. Instrumental responses refer to actions already taken or which will
be taken to handle the change.
Overcoming Resistance to Change
Just because employees may resist change doesn't mean managers can't help them cope with it.
Employee involvement and empowerment are usually mentioned in organizational change literature to help
reduce employee’s resistance to change. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) presented a better perspective to
encourage and support employees cope with change, stating that the situation and the content of the change
itself varies largely between organizations and it should determine the appropriate response. They outlined a
number of approaches from education to coercion, describing who and when to use them to reduce resistance,
and details the advantages and drawbacks of each.
Different personality types of individuals should also be taken into consideration for addressing change
(Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). In this study the change management and resistance to change
has been analyzed and evaluated by using the Force-field analysis, The Grief Model and Bridges Model.
Objectives of the study
1. To identify the driving forces of change for Nokia & GM.
2. To examine the practical implementation of change process in Nokia & GM.
3. To analyze employees’ response, resistance to change and difficulties faced by Nokia & GM
4. To assess how Nokia & GM managed to reduce resistance to change and evaluate their change strategy
with change models.
III. METHODOLOGY
Selecting the methodology to study a social reality is shaped by the nature of problem that is under
question. Qualitative method rather than the quantitative method is more convenient to choose, considering the
various elements inherited in the concept of resistance and its complexity. Some specific cases which present an
appropriate ground for the study were chosen. The material gathered through journals, websites, and documents
have been substantially rich in providing with the necessary information.
Data Collection
Qualitative Research
The research design employed for this study is qualitative and aimed at studying behavioral act such as
resistance to change during the time when an organization undergoes the change process. Applying this research
design, helped to acquire an in-depth practical insight of the subject matter, which may be hard to acquire
through survey data and quantitative techniques. The study uses real case studies from organizations that have
experienced the process of organizational change. Under qualitative design, this study specifically uses case
studies of selected organizations (i.e. NOKIA, General Motors) to examine practical implementation of change
processes.
Selection of case studies
One of the case studies that were selected explains the change process that took place in General
Motors. This case provided a general understanding about the change process in terms of revisiting sources and
scope of change and also the huge impact of environmental aspects of change.
The second case study is based on Nokia which provides a very rich content for describing different
kinds of resistance from stakeholders. In short both the case studies have proved to be a wealthy resource to go
deeper on resistance during the change process, and their differences have served as complementary to reach
reliable explanations.
IV. BACKGROUND OF NOKIA AND GM

