[acb-hsp] Change, Resistance and the Organizational Immune System

[J.Rayl]

Change, Resistance, and the Organizational Immune System.
by Ann Gilley , Marisha Godek , Jerry W. Gilley
The human body has built-in immune systems that protect it from foreign objects,
such as strange bacteria and viruses. Generally, this is a good thing. But the immune
system can also fail, or misjudge the nature of the threat, or attack the body it
is supposed to defend. Likewise, individuals and organizations often feel secure
with the status quo; they feel they are in control.
Change
 can threaten this and is often strongly resisted, even when resistance may be detrimental,
if not fatal, to the organization. To survive in a competitive world, managements
can take steps to create a culture that accepts or embraces
change.
Introduction
An abundance of research has attempted to explain the principles of organizational
change
, how to manage it, and why it is so difficult to achieve (Coghlan, 1993; Kanter,
1983; Kotter, 1996, 1995; Lawrence, 1954; Lewin, 1951; Nadler, 1981; Rogers, 2003;
Zander, 1950). In spite of numerous theories, models, and multistep approaches to
change, organizations continue to experience disappointing rates of success with
change
 efforts. The inability to cope with
change
, whether posed by internal directives or external market forces, has been a factor
in the demise of many firms (Dutschman, 2007). Research indicates that 33% to 90%
of large-scale
change
 efforts (including mergers) don't work or make the situation worse (Beer, Eisenstat,
and Spector, 1990; Mourier and Smith, 2001; Muehrcke, 1999).
Why is change so difficult? Organizations possess a powerful immune system that defends
the status quo and resists change
 (Gilley, Godek, and Gilley, 2009). This paper explores why individuals and, therefore,
their organizations resist
change
 by comparing individual and organizational immune systems (responses to
change). It also offers strategies to help leaders work with their immune systems
to reduce resistance and achieve
change successfully.
Change
Much has been written about the multiple approaches and responses to change
 in the workplace (Beer et al., 1990; Judson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979;
Morrow, 1999; Patterson, 1997; Zell, 2003). Most would agree that we live in a dynamic,
rapidly changing world. Although some argue that
change is nothing new, others suggest that it occurs at an increasingly rapid rate
(Collins and Clark, 2003). Continuous, rapid change
 significantly affects organizational culture, functions, management, competitiveness,
and success.
Change Models
Early models followed a three-step process that involved diagnosing and preparing
an organization for change, engaging in change
, and anchoring new ways into the culture (Beer et al., 1990; Kanter, 1983; Lewin,
1951; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Lewin's classic model of
change, for
 example, consists of unfreezing, movement, and re-freezing. Unfreezing refers to
conditioning individuals and organizations
for change
, examining individuals' readiness
for change, and establishing ownership. Momentum builds when stakeholders align to
introduce change
 and plan its implementation. Movement, also called transformation, occurs when individuals
engage in
change
 initiatives. In the final phase, refreezing, individuals incorporate the
change into their daily routine; new behaviors are solidified and ultimately deemed
the norm.
Building on the early models, researchers have developed more extensive, multi-step
frameworks that incorporate leadership, employee involvement and commitment, monitoring,
rewards, and more (Kotter, 1996; Ulrich, 1998). Critics of the models cite their
simplicity, linear methodology, and lack of attention to resistance. Figure 1 compares
some of the popular models.
Individuals, Resistance, and Change
People are inherently resistant to change, and avoiding or resisting change
 is human nature (Bovey and Hede, 2001). Although this resistance is natural, failing
to
change can be deadly. Businesses that don't change
 disappear (Lewis, Goodman, and Fandt, 2001). Consider the recent fates of Circuit
City and General Motors, two firms forced to declare bankruptcy due to their inability
to
change
 and keep pace with dynamic competitive and economic environments. Conversely, companies
such as Google and Apple thrive on
change and innovation, which is part of their business models.
Reasons for resistance to change are numerous, including individual attitudes toward
change
, fear of the unknown, disruption of routine, conflict with current culture, fear
of failure, lack of reward
for change
, loss of status, control, power, or security, and so on (Rogers, 2003; Trader-Leigh,
2002).
