Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared
By
BSD Ntuli
2
3
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Institutions are facing the world of constant change because of ever changing
environment and technology, this change is 4th industrial revolution. For the institution
to function to it maximum productivity it need to adapt to this ever changing environment
by adopting new ways of doing things. The institutions that are able to understand the
phenomena of changing environment and rapidly adapt to 'change' will only be able to
survive and prosper institutional need to proactively pledge consistently changes in
different magnitudes of business life, business strategy, organizational structure,
culture, product/service, human resource and technology.
The global competition has increased the need for institutions to change, institutions
that are reluctant to change, they either remain in the same position or close down,
because they can’t meet the demand of the fast changing world. While the world is
rapidly changing there is a wide spread of understanding in the cooperate world and
academic circles that the rate of which the change occurrences has accelerated in the
recent years. The success of institutional change depend on how well is change
communicated and managed, if the change is not well managed those who are direct
affected by change they become resistant to the change. This research paper
investigates the impact of resistance to change at Mangosuthu University of
Technology. This chapter focuses on research background, research problem, and the
significance of the research, concept analysis as well as the research design and
methodology.
As for institutions, the new millennium is dominated by the so-called "war for talent". In a
volatile and competitive environment, where people provide the competitive advantage,
institutions need to ensure that they foster job involvement and reduce unnecessary
turnover. Every endeavour needs to be made to find innovative ways to achieve these
4
aims, as they are crucial to the success of every institution (Maharaj and Schlechter,
2014:39).
Penceliah (2004:652) stated that the transformation process in South Africa calls for
organizations both in the public and private sectors to be managed in an innovative
manner. The techniques and methods that may have worked previously may no longer
be appropriate. Muller (2001:294) is in unison with above sentiments by saying “the
future demands that governments and public managers will have no choice but to be
innovative in the design and development of effective systems for public service
delivery. The old styles of institution and management no longer work in the new global
environment”.
Maimela (2009:480) argued that quality management planning for institutional change
should be well researched and documented. The institution strength and weaknesses
should be understood to be able to foster change quality management efforts to reflect
feedbacks. Leadership is needed to improve quality and further states that as the world
continues to change rapidly in various factors that influence many institutions product
and services and never stops now! It remains the institutional leaderships to ensure
quality is improved to increase productivity.
5
competence and manager acts as a partner of individual employees and self-managing
teams in locating opportunities to practice new skills and exercise new knowledge.
6
1.5 Objectives
The findings of the research will contribute immensely to the body of knowledge in how
the institution can drive change in the institution, to achieve competitive edge amongst
its competitors. The minimal data about change in universities make this study one of a
kind studies that will contribute positively on change management literature especially in
the universities.
The study is important because it will contribute much needed information that will assist
university management in achieving goals and objectives that are stipulated into
7
strategic 2014 - 2019. The university is aiming on achieving some greater heights in
future, this study came up with findings that can accelerate this much needed change
intervention in the university.
1.8 Research Design and Methodology
The chosen research methodology is qualitative research since the study is descriptive
in nature. Bell and Bryman (2007:64) qualitative research is a strategy that shows the
connection amongst hypothesis and inquire about and for the most part stresses on
how speculations were produced. Shank (2002:76) defines qualitative research as “a
form of systematic empirical inquiry into meaning”. Creswell (2002:20) noted
that quantitative data analysis is the process of collecting, analysing, interpreting, and
writing the results of a study, differing from the traditional, quantitative approaches.
The research sought to explore the concept of resistance to change. Below are the
definitions of the concepts as they were used in this study.
8
accordance with generally accepted norms”. An organised group of people with a
particular purpose, such as a business or government department or a company
Resistance – Zaltman and Duncan (1977:8) equated resistance to behaviour that works
to preserve the current situation in the appearance of force to change that current
situation. Therefore, resistance to change in the institutional situation is a manifestation
of reluctance which usually rises as a reaction or response to change (Bovey and Hede,
2001:280).