General Motors (GM) grew from a small organization into a corporate giant within a couple of
decades. However, this golden era couldn’t last forever and with Toyota’s emergence in the market, great deal
of GM’s profitability and market share was taken by them which lead its sales graph to decline. In order to
maintain stability within the company such as operating costs, wages and other expense GM received loan from
Canadian and American government (Government of Canada, 2009) Additionally, the economic recession in
late 2000’s contributed to its bankruptcy, eventually GM was even forced to close down several brands and sell
it out to China based company (Muoio & Kirschenbaum, 2000). The U.S. government then took over 60%
control of GM, and taxpayers began bailing them out of bankruptcy.
Given this situation GM was forced to change and restructure, to gain back the market share and
profitability. In addition to this other factors also played a major role in implementing the need for change. GM
paid higher wage cost to employees compared to Toyota as GM had an agreement with trade union and also GM
manufacturing plants were supposed to run at 80% capacity minimum whether being used or not which played a
major role in leading the company to bankruptcy.
Nokia started to concentrate on the mobile phones industry in the year 1992 and rapidly gained huge
market share. Nokia remained very innovative and sensitive to customer demands and launched features as in
such that match the market needs which led Nokia to success (The rise and fall of nokia, n.d.). But later in 2007,
Apple’s revolutionary concept of iPhone created a very high standard for mobile phones which Nokia and other
competitors were unable to compete with. But still Nokia launched a touch-screen Smartphone 5800 Xpress
Music in late 2008 but the consumers criticized it and said it was nowhere compatible with iPhone and not user
friendly (N.Ramachandran, n.d.).
Besides new entrance and competition in market other factors that lead Nokia to change was
bureaucracy. Prototype of big screen touch screen and 3D user interface was rejected prior to iPhone and other
competitors launched it which highlights that Nokia was innovative enough to compete but bureaucracy served
as one of the challenge to remain competitive (O’BRIEN, 2010). In addition, change of Non-Finnish CEO also
came as a shock to the market and stakeholders when a Canadian, Stephen Elop was announced as the new CEO
of Nokia (Virki, 2010). Nokia was forced to give its market share to Samsung and Apple.
V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Driving forces that lead General Motors and Nokia to adapt to change is discussed further in this
section. And how resistance to this change came about for General Motors and Nokia and how did they manage
it.
Drivers of change for General Motors’ and Nokia
GM’s external forces of change were the new emergence of competition (auto manufacturers from
Japan and Europe) in the global marketplace; GM failed to respond to competition and it resulted in significant
losses in their market share (Smith, n.d.)
The financial crisis of 2008-2010 had a huge impact on GM. They used to manufacture big cars Giant
that are very fuel consuming, although those cars were really attractive because they made 15-20% profit margin
on an SUV as compared to 3% or less on a car but as the financial crisis begun the fuel prices went up and the
demand for large trucks and SUVs dropped significantly and with it the sales of GM whereas other
organizations such as Toyota with its smaller cars benefited ("A Giant falls", 2009).
Internal Force for change was the need for cost-cutting, the UAW (United Auto Workers) union was
criticized for imposing high wage costs on GM. GM was paying its employees on average $74 per hour
compared to Toyota $44 an hour. Secondly, GM was compelled to run its plants at 80% minimum capacity
whether they needed to or not. (Saporito, 2008).
Another reason was payments made to retired workers. Earlier, GM used to provide health care
benefits and generous pension funds to their employees. However, once they could no longer afford these
payments, investors were not as happy with the choice.
Cultural problem was another major reason for change, there was delay in decision making, and the
management had no sense of urgency to change. GM was in a bureaucratic mess, it became more focused on
numbers than the quality products.
External forces that Nokia faced were new Emergence of competition and Change in consumer
behavior. It missed the significant change in the market which was the Smartphone revolution. It was not
prepared and had low technological competence Nokia also faced fierce competition from mobile phone
producers in the developing markets who could make fast, cheap phone at the lower end of the mobile phone
market (Riley, 2012).
Culture and leadership was the internal force that drove change in Nokia. It required leadership that
drives change as its top management was all Finns of similar age and background, and this to some extent
hindered their ability to make sense of their changing business environment. It’s conservative, bureaucratic
culture got in the way of rapid fundamental change. The complicated organizational structure made it difficult to