Habeck, Kroger, and Tram (2000) identified five common factors when people and change
 are involved in organizational settings: 1) loss of status and former sphere of
influence, 2) lack of understanding of the firm's intentions, 3) fierce fight
for
 survival, 4) increased workloads (e.g., due to downsizing and employees leaving
voluntarily or not), and 5) the spillover effect on personal lives.
Rogers (2003) explains the process of change
 in his research on adoption of innovations (changes). An innovation is any idea,
practice, procedure, or object an individual perceives as new. The degree of newness
to the individual determines his or her reaction. Adoption of the new idea or practice
is influenced by how the
change is communicated, over time, among members of a system.
The stages of adoption include awareness of the innovation, interest in the change
, trial, the decision to continue or quit, and integrating the innovation into a
lifestyle. Individuals are categorized on the basis of their general acceptance of
change
 as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Innovators
are venturesome, information seekers; early adopters are opinion leaders who are
generally respected members of the social group; the early majority are deliberate
accepters of
change
; the late majority are skeptical and occasionally succumb to peer pressure to
change
; and laggards are traditional, steadfast individuals who often attempt to hold on
to the past. Members of the late majority and laggards are most resistant to
change.
Additional research suggests that many factors lessen resistance, including effective
leadership, employee involvement, appropriate communications, and motivation by management,
to name a few (Denning, 2005; Gill, 2003; Sims, 2002). Conversely, barriers to
change
 include poor leadership, lack of management support
for change, absence of trust between management and employees, internal conflict
for
 resources, recognition, or rewards, lack of commitment to
change
, dysfunctional culture, inability or unwillingness to deal with resistance, and
lack of consequences
for inadequate or poor performance (Block, 1999; Doyle, 2002; Kotter, 1996, 1995;
Ulrich, 1997).
The Immune System
Organizations, like the human body, are systems (Burke, 2002). The human body consists
of many sub-systems that function efficiently and in concert. Similarly, organizations
comprise multiple layers, departments, and functions that constitute a complex network
of interrelated people and processes. The healthiest systems are dynamic, capable
of recognizing and responding to
change
 in a positive manner. Why, then, are individuals and organizations so resistant
to
change
? Whether considering the human body or an organization, the answer lies within the
system's innate responses.
The body's immune system is a complex yet elegant network designed to protect against
foreign objects in diverse and highly critical ways. A foreign object can be anything
that the body does not recognize as its own "self," such as bacteria, viruses, tumor
cells, tissue grafts, and the biomaterials used to make surgical implants (Goldsby,
Kindt, and Osborne, 2000a). The immune system can 1) identify and destroy infectious
agents that are responsible
for
 disease (bacteria, viruses), 2) recognize the body's own cells growing out of control
(cancer cells), and 3) respond to foreign, non-self objects such as a splinter (Goldsby,
Kindt, and Osborne, 2000b). This "foreign body response" helps the body survive,
although it is not perfect. The immune system occasionally fails, misjudges a threat,
or erroneously degrades healthy cells, as sometimes seen with autoimmune disorders
(the body attacks and destroys itself) or the rejection of healthy donor tissues.
Similarities Between the Human Body and Organizations
Human and organizational systems are remarkably similar--both are complex yet delicate
collections of interrelated functions.
An organization's immune system, like the human one, protects against change
 (foreign objects or ideas) by erecting a powerful barrier in the form of people,
policies, procedures, and the culture it creates to prevent
change, regardless of the consequences (Gilley, Godek, and Gilley, 2009).
A comparison can be made between the human body and organizations. Just as the body
responds to foreign objects and real or perceived threats, people encounter new ideas
and form opinions, which they then present to other employees
for
 acceptance or rejection. Similarly, organizational
change may be viewed by employees as a real threat, even when the change
 is potentially positive. Leaders, managers, and employees view policies, procedures,
and culture as providing control and security.
Change
 threatens this. Unfortunately, the immune system attacks all intruders with little
attention to the overall implications, similar to the rejection of new ideas in an
organizational setting. The individual's response, like that of the cell, is a visceral
defensive move that ignores the overall well being of the system (the organization).
Organizational
change may be perceived by employees as a real threat, even when the change
 may be positive. Figure 2 highlights the organization's responses to
change.
