A Study on Organizational Change and the Reactions of Employees to It

Literature indicates that a high proportion of change initiatives are unsuccessful (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Researchers generally agree that employee resistance is one of the leading causes for the failure of change initiatives (Bovey & Hede, 2001b; Waldersee & Griffiths, 2006). Such findings indicate that change agents focusing on employee reactions—including resistance and acceptance—during organizational change is of utmost importance to the success of the initiative. In response, this paper provides a model that illustrates the process of how employees’ reactions to change are formed. Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change Employees’ reactions to change are influenced by a number of factors. It is reasonable to expect employees to react since the process of change involves going from the known to the unknown, and when employees react, it is important to distinguish between the symptoms of their reactions and the causes behind them (Bovey & Hede, 2001b). Following is an analysis of three factors that research strongly identifies as influencing employees’ reactions to change: employees’ emotions and cognitions, communication, and employees’ participation in decision making. Evidence suggests that these factors explain much of employees’ reactions, arguably more than other factors present during organizational change. Although these factors are closely related and can even be considered interwoven in many ways, each factorcontributes individual and important information. Employees’ Emotions and Cognitions Many change efforts fail since change agentsunderestimate the importance of the individual, cognitive-affective nature of change (Ertuk, 2008), and emotions andcognition are closely intertwined (Pessoa, 2008). Thefollowing separate yet interrelated aspects of emotions andcognitions impact employees’ reactions to organizationalchange: emotional intelligence, irrational thoughts, defensemechanisms, and employee attitudes. Emotional intelligence Emotional intelligence (EI) is ―the capacity for recognizingour own feelings and those of others, for motivatingourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselvesand in our relationships‖ (Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou,2004). The role of EI in employees’ reactions to change isimportant because individuals with high levels of EIexperience more career success, feel less job insecurity,are more effective in team leadership and performance,are more adaptable to stressful events, and exhibit bettercoping strategies than those with low EI levels (Vakola,Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004). Irrational thoughts Research indicates that irrational ideas are significantly and positively correlated with employees’ resistance to change. Individuals tend to have automatic thoughts that incorporate what has been described as faulty, irrational, or ―crooked thinking‖ (Bovey & Hede, 2001a). During change, employees create their own interpretations of what is going to happen, how others perceive them, and what others are thinking or intending (Bovey & Hede, 2001a). Defense mechanisms Defense mechanisms arise involuntarily in response to perceptions of danger and are adopted to alleviate anxiety (Bovey & Hede, 2001b). According to Bovey and Hede (2001b), employees who are unconsciously inclined to use maladaptive defenses are more likely to resist change. Employees with a tendency to unconsciously adopt adaptive defenses are less likely to resist change. Employee attitudes Vakola, Tsaousis, and Nikolaou (2004) identified multiple studies in which employees’ positive attitudes toward change were vital in achieving successful organizational change initiatives. Several factors impact employees’ attitudes toward change, specifically gender, tenure, educational attainment, and social systems (Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004; Oreg, 2006). Stanley, Meyer, and Topolnytsky (2005) identified that a relationship exists between employees’ cynical attitudes and resistance. Communication The vital importance of communication during the change process has been empirically demonstrated and generally agreed upon among theorists (Lewis, 2006). Since the success of organizational change initiatives lies in the reaction of employees, it is crucial to communicate to employees information about the change to positively influence their reactions. Poorly managed change communication can result in resistance and exaggerating negative aspects of the change. Effective communication reduces employees’ uncertainty, and a negative correlation exists between uncertainty and employees’ willingness to accept change (Elving, 2005). The amount and quality of information that is communicated to employees can influence how employees react (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Such evidence acknowledges that communication is a key factor, and its importance cannot be understated in impacting employees’ reactions. Processes of Communication There are several communication processes that impactemployees’ reactions, including frequency, mode, content,and flow of communication. Gray and Laidlaw (2002)argued that the more embedded these processes arewithin management, the more effective the outcomes arebecause they enhance the quality of working relationships,harmony, and trust. Social accounting Social accounting influences the quality of thecommunication and, therefore, impacts employees’reactions. According to Lines (2005), social accounting isdefined as the process used for explaining the reasons forthe decision to those affected by the decision. Successfulsocial accounting leads to a positive influence on thelikelihood of implementation success (Lines, 2005). Leader-member exchange An aspect of communication that impacts employees’resistance is the leader-member exchange (LMX)relationship, or the quality of relationships betweenemployees and their supervisors. Employees with highquality LMX accept change more readily than employeeswith lower quality LMX, arguably