make timely and effective decision. A single product decision could take months if not years to be made and
greatly affected its responsiveness to the rapid-changing mobile market (Lam, 2013).
GM and Nokia Change process and Resistance by Stakeholders
The initial change made at GM was cutting pay of employees which created a major problem. It
achieved the target of cost cutting up to 15 billion but this cost-cutting strategy impacted its employees and
customers eventually were unsatisfied. Cost-cutting wasn’t the only means for survival from bankruptcy and
saving money, GM also decided to change its cultural structure in different ways. Firstly, GM promoted
centralizations of functions (like consolidating its purchasing offices from 25 to 1 in the U.S) and removed any
redundant process. Then they replaced their product and automotive strategy board with an 8-man decision team
reporting directly to the CEO in order to boost decisions. GM wanted to give its employees greater
accountability and responsibility on the same model as Toyota.
Some criticized the top down approach of GM and said that GM has a long history of mistrust towards
its employees (contrary to Toyota). It meant that if GM wanted its change initiative to be successful, they
needed to empower their employees the way Toyota did, where workers played an active part in the process
(Loy, n.d.).
When an organization seeks to reorganize under Chapter 11, it usually continues to operate its business
under the protection of the bankruptcy courts. Organizations often retain a critical mass of employees to
continue operations and are required to take a close look at expenses to reorganize an organization’s financial
affairs. As a result, an organization in Chapter 11 bankruptcy may lay off some employees as a cost-cutting
measure which can have devastating consequences for fearful employees. In the case of General Motors,
management and employees were confined to the traditional way of the company's operations. Even more so,
they knew that restructuring and layoffs were going to take place; therefore, they lost their sense of security and
allowed anxiety to take over (Farfan, 2016). There was a solid resistance from employees towards the
management, as they imposed the cultural change instead of making it comes from its employees ("GM
change", n.d.).
When Stephen Elop was elected as the new CEO it came as a shock to all Nokia stakeholders. This
decision was seen as controversial as for the first time in Nokia’s 145 year history, a non-Finnish CEO was
chosen and the employees were not comfortable with that. As Nokia was a Finnish Organization, Finnish culture
does not promote uncertainty and change but with the change, unclear communication and job security issues,
many employees felt at risk and protested. Cultural difference made it difficult for everyone to adjust.
In Elop’s famous memo he blamed the attitude of Nokia employees for the downturn and described
their behavior as pouring gasoline on the burning platform. Elop reckoned Nokia must decide how they are
going to change their behavior (Lam, 2013). This came as a shock for employees who were in this turmoil of
changes. Furthermore he stated that Symbian had proven to be non-competitive in leading markets and was
considered as major roadblocks to develop good products quickly and offer advantages over other competing
platforms.
The sudden rejection of Symbian and MeeGo in favor of an outsider’s platform made Nokia employees
and Symbian user shocked and angry, they could not believe that Nokia was really giving up all the investments
that they had done in Symbian and MeeGo. Intel was the strategist partner of Nokia before on the MeeGo
project and it was also disappointed.
Nokia then outsourced Symbian to Accenture which lead to job termination and transfer of employees.
The MeeGo team members had to find their own ways to survive inside the company.
Elop said that Nokia was terminating numerous development projects which sparked even more
resistance. Various notable leadership team members decided to resign. Amidst all the changes that were taking
place, Stephen Elop was also rumored to be Microsoft's "Trojan horse" to destroy Nokia’s share price for easier
acquisition (Lam, 2013).
As a result, when Nokia tried to implement the change, strong resistance from employees and
stakeholders was faced. Meanwhile, Nokia’s shareholders sold off their company shares which caused a
dramatic drop in Nokia’s share price.
VI. COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF CHANGE THAT TOOK PLACE IN GM & NOKIA
Using Lewin’s Model
Kurt Lewin's Force field analysis was developed in the Mid-20th century; it systematically analyzes
factors in complicated situations (Nasser, 2015). Two forces are taken into account, one that moves towards the
goal, other that hinders the achievements of goals. These forces work against each other in a dynamic way
inside organizations and eventually reach equilibrium. An imbalance in this equilibrium may cause a tension
Figure1: Force Field Analysis of Nokia
that subsequently leads to change (Burnes, 2004). In the figures below, Nokia and GM’s high level pressures for
and against the change are analyzed.
Figure2: Force Field Analysis of GM Using Bridge’s Transition Model
Figure3: Bridge’s Transition Model