Figure 2. Organizational Responses to Change
 Organization's Response to Change
 Organizational leaders explore the possibility
 of change
 Employees ask questions; seek information
 Rumors, gossip;
 Initial fear and resistance take hold;
 change is isolated, resources cut off
 Employees form alliances against the change,
 become vocal and call in reinforcements
 Alliances build, resistance solidifies
 Avoidance, rejection, sabotage;
 The change is insulated, alienated from the
 organization; ultimately rejected
Overriding the Organizational Immune System: Avoiding Rejection and Making Change
 Last The human body is predisposed to reject intrusions, thanks to the diligence
of the immune system and its cellular constituents. Organizations, too, respond to
change
 without exception. Unlike the human body, many organizations and their employees
at all levels, from leadership to front line, fail to even tolerate
change. For many, change
 invokes an instant, defensive response that often recedes only when the change is
defeated through overt or covert methods.
How do organizations encourage individuals to accept desired change
? They may adopt the practices of medical science, which uses drug therapy to subdue
the body's immune system and 1) conceal the foreign body (
change
), 2) modify cellular behaviors so that the foreign body can be tolerated, and 3)
disarm the immune system so that it does not react to the foreign body (Goldsby et
al., 2000c).
Accordingly, firms conceal change
, modify individual behaviors, or disarm the organizational immune system using multiple
methods that reduce or remove barriers and resistance to
change. Since barriers to change
 include components of the organizational system itself (e.g., poor leadership, dysfunctional
culture, lack of management support, and so forth), it is important to remember that
strategies for
 overcoming resistance must focus on all levels of the organization, from executive
to front-line. Specific
strategies for
 concealing, modifying, and disarming are described next.
Conceal the Change
Just as medical science attempts to conceal an intrusion with innocuous materials,
organizations may make change
 seem less harmful or intimidating through gradual, non-threatening actions and language.
Implement change gradually
Gradual, incremental change
 occurs slowly, almost imperceptibly, within existing cultures, contexts, value systems,
or organizational structures. Individuals perceive incremental
change
 as more manageable, less threatening, and easier to integrate into existing processes.
As a result, people are better able to adjust to and incorporate changes that occur
slowly, predictably. Examples of incremental
change
 include hiring of personnel, continuous research and development of new products,
annual modifications of HR policies or the employee handbook, and replacement or
upgrades of office equipment.
Use non-threatening language
The importance of communications and terminology is often overlooked. For
 example, many organizations have attempted to conceal workforce reductions by using
terms such as downsizing, outsourcing, or rightsizing. Similarly, impending acquisitions
have been called mergers, with limited temporary success in allaying fears. The acquisition
of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz was hailed as a "merger of equals" to reduce fear on
the part of employees and the public. Shortly after the deal was final, however,
it became painfully clear to all stakeholders that Chrysler was subordinate to Daimler
in all respects; it had been acquired. Conversely, the HR division of a large appliance
manufacturer attributes its success in driving dramatic internal
change, in part, to positioning the desired change
 as a quest to enhance "organizational effectiveness." Instead of stressing the need
to
change
 people or HR, the firm used language that focused on organizational results, thus
reducing threats to individuals by making the initiative less personal.
Modify Behaviors
Modifying the behaviors of leaders, managers, and employees so they may tolerate
change
 requires time, patience, and focused attention on organizational and human systems.
The systems include those affecting culture, rewards, stress management, and
change
 skills of all organizational members.
Create a culture of change
All organizational activities occur within the framework and influence of its overriding
culture, which comprises the shared norms, values, beliefs, behaviors, and assumptions
acquired over time by organization members (Conner, 1992; Kotter, 1996). Culture
powerfully affects the overt and covert workings of individuals within any firm,
as well as their acceptance of or resistance to
change
. Firms such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and 3M rely on
change
 and innovation to survive--it's part of their DNA. These companies share a number
of practices: they hire individuals who thrive in rapidly changing environments,
incorporate
change
 and innovation responsibilities into performance management systems, provide time
and opportunities
for employees to explore and create, and reward change efforts (even failures).
