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

IntroductionChange and driveance go extend in hand transport implies electrical exemption and enemy subject matter that transmit is taking organize (Gravenhorst, 1993). This definition exemplifies the grandness of the gentle element in goernings as it is this constituent that ultimately mystifys the face of any validation. Due to the operose economic and political situation nationally and internationally, umpteen organisations hit potpourrid their trifleings practices it has never been much vital for managers to handle flip effectively by avoiding park errors do by alteration agents and become what Tushman and OReilly come up to an equipoised Organisation. Implementing castrate in organisations has proved to be a lot tougher than originally thought, as success depends on the stakeholders involved in the process, the organisational context for facilitating tack, as well as many other upcountry and external factors. This audition allow for implore the m ost ambitious verbalism of organisation win over is the human element in transplant processes, repayable to the frantic dimension that humans bring with them into organisational life.This essay bequeath origin will discuss channel resistance generally, stating reasons why nation resist change and offering ideas for how to overcome resistance. Then the restore of emotions will be dealt with why they argon important in change processes referring to scholarly texts and theories. The perish sub-section of the essay will address convocation level factors, making distinctions in the midst of contrary flakes of congregations and teams. A discussion and analysis on group norms and how they send away prove to be problematic will follow. Finally, solutions will be provided for combating group factors of resistance and how they send word be supposen as an opportunity to oversee 1time(prenominal) attention behaviour. The conclusion will reiterate the main arguments put prior and will summarise the essay findings.What is opposite to Change?From an internal plosive of view, resistance to change is situated at individual and group levels. Beer and noneria (2000) argue that 70 per cent of change programs fail be lay down of a wish of dodging and vision, inadequate communication and trust, poor commitment from top management, a lack of resources, poor change management skills, and resistance to change from inwardly organisations. confrontation to change inside organisations has been understated in the past, and many organisations prolong to miss emphasis on the internal factors of change. defense towards change encompasses behaviours that ar acted egress by change recipients in order to slow down or terminate an intended organisational change (Lines, 2004, cited in Hughes, 2010, p 33). This quote exemplifies that behaviours of change recipients play a keystone fictional character in the implementation of change, which cig atomic numbe r 18t act as a barrier during transition processes. electrical resistance to change throne be defined in many different ways, besides traditionally resistance is experienced negatively in organisations, with management screening resistance as a stumbling block, delaying mechanism, and enemy of necessary changes. However, pass over and Ford (2009) and Waddell and Sohal (1998) grow argued that the way managers interpret resistance is wrong and posit that in many shields management do non truly understand such behaviour, instinctively interpreting objections as a model of resistance from employees. This maneuver has validity since it is very(prenominal) common for managers to see any form of feedback as resistance from their subordinate counterparts (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999).Why Resistance OccursResistance to change advances for many reasons, whether at the individual or group level. The first point to guide is whether change processes benefit employees or not. There a re such cases where change is structured in favour of employees, further where the change is still resisted. This type of self-sabotaging behaviour hatful be directly related to organisational misunderstanding and a lack of trust in the midst of provide and management (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). The word change itself is defined in such a way so as to bring an element of surprise to organisational structure and processes altering the status quo (Hughes, 2010 p.164). Whenever changing a process, there will eternally be a smell of anxiety and fear amongst recipients, especially if organisations have previously failed in adopting to change and implementing new practices (Hughes, 2010). This will increase the likelihood of change resistance from the shop-floor, disregardless of the change proposals put frontward. Change agents often unintentionally alienate employees in the decision making process, acting without the consent of other groups inside the organisation and assu ming they have all the knowledge inquireed for implementing the exceed changes (Ford and Ford, 2009 and DAmelio, 2008). Fransella (1975, p135) states individuals have to negotiate and manage change on a fooling basis this point validates the argument of Ford that resistance will occur if there is no input from the employee perspective. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) have, in their work, noted four common factors as to why individuals resist change self-interest, misunderstanding and lack of trust, different assessments of the changes most needed, and a low tolerance to change. Parochial self interests are a very common reason for resistance since loss is always a difficult credence. Therefore, individuals will always try their utmost to obligate what they have, and in an organisational context Zaltman and Dun jakes (1977) view threats to motive and submit as one of the most important sources of resistance to change.How to Manage ResistanceManaging resistance to change merely tocks be very problematic, the reason being that managers have a tendency to view resistance as something oppositional, desperate or stringently self-serving (Brown and Humphreys, 2006). However, if managers adopt new behaviour patterns, dealing with resistance from an starry-eyed perspective where feedback waves can be seen as a validatory means for discussion amongst employees and management (Ford and Ford, 2009), then stronger relationships can begin to be reinforced across organisational hierarchies, and change can be more effectively managed. see resistance from a more favourable perspective allows change agents to find out concerns and advice from change recipients, and it overly gives employees the opportunity to address entrenched problems such as a lack of communication between management and employees and ineffective organisational practices that continue to survive. However, such harmonious outcomes are easier espoused than achieved since management is intrinsical ly suspicious of broad over power, and placating disenchanted workers has turn out to be a difficult task in the past (Coghlan, 1994). Cialdini (2001) suggests six principles of impression, understructured on communication theory which are very effective. Cialdini states that every leader has to harness the art of persuasion in order to win people over and overcome resistance to change, without creating negative feedback. However, management behaviour has proven to be a very path dependant model, where radical change is needed to convince people that past events will not reoccur. As soon as management behaviour has changed, it is vital to gain new incentives achievable, where benefits and outcomes are in in tandem and there is no confusion or lack of knowledge on the part of employees that would inhibit them from delivering satisfactory outcomes (Vroom, 1964).Role of Emotions in Change ProcessesEmotions and responses to change can be so intensive that the literature in organi sational change has compared them with individual responses to traumatic changes such as death and grief (Grant, 1996 Elrod and Tippet, 1988 Kubler-Ross, 1969). Emotions are such that they are experienced by everyone, mainly by individuals tho also embodiedly in groups as well as by change agents themselves. This point is reconciled with Myers et al.s (2010) claim that emotions are not just experienced by those on whom change is imposed on those who lead change may experience transitions as equally frantic (p. 63). From an organisational perspective, emotions play a key role they can directly chance upon performance and emotions have an touch on on the overall culture deep down organisations (Hofstede, 1989).Organisational change can be seen as either a contend or an opportunity triggering positive emotions such as excitement and first moment or negative qualityings such as fear, anxiety and the anticipation of a tangible threat to the material position of staff within an o rganisation. The scrap for change agents is to carefully manage such emotions to ensure that they do not fall the transition process change entails. Negative emotions have proven in the past to be a major hurdle in organisational change (Hofstede, 1989). The impact of negative change will leave an impact on the collective morale of staff, which can be an obstacle for future day successful change processes.Emotional contagion is also an important unintended consequence of change and little explored facet of organisational life to be highlighted here. It refers to situations when emotions can be directly picked up from other people (Myers et al, 2012 p. 66). In other words, emotions can initiate and spread amongst all members of an organisation, for example if organisational change has inauspicious effects on a few individuals, their negative emotions will affect their peers. Therefore, emotions can move from individuals to other individuals, and as a result become an influential group dynamic and even epidemic.Emotion Coping roundTo understand emotions from a theoretical perspective, the works of Elizabeth Kubler Ross (1969) are informative to the debate. She puts forward six degrees of emotional responses that effect individuals her work is especially relevant to organisational change discourses since employees and change agents go by means of similar stages of emotions during periods of change and transition. Mark and Mirvis 1992 ascertain based on a failed merger of two computer companies is also an intriguing example of emotional interplay and its role within organisational change. Mark and Mirvis observed individuals involved in the merger feared a loss of control, unknowns associated with their new work responsibility, and also how they would be judged in the future.Since organisations often use mergers as a cost cutting strategy, likely resulting in people being made redundant, such negative emotions associated with mergers are founded on previo us experience and thereof validated. During the prolixity process, employees affected will go through stages where emotions vary Ross (1969). From an estimation theory perspective, individuals affected will make their own interpretation of events and emotions will trigger behaviour.It is vital for change agents to possess excellent communication skills in order to manage the emotional wheel individuals will likely go through as the anxiety of the merger spreads amongst employees (Mark and Mirvis, 1992). The most dangerous stage of the redundancy process is the depression stage, which can take months to subside, especially if the redundancy is not effective immediately. Change agents need to deploy sympathetic communication methods and be reasonable in explaining why change is taking place by taking blame away from the individual and ensuring employees move to the acceptance stage as fast as possible.Solutions (Emotional Intelligence)Emotional Intelligence encompasses a multi-dim ensional framework of thought which raises