The first stage is characterized by letting go and accepting an ending, therefore to enter new stage
employees must let go of certain things. GM realized there were differences between its goals and the current
system of operation, so it accepted the fact that its glorious era has ended and placed its fate in the hands of the
US government, which then took over 60% control of GM, and taxpayers began bailing GM out of bankruptcy
("UK Essays", 2015). GM was an iconic symbol of the American auto industry, it was essential to preserve it
plus if GM failed, the economic repercussions would be failure for many suppliers, distributors, employees, and
communities. On the other hand innovative ideas were not being communicated to top management in Nokia
because of the overly bureaucratic management. By 2010, facing fierce competition from iPhone and others,
things were not going Nokia’s way and it was time for it to rethink(Hassan, 2013).So to drive strategic change,
Stephen Elop was appointed as the new CEO (Non-Finnish), which in turn gave a cultural shock to employees.
He then issued the famous burning platform memo bluntly explaining the serious strategic challenges facing
Nokia and also called for it to undergo drastic change (Riley, 2012).
Neutral zone is a bridge between the old system and the new one, employees mostly feel anxious,
disoriented, angry. GM faced numerous barriers and resistance to the changes that were occurring. The new
CEO Ed Whitacre used his power to introduce a new plan to improve accountability and concern for crucial
market performance within GM. The employees were fearful for their jobs during the restructuring and
reorganizing ("UK Essays", 2015). Whitacre realized that the changes have shaken up the employees so he sent
a companywide email in which he wrote, "A smart company changes and adapts to the needs of the business.
So, while there will always be individual moves within GM, I want to reassure you that the major leadership
changes are behind us"(Welch, 2010). Whereas in Nokia, Elop’s February 11th announcement regarding the
partnership with Microsoft triggered a protest from employees due to confusion about their tasks and job
security. Also changing to Windows platform came with a lot of resistance from all stakeholdersas the
homegrown Symbian platforms were dumped (Lam, 2013). Nokia’s share price dropped by 10%, and there was
also a wave of resignations. Better communication, leading and guidance within the organization are the key to
move forward from this phase.
Once the Neutral phase is over, a new beginning takes place. People involved begin to embrace the
change program and gradually become more accepting and recognize the benefits of change and how it
contributes to the bigger picture (Managing Change - Bridges Model, n.d.).GM was able to enjoy the fresh start
that had been much anticipated for, although it decided to get rid of Hummer, Saturn, Pontiac, and Saab, it
proceeded on with its most profitable brands like Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC. In Nokia, major
restructuring and large layoffs took place to tackle the bureaucracy issues and to simplify the organizational
structure. Nokia finally managed to launch its first Windows Phone products, and from that point onwards there
was mass launching of Lumina Series which brought some good news as Nokia started to become profitable
again in 2012(Brodeur, 2013).
Using the Grief Model
One of the reason why change initiatives fail is the inability to assess the effect of change on those
people who are most affected by it. Cultural shifts, new methods of working plus new processes and structures
have an impact on people; they experience emotional and psychological changes to adapt to the new ways
(Warrilow, n.d.). The stakeholders’ reactions on GM & Nokia’s change strategy can be reflected on the Kübler-
Ross grief model:
Figure4: GM’s strategy change as reflected in the Kübler-Ross Grief model
Figure5: Nokia's strategy change as reflected in the Kübler-Ross Grief model
VII. RESEARCH FINDINGS