Altering a culture from one of dysfunctional resistance to functional acceptance
of change
 doesn't happen in a vacuum. Further, culture is durable and resistant to
change. The steps to promoting successful culture change are:
1) define and clarify the concept of culture change;
2) explain why culture change is critical to organizational success;
3) define a process for assessing the current culture, desired future culture, and
the gap between the two;
4) identify alternative approaches to creating culture change;
5) create an action plan that integrates multiple approaches to culture change;
6) implement and manage the culture change;
7) monitor the culture change; and
8) integrate change into the culture (Gilley and Gilley, 2003; Kotter, 1996; Lewin,
1951).
Effective management of culture proves an essential contributor to the success of
a change initiative.
Another method for creating a culture of change is the Future Search process. For
 example, a large midwestern university successfully used the Future Search process
to reorganize its College of Education. According to Hupp (1998), Future Search describes
a process of organizational change that ultimately creates a responsive, self-adaptive
system
* that is increasingly self-regulating and more responsive,
* that deploys a work process that is fast and flexible yet focused,
* whose members have the collective expertise to plan, coordinate, control, and troubleshoot
their own start-to-finish work processes, and * that is able to construct jobs that
enhance employees' ownership and commitment.
Future Search is a large-scale, organization-wide conferencing methodology that enables
all participants to be involved in the decisionmaking process as they examine the
firm's history and present reality, brainstorm scenarios of an ideal future, uncover
common futures among scenarios, and plan, act, and follow-up accordingly. The process
requires commitment, time, and resources; the initial Search conference itself takes
two to three days, while action and follow-up may require one to three years depending
on the complexity of the firm and scope of the desired change. Future Search enhances
organizational flexibility, innovation, coordination and flow of information, job
satisfaction, and responsiveness to customers, while reducing costs and cycle times
(Gilley, Dean, and Bierema, 2001).
Reward change efforts
Rewarding employees' change efforts recognizes performance that supports organizational
goals. Employees respond favorably to such rewards, to celebrations of milestones
achieved within the change process, and to managers who create win-win situations
related to change and innovation (Lussier, 2006). Rewards
for
 desired performance such as teamwork, creativity and innovation, leadership, long-term
solutions, and learning and application of new skills enable firms to achieve their
change goals (Ulrich, Zenger, and Smallwood, 1999). Some reward systems have well-defined
parameters
for compensating employees for
 cost-saving ideas (often a percentage of the annual savings) or developing new products
that contribute to the company's bottom line. Promotions, public recognition, the
ability to attend conferences or workshops, group/team lunches, gift certificates,
or special privileges (such as a prime parking space or involvement in a prestigious
project) are also popular rewards.
Stress management programs
Formal and informal stress management programs and techniques help individuals cope
with change. Formal stress management may include employee assistance programs or
on-site counselors. Informal programs often include availability of exercise facilities
or individual stress reduction methods such as meditation, breathing, or other relaxation
techniques. A large insurance company held weekly progress meetings during major
change initiatives to provide a forum in which employees could discuss and resolve
their concerns and, more important, share successes.
Enhance change skills
Leaders and managers drive change; therefore, they must understand the range of human
reactions to change and be skilled in change implementation techniques, including
how to communicate effectively, implement and monitor change, and reduce resistance
and gain commitment. Enhancing management skills and talents in change processes
is essential and should be an ongoing priority within organizations.
Some individuals navigate quickly through the change process; others need more time,
stall, or vacillate between phases. Employees at all levels should understand the
phases of change and human reactions in each phase. Scott and Jaffe (1988) identified
four phases of response to change: denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment.
Each manifests specific behaviors and emotions of those facing change.
Denial results from insufficient knowledge related to the impending change. It occurs
when individuals believe the change will have little, if any, impact on them personally.
Denial can be overcome by involving individuals in the change process, providing
information through appropriate communications, soliciting feedback from individuals
regarding their perceptions of and feelings toward change, and helping them understand
their role in change and how it will affect them personally.
The second phase, resistance, occurs when the transformation becomes personal. Individuals
begin to doubt the appropriateness of the change as a result of receiving additional
information--accurate or not--regarding the change. Managing resistance starts with
engaging
resisters
 in dialogue (two-way communication) that reveals the underlying reasons
for
 their stance (e.g., poor communication, perceived unrealistic goals, fear of loss
of status, concerns regarding the viability of the change, etc.), enabling change
agents to address concerns, take corrective action, earn employee trust, and engender
support.