awareness, facilitation, knowledge and regulation of emotions. Emotional intelligence allows individuals to form substantiated, reasoned opinions about emotions during periods of transition without allowing emotions to turn their subjectivity against their goal of break dance understanding the emotions they are feeling. However, personalities initially dictate the levels of emotional intelligence individuals have to a certain extent an individual who possesses traits of a sensing and judging person will likely resist change as they will see radical change as a violation of the mental contract.However, instilling employees with high levels of emotional intelligence requires an overall organisation transformation. Senge (1992) emphasises that organisations and employees need to develop personal mastery and take account for their own actions as well as learning how decisions based on emotions are dangerous for one to make. Organisations sho uld not buy into the fact that emotions cannot be tampered with, they should invest heavily in developing staff and training them to become more emotionally intelligent, so they can adopt the practice of monitoring their own actions which will help facilitate transition. congregation level DynamicsIndividual factors of resistance to change are a monumental issue for change practitioners, nevertheless it is unrealistic for such practitioners to work with every individual who comprises an organisation, especially when operatening(a) within big corporations. Almost every individual in an organisation belongs to at least five or six groups inside that organisation. Groups have a direct impact on change processes moreover, change agents must(prenominal) devise strategies where they do not cause anger and resentment to groups as they have more of an influence than individual resistors of change. However, focusing on group dynamics is a realistic way of tackling organisational chang e and development, as consistent with Lewins (1966) idea of group decision making being more effective and more likely to be pursued. McKinley et al. (2010) have distinguished between groups and teams, stating that groups are two or more people workings to a common goal, where there is no psychological contract between them. Teams are seen by Katzenbach and Smith (1991) as differentiated to other working groups by performance results, since only teams produce individual results and collective work-products , the results from several members working together. Teams and groups can come in many different forms, such as formal and promiscuous groups, both of which are vital to life within organisations. Informal groups are dangerous to management as they do not possess any form of institutional rules and are governed by ideas which are not always in the best interest of employers.Causes Of group Resistance (Group Norms)Group norms can be a big stumbling block for organisations and can be a root cause for resistance to change. Coghlan (1994) has described group norms as unwritten rules which constitute the atmosphere within groups and teams. Group norms in a formal setting can be governed and overlooked by organisations. However, since informal groups are self-organised by the thoughts and identities of individuals it is not so easy for organisations to influence them. The dangerous aspect of group norms is that they can easily become viral as personalities differ in groups in which a very plainspoken and influential figurehead can influence the thinking of the quiet individuals acquire them to comply with their frame of mind, this is in line with Watsons (1969) argument where he posits that team resistance is based on conformity to group norms. In an organisational context group norms can cause difficulties for change processes out-of-pocket to the influence they have. During change processes, where there is a great deal of uncertainty, there is a strong poss ibility that this will result in people connective informal groups since these may wield hidden but significant power within organisations and be able to influence decisions on organisational process due to such power. This will also have a positive impact on groups as they will broaden their capacity.SolutionsGroup dynamics can be an extremely difficult question for organisations however, winning groups over can benefit organisations in terms of morale, productivity and cultural cohesion that results from positive networking It has been argued that the modern organisation is no longer a collection of individuals, but rather a network of interconnected teams (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). This way of imagining organisations exemplifies the importance of groups and collective thinking in this context, and how such thinking can shape the outcomes of organisational change. It is because vital that organisations include groups in change processes or else they will run the risk of engende ring demotivated and disempowered work forces, as well as the possibility of employees connecter informal groups resisting top-down transitions and changes in order to exercise power and feel valued as individuals. Solutions presented by Ford and Ford (2009), where change processes are seen as an opportunity to change the status quo by changing norms within groups, have been seen to produce positive results in Coch and Fords 1948 case study among others. These solutions also coincide with the thoughts of Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), where methods of dealing with resistance which emphasise the importance of confederacy and communication are put forward as the best resolution to issues of organisational change. Change agents are seen as needing to encourage cross-organisational participation and dialogue, and to see resistance as a resource and a necessary feedback loop in order for change to be implemented successfully through the medium of groups.ConclusionThis essay has discuss ed internal factors of organisational change and