GM and Nokia had similarities, both did not realize that a drastic shift is coming; they were not
prepared for the change. Both were over confident and did not see the new organizations entering the market as
a threat, they thought they cannot be overtaken. They were not responsive to the environmental changes and also
didn’t act quickly to the changing market needs. GM and Nokia also did not pay attention to the changing
consumer behaviors. Nokia’s focus was on the hardware rather than the software and GM was not focusing on
fuel-efficiency or the new technologies. In both cases the top management did not bring anything new to the
table and stuck to their old ways.
Following are the ways in which the change management took place at GM and Nokia:
After announcing bankruptcy and getting government bailout, GM decided to alter its strategies and
objectives, which it started by changing its management. Its top management was not proactive and open to
change; their lack of planning, organizing, leading and controlling was one of the reasons of its downfall.
Government enforced the change and Ed Whitacre was hired to restructure and revamp GM.
The new leadership decided to reduce production capacity and became focus-oriented; by cutting
Saturn, Pontiac, Saab, and Hummer they started to focus on specific brands only, in order to create high value
for its customers and recapture its market share.
As far as the employees were concerned, GM expressed that there would be no buyout or early
retirement packages as it had offered earlier in the past, yet laid-off employees would get severance pay, benefit
contributions and support. Centralization was reduced, innovation was encouraged, employees were given the
freedom to take decisions as they are in the best position to foresee the market and make decisions accordingly.
Whitacre tried to raise employee morale by increasing employee involvement in decision making and having
two-way communication with employees.
GM also managed to reduce labor expenses and cut the legacy costs; reached a historic agreement with
the UAW, the wages were cut in half and the traditional retiree benefit packages were also scaled back (Hua,
n.d.).
GM needed rebranding; their strategies were always focused on competing with US organizations, but
it realized that it needs to start investing in new products and technologies to keep up with the global
competition. In order to capture customers’ attention, GM showcased its social investments, which included
alternative fuels, improved gas mileage, eco-friendly vehicles, and other go-green initiatives (Loy, n.d.).
As Nokia was no longer focusing on the dated Symbian platforms, Elop decided to outsource the
Symbian software development and support devices to Accenture. This was considered a cost saving measure
too, as 2,800 Nokia employees from various offices all over the world were transferred to Accenture (Kirk,
2011). Nokia announced that it would support the departing team members with severance benefits along with
free Nokia handsets to employees who sign up for the resignation package.
The MeeGo team was eventually dissolved and team members departed the company to create quite a
few start-up companies in Finland, with financial support received from Nokia’s Bridge program (Lunden,
2012). This program provided former employees help in the form of technical training, financial aid, and in
some cases, patents.
Under Elop’s leadership Nokia did manage to bring out improved products and also managed to have
fewer layers of management, both top down and sideways, to accelerate the flow of information and decision
making.
VIII. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