due to increased accessto information, assistance, and involvement in decisionmaking (Farr-Wharton & Brunetto, 2007). Employee Participation in Decision Making One specific method of communication that stronglyimpacts employees’ reactions is employee participation indecision making (PDM). PDM is a process in whichinfluence or decision making is shared between superiorsand their subordinates (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, &Callan, 2004). The structural characteristics of PDMinitiatives impact the degree to which the initiative affectsemployees’ reactions (Dachler & Wilpert, 2008). Positive effects Key attributes of PDM, such as open communication,expressing new ideas, shared vision, common direction,mutual respect, and trust, are also suggested as the keyelements in managing change (Erturk, 2008). Participationis positively associated with employees’ perceptions offairness, which is vital for acceptance of change andcommitment to organizational goals (Bordia, Hobman,Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004). Type of change decision The type of change decision presented in PDM initiatives impacts the resulting influence on employees’ reactions to the change initiative. The positive effects of PDM on employees seem to be greater when tactical decisions (the ―what‖ and ―how‖ to change) rather than strategic decisions (the ―if‖ of the change) must be made (Sagie & Koslowsky, 2004). Spectrum of Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change The above literature review strongly supports that a number of factors impact employees’ reactions to change. Throughout the remainder of this paper, a model of the process of how employees’ reactions to change are formed is proposed, supported by three propositions. The author also demonstrates application of this model in practice to increase employees’ acceptance of change. Several theories support that distinct phases are encountered throughout the process of initiating change (Lewin, 2001). However, based on both the author’s experience with change initiatives in the travel industry and scientific literature, the argument that change does not occur in distinct phases is provided. Rather, change occurs as a flow of processes and endeavors that is not static. This perspective does not undermine the importance of Lewin’s theory of ―freezing‖ and ―unfreezing‖ each stage, but suggests that these states are not identifiably distinct. Therefore, considering a model of change that represents a non-static, dynamic flow of processes is imperative. Employees’ Reactions to Change: Acceptance and Resistance Many researchers have reported findings in terms that suggest employee acceptance and resistance are concrete milestones that can be attained, and that once attained, remain attained. Phrases such as ―eliminate employee resistance‖ (Jones & Smith, 2001) and ―gain employee acceptance‖ (Sigler, 2009) may indicate that organizations can reach these milestones in change initiatives in the same manner; for example, that the organization may achieve the goals of completing the initiative in the number of days allotted (theproject is either completed in less or more than the daysallotted). However, this is not the case in the author’s experience.Rather, the line in employees’ reactions to organizationalchange between resistance and acceptance is oftenblurred. To enable change agents to identify employees’acceptance and resistance, it is important to operationalizedefinitions of reactions to change. Resistance is amultidimensional attitude toward change, comprisingaffective (feelings toward the change), cognitive(evaluations of worth and benefit of the change), andbehavioral (intention to act against the change)components (Oreg, 2006). Each of these dimensions canbe characterized as ranging from ―acceptance‖ to―resistance.‖ When these three dimensions are consideredin the aggregate, the result is the employees’ overallacceptance or resistance to change. The author experienced change initiatives in two unrelatedorganizations that through juxtaposition illustrate thecomplexity of employees’ reactions. In Organization A,employees were mildly accepting of the organizationalchange and passively gave into the changes. InOrganization B, employees were strongly accepting of thechange and actively demonstrated their support byembracing the changes and initiating actions aligned withthe initiative. One could argue that both Organization Aand Organization B achieved employee acceptance of thechange. However, with such different levels of acceptancein Organization A (mild acceptance) and Organization B(strong acceptance), stating that each organizationachieved the same level of employee acceptance is hardlyplausible. Herein lays the framework of the Spectrum ofEmployees’ Reactions to Organizational Change(SEROC), as illustrated in Figure 1. The fundamental concept of the SEROC is that differentdegrees and intensities of employee reactions to changeexist. Employees’ reactions, as defined by the employees’level of resistance and acceptance, are polar opposites ona spectrum, and neutral or indifferent reactions that aremild in strength are found in the middle of the spectrum.Employees are always located on the spectrum, and theirlocation is determined by the strength of their reaction. Thescale of the spectrum is considered both ordinal andcardinal. An employee who is twice as accepting of (orresistant to) the change is on the spectrum twice as farfrom neutral. Since there is no ―zero‖ of reactions tochange, neutral or indifferent is considered ―zero,‖ orequilibrium. When analyzing employees’ location on thespectrum, one must consider that reactions to change arerelative, and, therefore, one must recall the operationaldefinitions of reactions to change. P1: One cannot achieve minimal resistance or attain maximum acceptance as concrete milestones. Rather, employees’ reactions to organizational change, as defined by the employees’ level of resistance and acceptance, are represented by polar opposites on a spectrum, and neutral reactions that are mild in strength are represented in the middle of the spectrum.