Exploration, the third phase, reflects progress in the journey toward acceptance
of the change initiative. In this phase, individuals accept the reality of change
and seek positive outcomes. In this phase, continued communication and celebrations
of small milestones encourage individuals to explore further and move closer to commitment.
The fourth phase is characterized by acceptance of change as a positive opportunity.
Stakeholders demonstrate their commitment to the change initiative by supporting
and managing its implementation. Celebration and rewards are critical at this point
to encourage individuals to solidify change in the fabric of their work and the culture
of the organization.
Education and training should not stop with management; individuals at all levels
benefit from training specific to change. Education and training reduce stress while
increasing a person's confidence with change and reducing fear of the unknown.
Disarm the Immune System
Curtailing resistance at the outset of a change initiative may be accomplished through
appropriate communications and employee involvement in the change.
Communication
Open, honest, two-way communication and feedback reduce resistance by keeping all
stakeholders informed about the change and providing participants with a voice. Individuals
desire information, input, and opportunities to succeed. Effective communication
reduces fear of the unknown and promotes the positive aspects of the change. Providing
information, "selling" the benefits of change to individuals, answering questions,
and encouraging dialogue and feedback all help people overcome resistance and work
through change.
Appropriate communications regarding change are best handled face-to-face. Routine
meetings among groups or between supervisors and employees enable discussion of concerns,
resolution of differences, and sharing of best practices and successes. Text messages
and email are not appropriate
for sharing important information about change initiatives.
Employee Involvement
Employee involvement creates psychological ownership of decisions and accountability
for
 their success. In essence, individuals support what they create because those who
are allowed to contribute meaningfully to or participate in change are more committed
to its success (Sims, 2002).
For
 example, a major pharmaceutical company that wanted to change its HR function from
transactional to transformational and value-added invited all employees to participate
in discussions about new roles, responsibilities, shifts in personnel, and a change
in the business plan. Difficult decisions became easier because of the commitments
made by employees to engage in the change. Subsequently, fear was reduced as employees
supported the initiative and understood its purposes and benefits.
Conversely, a major consumer products manufacturer attempting a similar reorganization
neglected to involve employees, even senior leadership, in the change process. Consequently,
the proposed change was a complete disaster and a majority of senior leadership left
the organization. The high costs to the firm were measured in terms of credibility,
talent, and real dollars. Clearly, involving employees at all levels improves the
chances of change success. The Future Search process, described previously, represents
an in-depth method by which to involve employees.
Conclusion
Organizations, like the human body, are systems resistant to change. Understanding
the human body's response to change on a micro level enables us to better understand
and manage resistance to successfully execute change on a macro, organizational level.
Understanding human nature and unconscious processes of the immune system allows
organizational leaders to anticipate and plan for
 reactions to change, reduce the level of resistance to change, and improve the success
of change efforts.
REFERENCES
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., and Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don't produce
change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166.
Block, P. (1999). Flawless consulting." A guide to getting your expertise used. San
Diego: Pfeiffer.
Bovey, W. H., and Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role
of defense mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-549.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organizational change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Coghlan, D. (1993). A person-centered approach to dealing with resistance to change.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 14(4), 10-14.
Collins, C. J., and Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top
management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource
practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(6), 740-751.
Denning, S. (2005). Transformational innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 11-16.
Deutschman, A. (2007). Change or die: Three keys to change at work and in life. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Doyle, M. (2002). Selecting managers for transformational change. Human Resource
Management Journal, 12(1), 3-17.
Gill, R. (2003). Change management--or change leadership? Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307-321.
Gilley, J. W., Dean, P., and Bierema, L. (2001). Philosophy and practice of organizational
learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Gilley, A., Godek, M., and Gilley, J. W. (2009). The organizational immune system.
In Gilley, J. W. Gilley, S Quatro, and P. Dixon, The Praeger Handbook of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 2 (pp. 376-378). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing.
Goldsby, R. A., Kindt, T. J., and Osborne, B. A. (2000a). Cells and organs of the
immune system. In J. Kuby, Immunology (pp. 27-60). New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Goldsby, R.A., Kindt, T. J., and Osborne, B. A. (2000b). Overview of the immune system.