History of change
What is change?
Approaches to change
Resistance to change
1.11 Conclusion
This study introduced the research topic of the study that of resistance to institutional
change at Mangosuthu University of Technology. The research sought to investigate the
impact of resistance to institutional change. Furthermore the research provided
introduction with detailed background to the phenomena. The significance of the
9
research was explained and the chapter also alluded to the research design and
methodology used in the study. The next chapter focuses on change management.
10
CHAPTER TWO
LETERATURE REVIEW: CHANGE MANAGEMENT
2.1 Introduction
The previous chapter provided the overview of the study. This chapter will be
Institutional change can be described as a reshaping of mechanisms of the particular
institution to increase efficacy and efficiency. The chapter focuses on the concept of
change and employee reactions to change as well as resistance. The chapter also and
theories of change management, impact of resistance to change and human resources
interventions and mechanisms. The chapter also discusses resistance to change as a
positive factor and how managers can overcome this resistance.
11
According to Lozano et al. (2016:171), resistance is instigated by a sum of issues, for
example:
“Individual factors – personality factors (high need for control, the locus of
control, need for achievement etc.); attitudes based on previous experiences of
change.
Group factors – group cohesiveness, social norms, and participation in decision-
making.
Institutional factors – threats presented by the unknown; challenges to the status
quo; workload consequences”.
Lozano et al. (2016:172) postulated that structural change is meant at adjusting to the
setting, enhancement in execution and modifications in workers’ behavioural designs at
the institution. In the interests of endurance, development, and developing a competitive
lead, institutions endeavour to predict and acclimatize to changes via strategies as well
as organizational redesign (Day et al., 2017:11), which frequently embodies altering the
very philosophy of the same (Domingues et al., 2017:292).
12
The successful managing of change becomes of utmost importance for the survival and
success of the institution in dynamic as well as unpredictable situations (Wadell et al.,
2016:7). Notwithstanding well-intentioned change tactics, roughly 70% of most change
plans flop, leading to disenchanted prospects (Burns et al., 2018) and “costs exceeding
millions of dollars in time and resources” (Beijer and Gruen, 2016:12). Although there
might be several explanations to the roots of below average or unsuccessful change,
failed change is eagerly attributed by managers to worker resistance (Domingues et al.,
2017:295), a multifaceted and moderately uncharted psychological occurrence at the
personal level.
13
Figure 2.1 below depicts three issues that condense into one funnel and restricts the
desired institutional change. Employees mostly fear the unknown, encounter barriers to
communication in terms of bureaucratic red tape as well as lack of trust of change
managers (perhaps due to prior experiences).
Causes Of Employee
Resistance To Change
Trust issues
Source: Author
Precisely, Burns (2015:92) “integrated prior psychological research to posit a tripartite
model of resistance which includes an effective, cognitive and intentional (behavioural)
response to change”. By concentrating on expressive responses, beliefs about the
envisaged change and behaviours, Burns (2015:92) generated a more general view of
employee resistance, a kind that can adapt ambivalent responses to the transformation
event. For example, it becomes conceivable for a person to know the advantages of
change and somehow concurrently feel anxious in addition to uncertain about its
consequences for his/her individual exertion. This mixed response is referred to by
Burns as uncertainty.
14
is a function of the quality of the relationship between agents and recipients, in which
resistance to change surfaces as a consequence of diminished trust”. Moreover,
Baillien et al., (2018:6) maintained that breaks in trust rise out of discernment of
injustice, “when there are changes in the distribution of resources, the processes and
procedures by which those reallocations are made, or the ways in which people of
greater authority interact with those of lesser authority”.
Canning and Found (2015:276) contended that there will be no prerequisite to subdue
resistance in the event that the relations among change managers and beneficiaries
were honest and based on meaningful discourse and sense. The status of these
relations is also reliant on past events as well as interactions, principally in the
background of change. For example, if the change is known to have been poorly
applied previously and workers have been exposed to broken contracts, unfair conduct
and poor administration policymaking, it is doubtful that the trust injured by such
arrangements will be effortlessly reinstated (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017:166).