While GM was able to fast-track the change process with the right leadership in place, certain actions
could have been done differently to maximize efficiency and minimize resistance. Palmer, (2004) suggests that
resistance to change can be managed by communication to the followers, participation from everyone involved
and negotiation between the leaders and the subordinates. Although Mr. Whitacre automatically sent out a
companywide email when the company was in turmoil, it was not necessarily effective. Alternatively, he could
have done a video conferencing with all the employees worldwide. In this manner, not only would his body
language be viewed, but also would he be able to display emotions. According to Bridges (1995, p.41),
"Communications help to keep people feeling included in and connected to the organization". Without
communications in place, wrong information can be multiplied and people develop apathy.
Nokia faced problems in implementing change as they started from the top level and didn’t initiate
from the employees. The switch to Windows Phone platform was a controversial decision though logical but the
need to change the platform was not communicated well. Change is a step by step process but Nokia rushed into
the process which resulted in resistance from employees and created a wave of shock not just among employees
but other stakeholders, leading to subsequent disastrous result that even Bill Gates remarked the Windows
Phone strategy as big mistake (Lam, 2013). For Nokia to be successful they should have studied the market
situation, analyzed employee attitudes and behavior, and assigned leaders as in such that Employees are willing
to follow, perform stakeholder analysis, risk assessment and prioritization (CAMERON & GREEN, 2012); Cut
management layers and bureaucracy, empowerment of employees such that they know their option matters;
adopt a well-established change management model (such as Bridges and force field analysis) and then
gradually implement the frameworks for change, give importance to what employees’ want and also involve in
the process.
Both GM and Nokia are a prime example of what other industries can learn from and react to
competition in the industry. Organizations that are dominant in their market can also experience downfall.
Therefore the factors that lead to the downfall should be analyzed and then necessary steps should be taken for
the improvements, in order to make the organization more resilient.
Limitations of the study
Initially it was planned to collect first hand empirical data through investigating the resistance to
change issue on the field but it appeared impossible because of certain limitations. The amount of time that is
necessary to study resistance empirically was way more than it was on hand to prepare this study. In addition to
time constraint, studying resistance in a real organizational setting demands certain amount of financial resource
which also limited the initial plan.
Therefore, two specific cases which presented an appropriate ground for this study were selected from
the existing literature. Despite above limitations, it has to be stated that the material gathered through journals,
websites, and documents have been substantially rich in providing with the necessary information
Directions for future research
After analyzing the case studies on resistance to change and conducting this research finding, it has
become prominent that further areas with respect to change management needs to be studies. As this research
uses two case studies only to study resistance, further research can be done on resistance taking this study
findings as baseline knowledge and further employee perception, attitudes, values and also leadership style can
be studied to find how to overcome resistance. The degree of stakeholder’s acceptance of resistance to change is
one of the most important factors influencing change management which should be examined by the change
agents. Furthermore, this research is based on secondary data and to further explore the factors influencing
resistance to change, primary data can be analyzed in future.
Sources of funding of the study
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
IX. REFERENCES
[1] "A Giant falls". (2009, June 4). A Giant falls. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/node/13782942
[2] "GM change". (n.d.). GM change. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from scoop: http://www.scoop.it/t/gm-change
[3] "UK Essays". (2015, March 23). Leadership And Change Management At General Motors Commerce Essay. Retrieved
December 1, 2016, from UKEssays: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/commerce/leadership-and-change-management-at-
general-motors-commerce-essay.php
[4] Ansoff, I. (1990). Implanting Strategic Management. Prentice Hall International.
[5] Brodeur, S. (2013, January 10). Nokia's Q4 performance exceeds expectations. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from Windows
central: http://www.windowscentral.com/nokias-q4-performance-exceeds-expectations
[6] Brown, D. C. (2003). Leading complex change - A five-stage process to promote employee buy-in. Behavioral Health
Management.
[7] Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies.
[8] Cahill, A. M. (2011). Use of Teams to Accomplish Radical Organization Change.
[9] CAMERON, E., & GREEN, M. (2012). Making Sense of Change Management : A Complete Guide to the Models Tools and
Techniques of Organizational Change, 3rd EDITION. Kogan Page Ltd.
[10] Carr, J. B., & Brower, R. S. (2000). PRINCIPLED OPPORTUNISM: EVIDENCE FROM THE ORGANIZATIONAL MIDDLE.
Public Administration Quarterly.
[11] Congruence Model. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2016, from Organisational Change:
https://leg4.wikispaces.com/Congruence+Model
[12] Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2015). Organization Development and Change, 10th Edition.
[13] D’Ortenzio, C. (2012). UNDERSTANDING CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES: A CASE STUDY.
Canberra, AUSTRALIA.
[14] Debra L. Nelson, J. C. (2013). Organizational Behavior: Science, The Real World, and You.
[15] Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “Resistance to Change”. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
[16] Farfan, B. (2016, August 12). General Motors Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Retrieved November 27, 2016, from the balance:
https://www.thebalance.com/gm-chapter-11-2891901
[17] Fine, S. (1986). Technological Innovation, Diffusion and Resistance. Journal of Library Administration.
[18] Gardner, D., Pierce, J., & Dunham, R. (1989). The development of an attitude toward change instrument.
[19] Government of Canada. (2009). Summary Report on Canada’s Support for the Restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler in
2009. Government of Canada.
[20] Hassan, A. (2013, September 13). Marketing Strategy of Nokia. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from issuu:
https://issuu.com/abdulhassan21/docs/synopsis.docx
[21] Hinings, C. R., R. Gordon, J., & Whelan-Berry, K. S. (2003). Strengthening organizational change processes: Recommendations
and implications from a multilevel analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
[22] Hua, J. (n.d.). The State of the [Labor] Union: The UAW and Modern Labor Law. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from Hippo:
http://read.hipporeads.com/the-state-of-the-labor-union-the-uaw-and-modern-labor-law/
[23] K.Aswathappa. (2013). Organisational Behaviour. Tata Mc-Graw Hill.

