Overcoming Resistance

Overcoming Resistance

Jonathon Zang

AMGT450-F1WW

Professor Stinnett

February 28, 2016

Overcoming Resistance

        Supervisory positions are challenging jobs in the workforce today, and it takes a special kind of individual to effectively hold these types of roles. In many organizations, the supervisor is responsible not only for supervisory responsibilities, but most importantly perhaps, they are tasked with the challenge of overcoming resistance displayed by their employees. Rue & Byars (2014) mention six strategies that are utilized for the purpose of overcoming resistance to change. The six approach strategies are, 1.) Education + Communication; 2.) Participation + involvement; 3.) Facilitation + Support; 4.) Negotiation + Agreement; 5.) Manipulation + Co-optation; 6.) Explicit + Implicit coercion. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the various elements of these six approach strategies and to conclude with which strategies I find to be most interesting.

        Education + Communication is the first strategy that will be discussed. One of the best ways to overcome resistance to change is to educate people about the change effort beforehand. Up-front communication and education helps employees see the logic in the change effort. This reduces unfounded and incorrect rumors concerning the effects of change in the organization. The advantages of Education + Communication are that people will often help implement change once they are persuaded. The drawbacks associated with this strategy is that it can be very time consuming if many people are involved (Rue & Byars, 2014).

         Participation + involvement: When employees are involved in the change effort they are more likely to buy into change rather than resist it. This approach is likely to lower resistance more so than merely hoping people will acquiesce to change. The appropriate situation to use this strategy is when the initiators do not have all the information they need to design the change, and where others have considerable power to resist. This approach can be time consuming if participators design an inappropriate change (Rue & Byars, 2014).

         Facilitation + Support: Managers can head-off potential resistance by being supportive of employees during difficult times. Managerial support helps employees deal with fear and anxiety during a transition period. This approach is concerned with provision of special training, counseling, time off work. This approach is applicable when people are resisting because of adjustment problems. This approach can be time consuming and expensive, and it can still fail (Rue & Byars, 2014).

         Negotiation + Agreement: Managers can combat resistance by offering incentives to employees not to resist change. This can be done by allowing change resistors to veto elements of change that are threatening, or change resistors can be offered incentives to go elsewhere in the company in order to avoid having to experience the change effort. This approach will be appropriate where someone or some group will clearly lose out in a change and where those resisting change are in a position of power. This approach can be too expensive and in many cases it alerts others to negotiate for compliance (Rue & Byars, 2014).

        Manipulation + Co-optation: Involves the patronizing gesture of bringing a person into a change management planning group for the sake of appearances rather than their substantive contribution. This often involves selecting leaders of the resisters to participate in the change effort. These leaders can be given a symbolic role in decision making without threatening the change effort. This approach is appropriate when other tactics are not working or they are too expensive. The main advantage of this is that they are quick and inexpensive. However, this approach can lead to future problems if people feel manipulated (Rue & Byars, 2014).

        Explicit + Implicit coercion: Managers can explicitly or implicitly force employees into accepting change by making clear that resisting change can lead to losing jobs, firing, or not promoting employees. This approach is appropriate when speed is essential and the change initiators possess considerable power for their organization. This approach is speedy and can overcome any kind of resistance. This approach can be risky if it leaves people mad at the initiators (Rue & Byars, 2014).

        The two strategies that interest me the most are Manipulation + Co-optation and Explicit + Implicit. I have seen both of these strategies applied in previous work occupations that I have held. Manipulation + Co-optation was used in my previous work environment when employees were disgruntled about how the manager was treating the employees. The company “promoted” one of the tenured employees for the company to the position of manager to make the employees feel more comfortable about who was implementing plans to them. In reality, what really happened is that the previous manager was no longer visible on a day-to-day basis and the employee that was “promoted to manager” just became the new face of the old manager and simply relayed his messages to the employees in a way that we would understand better and not meet with resistance. Soon enough, the employee that was “promoted” realized that he was given no opportunity to make real contributions as a manager and that his promotion was merely an appearance thing. This approach ultimately failed, and things soon went back to how they were previously.