[acb-hsp] Change, Resistance and the Organizational Immune System
Mary Ann Robinson
brightsmile1953 at comcast.net
Mon Jan 23 21:20:58 EST 2012
Great article. Thanks for sharing.
Mary Ann Robinson
----- Original Message -----
From: J.Rayl
To: Discussion list for ACB human service professionals
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: [acb-hsp] Change, Resistance and the Organizational Immune System
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
acb-hsp mailing list
acb-hsp at acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4761 - Release Date: 01/23/12
More information about the acb-hsp
mailing list