development from the human element perspective. Resistance to change is something which has traditionally been assumed as a negative development by managers. This perception was shown to be a cause for change attempts being resisted. How resistance to change is helpful to organisations where poor employee participation has been a prevalent feature during past transitions has also been discussed. The points made by Ford and Ford (2009) are useful as they see resistance as a resource which encourages organisations to start afresh and change the employee base instead of gratifying the self-interest instinct. Emotions have been shown to play a key role in change processes, where negative emotions have a big influence not only on individuals but also on groups, as they can be highly contagious and effect organisational cultures. It is authorize that managers need to carefully manage emotions during transitions, since a prolonged coping cy cle can prove to be disastrous for organisations. Dealing with emotions can be complicated however, having a high level of emotional intelligence among staff will make the probability of resistance lower without letting emotional subjectivity surpass objectivity at work. As mentioned above, almost every individual belongs to several groups within their organisation. The most dangerous types of groups are informal ones due to their hidden power agendas and circumventing influence they can have on individuals, which can be a direct form of resistance to change. This essay has argued that the most feasible solution to coping with emotions during organisational change periods is winning over groups through interpersonal ways where groups are the sole focus of change, and groups can participate and contribute towards change. This may take up time and resources, but in the long run the organisations will benefit hugely.References and BibliographyAckroyd, S., Thompson, P., 1999. Organizati onal Misbehaviour. sagacious London pp. 46-49Beer, M. and Nohria, N., 2000. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review. pp. 133-41.Boreman, D.R., Ilgen and I.B., Weiner (eds), Handbook of industrial and Organisational Psychology. Vol. 12. sore York Wiley, pp. 333- 76.Brown, Humphreys, 2006. Organizational Identity and Place A Discursive Exploration of Hegemony and Resistance. oversight Studies. Vol. 43 No. 2 pp. 231-257Buchanan, D., and Huczynski, A., 2010. Organisational Behaviour, Cialdini, R., 2001. Harnessing the Science of Persuasion. Harvard Business Review. Coch, L. and French, J., 1948. Overcoming Resistance to Change. valet de chambre Relations. (1 512-32). Coghlan, D., 1994. Managing Organizational Change through Teams and Groups. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 18 23Elrod D., and Tippet D., 1988. The death valley of Change. Organisational Change Management. Vol. 15 No. 3 pp 273-291Ford, J., and Ford, L., 2009. Decoding Resis tance to Change. Harvard Business Review.Ford, G, Ford, L., & DAmelio, A., 2008. Resistance to Change The Rest of the Story. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 33, No. 2, 362377. (2), P. 1-16. Grant, R. M., 1996. Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organisation Science. Vol. 7 No. 4 pp. 375-387Hofstede, G., 1989. Organising for Cultural Diversity. European Management Journal. Vol. 4 No. 7 pp 390-397 Hughes, M., 2010. Managing Change A Critical Perspective. 2nd ed. London Chartered Institue of force & Development Jordan, P. J., 2003. Dealing with Organisational Change Can Emotional Intelligence grow Organisational LearningInternational Journal of Organisational Behaviour. Vol. 81, p. 456-471 Katzenback, J, R., Smith, D, K., 1991. The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review online Available at Accessed on 14/12/12Kotter, J. S. L., 1979. Choosing strategy to Change. Harvard Business ReviewKozlowski, S.W.J. and B ell, B., 2003. do Groups and Teams in Organisations. In W.C Kubler-Ross, E., 1969. On Death and Dying. Touchstone New York. pp. 33-66Lau, C.M. and Woodman, R.W., 1995. intellectual organizational change a schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 537-54Lewin, K., 1966. Group Decisions and Social Change. In Maccoby, E, Newcomb, E, and Hartley, E., Readings in Social Psychology, London Marks, M.L and Mirvis, P.H., 1992. Rebuilding after the merger dealing with survivor sickness. Organisation Dynamics, Vol. 21, No 2, P. 18-35McKinlay, A., Carter, C., Pezet, E., Clegg, S., 2010. Using Foucault to make strategy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Vol. 23 No. 8, pp.1012 1031Mirvis, P. H., and Marks, M. L., 1992. The Human Side of Merger cookery Assessing and Analyzing Fit. Human Resource Planning, 15 (3), 69- 92. Myers, P., Hulks, S., and Wiggins, L. 2012. Organizational Change Perspectives on Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Oxford OUP Senge, P. M., 1992. Mental Models. Strategy and Leadership. Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 4-44Schein, E.H. (1978). Career Dynamics Matching Individual and Organisational Needs. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.Tushamn, M., and OReilly, C., 2006. Ambidextrous Organisations Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. In Mayle, D., 2006. Managing Innovation and Change. SAGE Publications London pp. 170-184 Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., Nikolaou, I., 2004. The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change. Managerial Psychology Vol. 19 No. 2 pp. 88 110 Vroom, V. H., 1964. Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass. Waddell, D., and Sohal, S. A., 1998. Resistance a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, Vol. 36 Iss 8 pp. 543 548Watson, G., 1969. Resistance to Change. In Bennis, W., Benne, K., and Chin, R., (Eds), The Planning of Change. (2nd ed). Holt, Rinehart & Winston New York pp. 27-46Zaltman, G. and Duncan R., 1977. Strategies for Planned Change. J. Wesley & Sons New York.