Eventually, workers would be negatively inclined toward change.
15
The literature about institutional change discloses that negative worker reactions are
due to many experiences – for example, job self-doubt, nervousness or external locus
of control (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017:536) – and most recently this has been connected
to employee discernments of justice (Kiitam et al., 2016:114). Especially, “unfair
treatment of employees can lead to increased resentment, less co-operation, lower
productivity and lower work quality” (Cai et al, 2018:234). This has consequences for
employee outlooks to change. Matos and Exposito, (2014:325) suggested that views on
justice and worker reactions are inseparably theoretically connected.
Issues for example “fear of the unknown and the inability to see the need for change are
common in resistance to change research” (Kiitam et al., 2016: 130). Deprived of
effective and reliable evidence, workers will resist transformation in a determination to
sustain their cohesion and understanding. Blanco-Portela et al., (2017:536) proposed
that “most change programmes fail due to lack of energy devoted to internal public
relations to help those affected by the change to better understand it”. Yet again, for the
institution to be operational, it requires to nurture an air of dependable and lawful
message, which offers for incorporation and employee obligation towards the
institutional objectives. Matos and Exposito (2014:329) postulated that “the flow of
information often stops at the supervisor level, creating gaps in the information received
by lower level staff members and impacting their ability to make sense of the change”.
16
The major limitation of the above-mentioned procedures is the capability of individuals
to lodge change, and the greater the transformation the sturdier the resistance (Lewin,
1947). Resistance may be secret or clear with obvious struggles over funds,
terminologies of hesitation, and reluctance to bind to the transformation exertions.
Resistance is painless to resolve in the event that the succession is fledgling and there
are many opportunities, somewhat than in the future when it is firmly rooted, which
narrates to the experience of clusters and persons.
Ali et al. (2016:35) suggest that individuals do not fight change, nonetheless, in its place
they worry the unfamiliar, foreseeing the loss of position, wage, or luxury. Matos and
Exposito (2014:325) recognised myriad obstacles to the transformation that touch on
the diverse institutional stages and plans and methods to overwhelm them. Whereas
many blockades and plans to change influence first individual on the institutional
stages, nevertheless, it is conceivable to discover some that distress or may be related
to more than a single stage, for instance, collaboration and classifying winners. Most
institutional change literature has fixated on personal or institutional blocks, although
few writers have engrossed on clusters, in addition to even less on contributing a clear
view of the complete system.
The literature above reveals the reasons workers resist change. Most of the time
communication is a hindrance to successful change. Change managers are sometimes
17
not great communicators leading to increasing suspicion that changes might affect the
employees’ job security. The literature also speaks to employee perceptions of fairness
in terms of envisaged changes. These perceptions can only be channelled to positivity if
the purposes of the proposed change is made clear.
It would appear to indicate that workers who perceive employment rehearse to be just
will not probably resist change. Nevertheless, Matos and Exposito’s (2014:325) topical
study revealed that institutional fairness was not meaningfully connected to resistance
towards institutional change, challenges this assumption. Matos and Exposito’s
(2014:325) argued that “measures of resistance to change in empirical studies
incorporate traditional pejorative interpretations through their wording”. Their findings
reveal that relations among resistance, fairness and obligation to change divulge that
“resistance to change is not significantly related to justice or commitment to change; he
concludes that conventional perspectives of resistance to change are not helpful to the
study of change implementation”.
Mostly, the work on justice put emphasis on workers and their assessments of three
kinds of actions: “first, evaluation of the outcomes employees receive from the
institution (distributive justice); second, evaluation of the formal policies or procedures
by which outcomes are allocated (procedural justice); and, third, evaluation of the
interpersonal treatment employees receive from supervisors (interactional justice)”
18
(Domingues’ et al., 2017:293). Management’s evidence of interest for workers, and the
excellence of information delivered to workers is studied to be the precursor to insights
of relational and informational fairness.