As employees’ levels of acceptance and resistance fluctuate during the change initiative, the employees’ location on the spectrum moves from one end to the other. Factors and events that impact employees’ reactions affect employees’ locations on the spectrum and are represented on the SEROC by vectors exhibiting the same properties as vectors found in mathematical contexts. Vectors originate at the neutral point, and vectors vary in direction (pointing toward the acceptance or resistance end of the spectrum) and magnitude (large magnitudes indicate very influential factors and small magnitudes indicate mildly influential factors) depending on the factors of change they represent. The employees’ position on the spectrum is determined by the overall sum of the vectors. Although factors (represented by vectors on the spectrum) actively change employees’ levels of resistance and acceptance, change agents’ passiveness also impacts employees’ reactions. In the author’s experience, when change agents fail to introduce new factors to elicit employee acceptance of change, the intensity of the employees’ acceptance of change dwindles and they begin to resist the change. To illustrate this phenomenon on the SEROC, without the introduction of vectors to continually move employees toward the acceptance polar end of the spectrum, employees return to the neutral position on the spectrum as time passes. As employees continually regress toward neutral, it becomes increasingly easier for them to become located on the resistance section of the spectrum. Mutually Exclusive Examining the relationship between resistance to and acceptance of change is important to fully understand the SEROC. The former example illustrates that employees can react with both resistance and acceptance (Harding, 2005). This concept is logical because situations rarely exist with purely positive outcomes or purely negative outcomes. Rather, almost all situations present both positive and negative outcomes. Therefore, it is expected that even employees who are very accepting of change exhibit resistance as a result of identifying negative aspects of the change. Consequently, the argument can be made that acceptance and resistance are not mutually exclusive and employees exhibit both of these reactions. When responding to thequestion, ―did the employees accept or reject the changeinitiative?‖, change agents should usually state that theemployees partially accepted and partially rejected thechange initiative. P3: Employees react to organizational change with bothmicro-levels of resistance and acceptance. Employees’overall reaction is dependent on which reaction (resistanceor acceptance) is stronger. Application Change initiativesare dynamic, and factors continually arise that affectemployee’s reactions. As a result, employees’ reactionsare consistently fluctuating and never stagnant.Employees’ reactions to organizational change must beconsidered ―in the moment‖ rather than over the span ofthe entire initiative (Lewin, 2001). As change agents progress through the process of thechange initiative, it is important that they continuallyassess the employees’ reactions to change, diagnose thecauses for their reactions (both negative and positivecauses), address the employees’ concerns, and repeat theprocess. When applied to the SEROC model, the latterprocess translates to identifying where the employees arelocated on the spectrum, diagnosing the reasons thatdetermine their location on the spectrum, addressing theemployees’ concerns to initiate a factor (represented by avector) that moves the employees toward the acceptanceend of the spectrum, and repeating the sequence.Continually monitoring employees’ reactions is especiallyimportant because evidence exists that change initiativesfail due to the lack of attention to human factors in the longrun (Eilam & Shamir, 2005). Limitations Despite the model of SEROC being based in scientificliterature, the model does possess certain limitations. First,one could argue that this two dimension model over-simplifies the highly complex nature of employees’reactions because in reality there can be n-dimensions.Factors that impact employees’ reactions do not haveadditive properties like one-dimensional vectors in theSEROC, but rather, the factors interact in a multiplicative,multidimensional manner that makes employees’ reactionscomplex. Second, although this model is based inempirical evidence, being tested in authentic settingsduring organizational change initiatives would validate themodel. Despite these limitations, the SEROC model doespresent a unique lens through which to view employees’reactions to change that should not be disregarded.

REFERENCES

• Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 782, 133-141.

• Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-32.

• Bovey, W., & Hede, A. (2001a). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382.

• Bovey, W., & Hede, A. (2001b). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-548.

• Dachler, H., & Wilpert, B. (2008). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 1-39.

• Eilam, G., & Shamir, B. (2005). Organizational change and self-concept threats: A theoretical perspective and a case study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 399-421.

• Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate Communications, 10(2), 129-138.

• Erturk, A. (2008). A trust-based approach to promote employees’ openness to organizational change in Turkey. International Journal of Manpower, 29(5), 462-483.

 Farr-Wharton, R., & Brunetto, Y. (2007). Organizational relationship quality and service employee acceptance of change in SMEs: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management & Organization, 13(2), 114-125.