Human resource

management (HRM)
HR strategies for reducing the impact of change & resistance to
change.
Change management refers to
processes and techniques used to plan,
implement and evaluate changes in
business operations. Business
organizations are dynamic in nature
and are always subject to the forces of
change.
Greater international trade and cooperation, as well as developments in
e-commerce, for example, have meant that businesses have had to adapt
their operations in order to compete and survive.

One of the most difficult tasks for any leader is to manage

change in order to reduce the impact of change and resistance
to change.
Change can be unsettling and disruptive, so the change
process must be managed carefully and effectively.

For example, concerns over climate change have forced some

governments to announce the banning of diesel fuels in the
not-too-distant future. This has meant that car manufacturers need to
explore a range of alternative and sustainable technologies. This has led
to manufacturers such as Tesla investing in electric car technologies.
Trying to force change is likely to cause problems, as
people can be resistant to change and uncooperative
if change is simply made compulsory. Yet, without
change, firms can become complacent,
uncompetitive or even irrelevant.

Strategies for dealing with resistance to

change include the following six methods, as
advocated by John Paul Kotter and Leonard
Schlesinger of Harvard Business School
(1979).
 - Early communication and
Education and clarification can help
stakeholders to see the
communication rationale for change and
establish trust.
- Perhaps more importantly, this
This approach to change management aims to
approach reduces any
inform and educate staff (and other stakeholders)
about the change beforehand. unsubstantiated claims and
rumours about the proposed
change.
- This aproach limits
misinformation and
misunderstanding.
Participation and
involvement
Employee involvement in decision-making can
motivate and improve morale amongst the
workforce. Involving employees in the change
process, perhaps through a series of
consultations, means they are more likely to
accept change instead of resisting it. (Kotter and
Schlesinger)
- Allowing workers to be involved in
decision-making gives them
ownership in the process and a
greater incentive to ensure change
is successfully implemented.
- It can also help to prevent
misunderstandings and
misinterpretations of the purpose of
change. However, this approach is
likely to be rather time consuming.

Facilitation and support
This approach to change management is about
providing authentic support so that people have
the skills and resources they need to cope with
change.
- Managers become supportive of
staff during difficult times, thereby
averting potential resistance to
change and helping people to
accept change instead.
- Facilitation and support can come
in numerous forms, such as
retraining of staff to enable them to
cope with the new changes or
counselling workers to deal with
their fears and anxieties.

Negotiation and
agreement
This is the ‘carrot’ approach whereby managers
use bargaining incentives (a reward—for good
behavior) to remove or limit resistance to change
(unlike the ‘stick’ approach, below).
This can be done for example by ‘inviting’
workers to accept amendments in their
employment contracts to accommodate the new
changes.
- Staff who resist change might be
offered early retirement or
redundancy incentives to leave the
organization.
- At other times, managers may be
willing to compromise to provide
incentives for employees to settle
for the change. Negotiations with
workers could mean slightly
different and possibly better
changes than originally intended.

Manipulation and
co-option
This approach involves bringing a representative
of those resisting change into the change
process.
The purpose is to give these key influential
people representation in the negotiations
process.
- The underlying reason is to convert the
representative’s thinking so that the
advantages of change can be
communicated to those resisting
change.
- These representatives, such as labour
union leaders, are usually given a
symbolic role but the reality is that their
view will not affect the desire of
management to push for the change.
- This approach is, of course, seen as
unethical and can backfire if those
resisting change discover what the
management are really trying to do.

Explicit and implicit
coercion
This is the ‘stick’ approach (a negative
consequence for poor behavior) to dealing with
resistance to change and is typically used as a
last resort.
Managers can use coercion (bullying tactics) to
force staff into accepting change, by threatening
disciplinary action, dismissals, job losses,
redeployment (transferring employees to other
jobs), or not promoting employees.
In other words, they force the change through
even if employees may not agree with the
change.
- Explicit and implicit coercion mean
that workers "accept" change simply
because they have to, not because
they want to or feel it is in their best
interest.
- Quite often, over time, people may
come to accept the change and their
perspectives and behaviour change
too, especially if the change proves
to be successful.
- However, due to employment
legislation that exists to protect
employees, coercion may be carried
out implicitly by senior managers.
Top tip!

Kotter and Schlesinger's model of change can be useful when discussing any form
of change and how to introduce it in an organization. Change is commonly
featured in all assessment papers.

So, when considering how to introduce new procedures and approaches in a

business, managers may need to consider the reasons for resistance to change as
well as how best to overcome them. Consider Kotter and Schlesinger's six
approaches to dealing with resistance to change in the context of the business.
This could include consideration of its available resources, the market(s) in which
it operates, and the importance of the change to various stakeholder groups.
Case study (Exam Practice Question - Alverez
Corporation (AC))
Alverez Corporation (AC) is a large manufacturer of microchips and computer accessories, established
in 1990 in Mendoza, Argentina. The company has recently decided to implement a new capital-intensive
production process that would increase efficiency and reduce average costs of production. However,
many employees have resisted the change, making it difficult for the management team to fully
implement the new production process.

Many of AC's employees are afraid of losing their jobs or being forced to learn new skills. Some of the
employees also claim that the management team has not clearly communicated the reasons for the
change, leading to a lack of transparency and trust in the decision-making process. These employees
are not aware of the benefits of the new production process.

To address these issues, the management team at AC has taken several steps to mitigate resistance to
change. The senior managers have offered additional training sessions to support employees to help
them learn the new production process. They have also run meetings with employees where they
provide regular updates on the progress of the change and address any questions or concerns that the
employees may have. Many of the employees feel burdened with the extra time involved to attend
training sessions and meetings. Some workers still have anxieties and are afraid to ask about job
security.
Case study (Exam Practice Question - Alverez
Corporation (AC))
a) Define the term resistance to change. [2 marks]
(b) Explain two reasons for resistance to change at Alverez Corporation
(AC). [4 marks]
(c) Explain the impact of resistance to change for AC. [4 marks]
(d) Evaluate the effectiveness of AC's approach to mitigate resistance to
change.[10 marks]