Institutional change can influence the collaborators' well-being. The literature indicates
that, when change is implemented, new behaviours can be required that are necessary
to change, but can also evoke unplanned effects, such as denial, resistance, stress,
reduced commitment or illness in the employees. These effects are potential indicators
of the success or failure of change actions affirm that well-being is mixed up with other
phenomena, such as health, suffering and satisfaction in the field of organizational
studies.
19
The diagram illustrates an amalgamation of theories of change. These are Forcefield
theory, Leader-member exchange theory and Theory of Constraints.
Theory of
Constraints
Source: Author
2.5.1 Force Field Theory
Lewin (1951:114), depicted change in three steps: “unfreezing, moving, and refreezing”.
Lewin regarded change as originating from two services, those within (employee’s
personal needs) and those forced or brought by the situation.
“Unfreezing – consists of the process of getting people to accept the change.
Moving – involves getting people to accept the new, desired state
refreezing aims at making the new practices and behaviours a permanent part of
the operation or role after the process of implementation has ended”
Appropriate to attain institutional change then breaking the condition of apathy, change
bosses and managers should endeavour to attain the condition of ‘refreezing’.
Lewin demarcated the field as “a totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as
mutually interdependent”. He further noted that "the issue is held in balance by the
interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving
forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo”. The state in which movers for
20
the institutional change as well as the opposing resistance forces will be in equilibrium
that is finely balanced and at the stage the change does not take place.
“If the organization wants to change, then the accumulated forces for change
should be more than the accumulated force for resistance to change. Change
managers should, therefore, concentrate on decreasing the resistance and increase
the forces for change”. (Burns and Bargal, 2017:92).
Lewin’s theory to change and principally his 3-Step prototypical has invoked major
censures. The important comes from Burns and Bargal (2017:92) who argued that his
assumptions presumed institutions function in a constant state, overlooked institutional
authority and policymaking, and “was a top-down method or management-driven”.
Domingues’ et al., (2017:292) contended that Lewin’s tactic is too unsophisticated and
mechanical for a humanity in which institutional change has become an incessant and
flexible process. Lewin however, added to the consideration of personal and group
actions as well as the part they perform in institutions throughout the changing course.
21
2.5.2 The Theory of Constraints
The major element of the theory of constraints that reinforces all the additional portions
of the practice is the theory of constraints thinking procedures, a set of logic gears that
address important change organization anxieties and deliver a signpost for institutional
change.
The five concentrating ladders of the theory of constraints by Goldratt (1990:91) offer a
simple but efficient approach to continuous perfection in circumstances where the
restriction is fairly obviously distinguishable. These are as follows:
“Identify the constraint – Identify the operation that is limiting the productivity of
the system. This may be a physical or policy constraint.
Exploit the constraint – Achieve the best possible output from the constraint.
Remove limitations that impede the flow, and reduce non-productive time, so that
the constraint is used in the most effective way possible.
Subordinate other activities to the constraint – Link the output of other operations
to suit the constraint. Smooth workflow and avoid build-up of work-in-process
inventory. Avoid making the constraint wait for work.
Elevate the constraint – In situations where the system constraint still does not
have sufficient output invest in new equipment or increase staff numbers to
increase output.
If anything has changed, go back to step 1 – Assess to see if another operation
or policy has become the system constraint”.
Goldratt (1990) positioned that this stage is coherent with a procedure of ongoing
development. Nevertheless, where the restraint is triggered by rules or actions, or add
more complex coupled with messy circumstances, the limitation may be tougher to
locate, and possible solutions in regard to correct it may not be straightforward. In these
scenarios, the theory of constraints thinking process apparatuses are more valuable in
determining what to transform, anything to alter to and in what ways to instigate that
change to happen.
