Why does employee resistance to change ocurr and what are the outcomes of it?!

The model developed by Oreg (2006) shows the sources of employee resistance, the types of resistance and the consequences of it. (See Fig. 1). It deserves an attention since the whole process of resistance is studied and discussed. Moreover, the model is the result of empirical study made in an organization with 800 employees when the organization initiated a change. According to Oreg (2006) resistance is a complex, subjective and “tridimensional attitude towards change” consisting of affective, cognitive and behavioural components. Whenever employees are introduced a change in the organization, they put evaluations on it which is reflected in those three components. For example, affective component reflects how employees feel about the change, whereas cognitive component regards what employees think about the change. Therefore, actions taken by employees as a reaction to change are considered under the behavioural component. Three of the components are key to understanding the aspects of the resistance phenomenon.

Referring back to the figure 1, it is obvious that “potential sources of resistance lie both within the individual as well as in the individual’s environment” (Oreg, 2006). The sources that might affect the employee resistance can be as personality of an employee or the context variables, such as power and prestige, job security and intrinsic rewards. Most probably, “one of the first determinants of whether employees will accept or resist change is the extent to which the change is perceived as beneficial versus detrimental to them.” (Oreg, 2006) In line with Oreg (2006), every employee has his/her distinctive internal tendency to resist or adopt change, which in turn can predict employees’ feelings towards change. Referring to the study by Oreg (2006), when the office move was introduced to the employees, results showed that it caused as strong emotional and as well behavioural resistance like avoiding coming to the office and taking action against the move.

Frequently, organizational change effects how the power is distributed after the change. Some employees may benefit from change by assigning more prominent roles, whereas others may lose the power they employed before change. Hence, employees have reasons to go against change if they fear losing it. Despite, organizational change often leads to transforming tasks and position, thus threatening employees’ intrinsic rewards they gain from their work. Consequently, employees’ beliefs on moving to less interesting position might affect the evaluations they form on change or cognitive resistance. In addition, Oreg (2006) argues that employees’ attitude towards change is influenced by the process through which change is implemented. We agree with him while proposing that employees’ trust in their managers, how information is distributed and with what extent of quality, and social environment shape employees’ resistance to change. If employees trust their managers, receive timely and useful information about a change, they are more likely to evaluate the change positively and express desire to cooperate with it. Moreover, “when an employee’s social environment (i.e., colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates) tends to resist a change, the employee is more likely to resist as well.” (Oreg, 2006)

In accordance with ‘tridimensional conceptualization of resistance’ (Oreg, 2006), employee resistance leads to work-related outcomes, such as jobs satisfaction, employee’s intention to quit and continuance commitment. To illustrate clearly, “employees who reported being stressed, anxious, and angry because of the change, also reported being less satisfied with their jobs; those who reported having acted against the change also reported greater intention to leave the organization, and, similarly, those who reported having negative cognitive evaluations of the change when it was first introduced were also less likely to believe it is worth their while to remain in the organization.”(Oreg, 2006) As a result, ‘antecedents’ of change discussed might impact employees’ attitudes towards the particular change, while final impact might be reflected in their overall attitude toward the organization. For that reason, “resistance should be something the organization uses to improve itself and its decisions” (Oreg, 2006).

From my point of view, change is inavitable and is the part of our everyday life. Companies should focus on constant change, while incorporating employees in the change process. Due to above mentioned factors, employee resistance do and will always exist against change. The challenging part for leaders or entrepreneurs is to associate change with "something positive to organization and employees as well". Unless, employees feel the part of the change process and cooperate with management, no change can be implemented successfully.


Figure 1. The theoretical model of resistance to change by Oreg (2006).



Reference:
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15 (1), 73 – 101.