In J. Kuby, Immunology (pp. 3-26). New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Goldsby, R.A., Kindt, T. J., and Osborne, B. A. (2000c). Transplant immunity. In
J. Kuby, Immunology (pp. 517-538). New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Habeck, M. M., Kroger, F., and Tram, M. R. (2000). After the merger: Seven rules
for
 successful post-merger integration. Harlow: Financial Times / Prentice Hall.
Hupp, T. R. (1998). Personal correspondence. President, Organizations by Design,
Warrenville, IL.
Judson, A. S. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to
change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, Inc.
Kanter (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Kotter, J. P., and Schlesinger, L. A. (1979, March-April). Choosing strategies for
change. Harvard Business Review, 57, 106-114.
Lawrence, P. R. (1954, May-June). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard
Business Review, 49-57.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S. H., and Fandt, P. M. (2001). Management: Challenges in
the 21st century (3rd ed). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Lussier, R. N. (2006). Management fundamentals: Concepts, applications, skill development
(3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Morrow, I. J. (1999, Autumn). Making change irresistible: Overcoming resistance to
change in your organization. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 816-820.
Mourier, P., and Smith, M. R. (2001). Conquering organizational change. How to succeed
where most companies fail. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Muehrcke, J. (1999). Meeting the test of time. Nonprofit World, 17(6): 203.
Nadler, D. A. (1981). Managing organizational change: An integrative perspective.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 17(2), 191-211.
Patterson, J. (1997). Coming clean about organizational change. Arlington, VA: American
Association of School Administrators.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Scott, C. D., and Jaffe, D. T. (1988, April). Survive and thrive in times of change.
Training and Development Journal, 25-27.
Sims, R. R. (2002). Employee involvement is still the key to successfully managing
change. In S. J. Sims, and R. R. Sims (Eds.), Changing the way we manage change,
pp. 33-54. Quorum Book: Westport, CT.
Tichy, N.M., and Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Trader-Leigh, K. E. (2002). Identifying resistance in managing change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 138-156.
Ulrich, D. (1998). Human resource champions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., and Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-based leadership." how
leaders build the business and improve the bottom line. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Zander, A. F. (1950). Resistance to change--its analysis and prevention. Advanced
Management, 4(5), 9-11.
Zell, D. (2003). Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 73-97.
Ann Gilley, Ferris State University
Marisha Godek, Covidien Surgical Devices
Jerry W. Gilley, Colorado State University
Ann Gilley teaches strategy and management and researches in the areas of change,
the organizational immune system, and managerial malpractice. Marisha Godek, a senior
research scientist, focuses on physiological responses to surgically placed biomaterials.
Her research on the immune system and work with academic and business leaders has
found correlations between the body and organizations. Jerry Gilley, previously with
William M. Mercer, Inc., teaches and researches in the areas of strategic HR and
organizational development and change.
Figure 1. Change Models
 Step Lewin's Model Ulrich's 7-step Model
 1 Unfreeze Lead change
 2 Movement Create a shared need
 3 Refreeze Shape a vision
 4 Mobilize commitment
 5 Change systems and
 structures
 6 Monitor progress
 7 Make change last
 8
 Step Kotter's 8-step Model
 1 Establish a sense of urgency
 2 Form a powerful guiding
 coalition
 3 Create a vision
 4 Communicate the vision
 5 Empower others to act on the
 vision
 6 Plan for and create short-
 term wins
 7 Consolidate improvements and
 produce still more change
 8 Institutionalize new a roaches
 Sources: Kotter, 1996; Lewin, 1951; Ulrich, 1998
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication Information:
Article Title: Change, Resistance and the Organizational Immune System. Contributors:
Ann Gilley - author, Marisha Godek - author, Jerry W. Gilley - author. Journal Title:
SAM Advanced Management Journal. Volume: 74. Issue: 4. Publication Year: 2009. Page
Number: 4+. COPYRIGHT 2009 Society for the Advancement of Management; COPYRIGHT 2010
Gale, Cengage Learning
Next Page

Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63 at frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20120123/46b2a5ae/attachment-0001.html>