22
These theories of changes have a very good implication in the real world. They are
rather simple and might not be appropriate for the current change in the business world
however the fundamental aspect of change is there. Change management focus more
on the change itself however lack the element of individual level focus. I feel these
theories covers almost all the aspects of the change. It not only tells about the need of
change but also how the changes have to be implemented. It talks about the
communication and encouraging each other to work as a team. Apart from this it also
says about empowering staffs which is very important and also the motivating factors
like short term win makes this theories much more applicable for all kinds of institutions
and more reliable.
Participative methods are the finest techniques for controlling resistance. Worker
participation in the organization as an instrument of solving resistance has remained
examined ever since the mid-1940s. Researches by Lewin (1991) in addition to Coch
and French (1948:) mutually concluded that participation in the knowledge, preparation
and implementation phases of the changing course significantly influences obligation to
change in addition to apparently lowering resistance. Fundamentally, the contention
behind participative managing methods is that within a carefully directed procedure of
two-way message, information distribution and discussion, employees incline to
become extra committed
23
Ali et al. (2016:27) argued that without submitting the discussion with respect to the
advantage and disadvantage of the participative management methods, “it is apparent
that such techniques are strongly advocated where resistance is expected to be high;
the goal being to simply reduce the level of resistance actually encountered”. The
dormant assumption seemingly is that if less resistance is encountered by any change
exertion, then all is well. Very infrequently it is recommended that resistance must be
used.
The main aim of offering information around the change will be to keep workers
knowledgeable of expected events, for example, the exact changes that are desired to
happen, the significances of the proposed change, combined with employees’ latest
work parts. Providing evidence can help decrease uncertainty and nervousness and
may ultimately add to creating augmented openness on the road to the change (Baillien
et al., 2018:3). Otherwise, “poorly managed change communication may result in
widespread rumours, increased cynicism and resistance to the change and negative
outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover (Domingues’ et al., 2017:295).
24
Domingues’ et al., (2017:295) found that involvement in the transformation decision-
making procedure was connected to an additional positive opinion of the same.
25
their input, it assures them that they are part of a team that actually cares about its
employees.
Communicating both early and often is necessary when trying to convey anything to
employees. If this done correctly resistance to change will be astounded.
Leadership study reveals the robust effect that managers have on supporters’
behaviours and viewpoints and several paradigms of institutional transformation
emphasise management’s role in applying and sustaining change (Domingues’ et al.,
2017:297). Specifically, the impact of leadership throughout change might be contingent
on the “exchange relationship the leader has developed with employees”. According to
the “leader-member exchange theory, leaders have different relationships with their
employees on a dyadic basis” (Graen, 2004:345). While “low-quality relationships
26
involve rudimentary exchanges that fall under the basic employment contract, high-
quality relationships are characterised by liking, loyalty, and professional respect
between leader and employee” (Baillien et al., 2018:5).
“High- leader-member exchange employees are more readily integrated into the
leader’s personal network, which in turn increases access to information and allows
for participation. In sum, it is likely that owing to a close work relationship and to
27
network inclusion, employees in high-quality leader-member exchange relationships
will receive more information about the change, will have a greater opportunity to
participate, and will develop greater trust in management, compared with
employees in low-quality leader-member exchange relationships. As a result,
employees in high-quality leader-member exchange relationships will develop less
resistance to the change than employees in low-quality leader-member exchange
relationships”.
Institutions are embarking on change to become more agile and flat to meet the
needs of their customers. These institutions top leaders know they cannot throw
money at every problem and that they need highly committed and flexible workers. A
leader need to emphasize action to make the change as quickly and smoothly as
possible.