[24] Keck, S., & Tushman, M. (1993). Environmental and Organizational Context and Executive Team Structure. Academy of
Management Journal.
[25] Kirk, J. (2011). Nokia reveals details of Symbian deal with Accenture. InfoWorld.
[26] Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change.
[27] Lam, A. H. (2013). Change management at Nokia.
[28] Leana , C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and Change as Simultaneous Experiences in Organizational Life. The Academy of
Management Review.
[29] Loy, B. (n.d.). Organizational Change at General Motors. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from Study.com:
http://study.com/academy/lesson/case-study-organizational-change-at-general-motors.html
[30] Lunden, I. (2012). Nokia Bridge: Nokia’s Incubator Gives Departing Employees €25k And More To Pursue Ideas That Nokia
Has Not. TechCrunch.
[31] Mabin, V. J., Forgeson, S., & Green, L. (2001). Harnessing resistance: using the theory of constraints to assist change
management. European Journal of Training and Development.
[32] Mack, D. A., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1998). The Stress of Organisational Change: A Dynamic Process Model. Applied
psychology.
[33] Managing Change. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from Reference for Business:
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Log-Mar/Managing-Change.html#ixzz4QJ7N0KWy
[34] MANAGING CHANGE . (n.d.). Retrieved 2016, from Reference for Business:
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Log-Mar/Managing-Change.html#ixzz4QJ7N0KWy
[35] Martin, G. (2006). Managing People and Organizations in Changing Contexts. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[36] Maurer, R. (1996). Using resistance to build support for change. Journal for Quality & Participation.
[37] Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2001). Leading organizational change. Career Development International.
[38] Muoio, A., & Kirschenbaum, J. (2000). GM HAS A NEW MODEL FOR CHANGE.
[39] Myers, I., McCaulley, M., Quenk, N., & Hammer, A. (1998). A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator.
[40] Managing Change - Bridges Model. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from equaliise: http://equaliise.co.uk/managing-
change-bridges-model/
[41] The rise and fall of nokia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2016, from Bla Bla Writing: http://blablawriting.com/the-problem-of-
nokia-company-essay
[42] N.Ramachandran. (n.d.). A STUDY ON NOKIA'S FAILURE IN THE GLOBAL MARKET AND CONSUMER PREFRENCE
LEVEL TOWARDS NOKIA INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY.
[43] Nasser, M. (2015, April 28). How you Can Apply Force Field Analysis to achieve your goals. Retrieved December 22, 2016,
from Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-you-can-apply-force-field-analysis-achieve-your-goals-nasser
[44] O’BRIEN, K. J. (2010, September 26). Nokia’s New Chief Faces Culture of Complacency. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/technology/27nokia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
[45] Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistanceto organizational change. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY.
[46] Palmer, B. (2004). Overcoming Resistance to Change.
[47] Pierce, J., & Delbecq, A. (1977). Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation. The Academy of Management
Review.
[48] Riley, J. (2012, June 14). Nokia and Strategic Change. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from tutor2u:
http://www.tutor2u.net/business/blog/nokia-and-strategic-change-the-essential-a2-business-case
[49] Saporito, B. (2008, November 13). Is General Motors Worth Saving? Retrieved November 30, 2016, from Time:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1858893,00.html
[50] Segal-Horn, D., & Boojihawon, S. (n.d.).
[51] Segal-Horn, D., & Boojihawon, S. (2006).
[52] Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (2010). Organizational Change. Prentice Hall.
[53] Simmering, M. J. (n.d.). Reactive vs. Proactive Change. Reference for Business.
[54] Simmering, M. J. (n.d.). REACTIVE VS. PROACTIVE CHANGE.
[55] Smith, K. (n.d.). General Motors GM Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Timeline & Future Lessons. Retrieved November 27, 2016, from
Money Crashers: http://www.moneycrashers.com/general-motors-gm-bankruptcy-timeline-future/
[56] Spector, B. (2007). Implementing Organizational Change. Theory and Practice. New Jersey:Pearson .
[57] Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
[58] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
[59] Todnem, R. (2005). Organisational Change Management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management.
[60] Virki, T. (2010, September 10). Key problems facing new Nokia CEO Elop. Retrieved november 30, 2016, from Retuers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nokia-ceo-factbox-idUSTRE6892KB20100910
[61] Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision .
[62] Warrilow, S. (n.d.). Practitioners Masterclass.
[63] Welch, D. (2010, April 30). Ed Whitacre's Battle to Save GM from Itself. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-04-29/ed-whitacres-battle-to-save-gm-from-itself
[64] Winum, P., Ryterband, E., & Stephenson, P. (1997). Helping organizations change: A model for guiding consultation. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research.
[65] Woodman, R., & Dewett, T. (2004). Organizationally relevant journeys in individual change. Handbook of organizational
change and innovation.- Oxford [u.a.] : Oxford Univ. Press, ISBN 978-0-19-513500-8. - 2004, p. 32-49.
[66] Yılmaz , D., & Kılıçoğlu , G. (2013). Resistance to change and ways of reducing resistance in educational organizations.
European Journal of Research on Education.
[67] Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Change MGMT at Nokia and GM PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Change MGMT at Nokia and GM PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sundus Tanweer Khan et al, International Journal of Research in Management, Economics and Commerce,

Resistance to Change in Organizations: A

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

IV. BACKGROUND OF NOKIA AND GM

V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Figure1: Force Field Analysis of Nokia

Figure2: Force Field Analysis of GM Using Bridge’s Transition Model

Figure3: Bridge’s Transition Model

Figure4: GM’s strategy change as reflected in the Kübler-Ross Grief model

Figure5: Nokia's strategy change as reflected in the Kübler-Ross Grief model

VII. RESEARCH FINDINGS

VIII. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

[23] K.Aswathappa. (2013). Organisational Behaviour. Tata Mc-Graw Hill.

You might also like