Cai et al. (2018:7) contended that there is usefulness in resistance to change, but the
present practice seems to have overlooked the instructions from this investigation and
confrontation is still understood as somewhat to be run and overwhelmed. The
supposition is that fewer resistance as well. They detect that though it is suggested that
managers evaluate “the level of resistance they expect to encounter, rarely is it
suggested that nature of resistance be diagnosed to see if there is any benefit from its
28
usefulness”. When understood as somewhat to be exploited, it offers an indicator to
areas requiring addressing, vigour for transformation, then a mover of the invention for
transformation.
Consecutively to bind the positive value in resistance, “we need to first treat resistance
as positive, and we need to be proactive in dealing with resistance, we need to
understand the issues and the underlying causes of resistance surrounding change. But
how can we achieve this?” Georgalis et al. (2015:108) lamented that there is some
prominent absenteeism of change administration theories and models that really
integrate the likelihood of value in employee resistance.
Though, there is a single model that has remained labelled as seeing resistance as not
merely omnipresent but essential and as offering respected visions to permit managers
to positively achieve change. Georgalis et al. (2015:108) argued that this methodology
proposes that directors need to involve workers in the procedure to classify
confrontation in its numerous methods along with testing and honing change plans and
action strategies, to allow a complete and fruitful execution that has a buy-in from
everybody tangled. Intrinsically, it seems that this method may well offer a management
archetypal that integrates the value of resistance completely, vigorously, as well as
straight.
2.9 Conclusion
The literature on justice research explored in the chapter suggested that when workers
have perceptions that there is a just treatment at an institution there is a high probability
that they develop mind sets and behaviours favourable to the successful application of
change. The chapter revealed that the major element of the theory of constraints that
29
reinforces all the additional portions of the practice is the theory of constraints thinking
procedures, a set of logic gears that address important change organization anxieties
and deliver a signpost for institutional change. Over and above the approaches and
methods used for overwhelming the generic barricades to change diverse authors have
projected explicit ones to overwhelm institutional change walls which are largely around
institutional behavioural type. Literature reviewed in the chapter revealed the robust
effect that managers have on supporters’ behaviours and viewpoints and several
paradigms of institutional transformation emphasise management’s role in applying and
sustaining change. The next chapter presents findings, recommendations and
conclusions.
30
CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Introduction
The previous chapter discussed change, employee resistance to change and change
management in institutions. This chapter focuses on providing a summarised conclusion
and research findings of the report based on the arguments, judgements and opinions
drawn from the existing literature within the context of the identified research problem
and the research objectives to be achieved. This study was undertaken to explore
change management at the Mangosuthu University of Technology. Therefore the
research questions which were looked at in this research were the following:
What does the literature say regarding the concepts and theories of
change management?
What human resources interventions and mechanisms positively influence
employee’s behaviour?
What is the impact of resistance to change on institutional effectiveness?
The research objectives to be achieved have guided the appropriate research design
and methodology to be used in this research, the clarification of key concepts and the
proposed headings to be discussed for the research report. This chapter focuses on
summarising the research, evaluating the findings provided by the literature, proposing
recommendations based on the evidence accomplished when the research was
conducted and proving a conclusion thereof.
32
3.3 Conclusions
Organisational change is intended to reshape instruments of the specific organisation to
intensify effectiveness and competence. The study revealed that resistance to
transformation in an organisational circumstance is an indicator of unwillingness which
usually increases as a response or reaction to obtaining change. This sign is normally
detected by managers as every worker actions supposed as attempting to stop, disrupt,
or alter change. Accordingly, employee resistance is usually connected with adverse
worker mind-sets or equally counter-productive activities.
The study revealed that change is associated with undesirable outcomes, for example,
decreased gratification, efficiency, and mental well-being, in addition to increased
stealing, nonattendance, as well as turnover. Employee resistance to change
sporadically is ethical, because it precludes crudely more positive structures and
connotations. For example, if employee resistance is properly done, it helps to test as
well as refine strategic and achievement tactics and spreads the quality of assertion.
Employee resistance might be an industrious answer to seeming unethical actions and
might nurture knowledge amongst organisation memberships. Institutions operate within
an increasingly volatile situation and are continually in a state of constant change. The
pressure to change sprouts from a variety of internal along with external foundations
let's say political, fiscal, common and technical aspects.
The successful management of change is important to the existence and triumph of the
company in lively as well as changeable situations. The study revealed that, roughly 70
percent of most change plans fail, leading to disillusioned prospects and expenses
beyond millions in time as well as resources”. Even though there may be several
descriptions to the origins of poor or unsuccessful transformation, disastrous change is
eagerly ascribed by administrators to employee resistance, it is a multi-layered and
moderately unexplored psychological manifestation at the individual level.
33
Findings reveal that employee resistance to change may be lessened by involving
workers in the transformation process through cumulative fairness as well as clarity of
decision making procedures, providing satisfactory clarifications for the
pronouncements and valuing employees via the provision of valuable, timely as well as
accurate communication about change. Forgetting such practices might lessen
employees’ confidence and faith in change managing programmes and might ultimately
fire workers’ resistance. Transformation agents as well as other administrative
authorities are consequently likely to profit from paying faster devotion to administrative
justice issues.
3.4 Recommendations
Based on the above findings, this researcher recommends that:
34
from the difficulties and bequests of the old-fashioned, besides generating new strategy
for the envisaged change.
Furthermore, reward as well as discipline known as the “carrot and stick” must be
employed as instruments to attain the organizational transformation. These dual primary
apparatuses for controlling workers: reward as well as disciplinary methods, are
significantly significant in the structural change procedures. The reward structures may
be employed to generate as well as leverage change by appreciating specific
productions, behaviours as well as standards. Reward structures for example special
enticements, obtaining new idols, upsurge in wages, and granting of gratuities etc., may
be an efficient way of indicating management’s vow to transform. Incentive throughout a
change enterprise is about giving the right attitudes. Nevertheless, disciplinary methods
35
for example threatening workers with forfeiture of occupations or upgrades or by
sacking or reassigning them may be employed to conquer resistance to transform when
the supervisor has provided clear note of the requirement for the transformation and has
encompassed the workers.
Nevertheless, this tactic should be employed sparingly because this tactic can create
irritation in the individuals and consequently, the transformation may be interrupted.
Similarly, informing the requirement for the transformation to workers by offering outside
information on the justification for the transformation might be the primarily powerful
phase in regaining trustworthiness. Communication must also be nurtured in an
unlocked setting, which guarantees bottom-top method, where persons are capable of
sharing their apprehensions, irritations, and desires without anxiety of revenge,
nonetheless not top-bottom tactic always.
Findings from the study revealed that resistance may be sometimes be a positive factor.
Based on the findings, it is recommended that change managers develop assurance
and faith in the workers as a longstanding endeavour. Managers should generate an
ambiance for constructive censure and must be inclined to review the change package
36
if suitable; transparency as well as clear enunciation of the necessity, aids, and
inspirations behind transformation. Administrators or change mediators should
encourage association, evidences, and rationality in managing though circumventing
the application of power in addition to coercion. Administrators should develop valuable
manager-worker relationships as well as employee growth opportunities to regulate how
they may be better-quality in an eloquent way. Attention must also be assumed to
fostering optimistic relationships with workers within an environment of fairness as well
as respect. Moreover, change execution practices must focus on events that increase
worker knowledge as well as identification of the transformation and inspire their
participation.
37
References
Ali, M., Zhou, L., Miller, L. and Ieromonachou, P., 2016. User resistance in IT: A
literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 36(1),
pp.35-43.
Baillien, E., Griep, Y., Vander Elst, T. and De Witte, H., 2018. The relationship
between organisational change and being a perpetrator of workplace bullying:
A three-wave longitudinal study. Work & Stress, pp.1-20.Beijer, S. and Gruen,
J., 2016. Employee Engagement During An Institutional Change.
Bell, E. and Bryman, A., 2007. The ethics of management research: an exploratory
content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), pp.63-77.
Binza, S.M. 2005. Developing a learning public organization and improving the
productivity of public human resources. Journal of Public Administration,
40(2):105120.
Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L.R. and Lozano, R., 2017. Towards the
integration of sustainability in Higher Eeducation Institutions: A review of
drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against
those found of companies. Journal of cleaner production, 166, pp.563-578.
Bovey, W.H. and Hede, A., 2001. Resistance to organisational change: the role of
defence mechanisms. Journal of managerial psychology, 16(7), pp.534-548.
Bovey, W.H. and Hede, A., 2001. Resistance to organizational change: the role of
cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 22(8), pp.372-382.
Burnes, B. and Bargal, D., 2017. Kurt Lewin: 70 years on. Journal of Change
Management, 17(2), pp.91-100.
Burnes, B., 2015. Understanding resistance to change–building on Coch and
French. Journal of Change Management, 15(2), pp.92-116.
Burnes, B., Hughes, M. and By, R.T., 2018. Reimagining institutional change
leadership. Leadership, 14(2), pp.141-158.
Busby, N. (2017). The Shape of Change: A guide to planning, implementing and
embedding organisational change. Routledge, 1-13.
38
Cai, W.J., Loon, M. and Wong, P.H.K., 2018. Leadership, trust in management and
acceptance of change in Hong Kong’s Civil Service Bureau. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 31(5), pp.1054-1070.
Canning, J. and Found, P.A., 2015. The effect of resistance in organizational change
programmes: A study of a lean transformation. International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences, 7(2/3), pp.274-295.
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. and Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., 2015. Sustainability
reporting in higher education: Interconnecting the reporting process and
organisational change management for sustainability. Sustainability, 7(7),
pp.8881-8903.
Creswell, J. W., 2003. Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of
mixed methods in social and behavioural research, 209, 240.
Day, A., Crown, S.N. and Ivany, M., 2017. Organisational change and employee
burnout: The moderating effects of support and job control. Safety
science, 100, pp.4-12.
Domingues, A.R., Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. and Ramos, T.B., 2017. Sustainability
reporting in public sector organisations: Exploring the relation between the
reporting process and organisational change management for
sustainability. Journal of environmental management, 192, pp.292-301.
Erdogan, B., Liden, R.C. and Kraimer, M.L., 2006. Justice and leader-member
exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of
Management journal, 49(2), pp.395-406.
Georgalis, J., Samaratunge, R., Kimberley, N. and Lu, Y., 2015. Change process
characteristics and resistance to organisational change: The role of employee
perceptions of justice. Australian Journal of Management, 40(1), pp.89-113.
Junior, F.A.C., Lower, L., Faiad, C., Rego, M.C.B., Armond, L.P. and Silva, A.R.D.,
2018. Knowledge management, learning, social attitudes and institutional
change in a Brazilian public institution. International Journal of Innovation and
Learning, 24(1), pp.62-80.
39
Kiitam, A., McLay, A. and Pilli, T., 2016. Managing conflict in institutional
change. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 9(2), pp.114-
134.
Lewin, K., 1951. Field theory in social science.
Lozano, R., Nummert, B. and Ceulemans, K., 2016. Elucidating the relationship
between sustainability reporting and organisational change management for
sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 125, pp.168-188.
Maharaj, I. and Schlechter, A.F., 2007. Meaning in life and meaning of work:
Relationships with institutional citizenship behaviour, commitment and job
satisfaction. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute
for Management Scientists, 16(3):24-41.
Maimela, K.K., 2009. Total Quality Management (TQM): an imperative guide for
leaders in the South African public service. Journal of public administration,
44(3):470482.
Matos Marques Simoes, P. and Esposito, M., 2014. Improving change management:
How communication nature influences resistance to change. Journal of
Management Development, 33(4), pp.324-341.
40