Managing Resistance to Organizational Change

In the process of reviewing and implementing change, effective methods and tools are often required to manage resistance to change (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009). Changes often fail due to internal and external resistance to ineffective change management (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Oreg, 2003; Palmer et al., 2009). Accordingly, this article describes the most important method (tool) for managing resistance to change in relation to the context of possible context.

The inventor of the change is Kurt Lewin, one of my heroes. Lewin is an excellent founder of social psychology and organization transformation and incorporates long-term responsibility into a systematic concept. As a force to affect administrators and employees. Unfortunately, not the context, only the term is prevalent. We now create psychological and individualized problems and personalize it as "employees and managers". In this spiritual model, it is always another thing. Employees 'boycott' and senior management 'have no commitment'. People who say "I am interested in maintaining the status quo" judge others. Of course, they are very important. The resistance hypothesis is implicit arrogance. As long as we accept this spiritual model, it will disrupt our understanding of the dynamics of change, maintain the status quo and make the command and control organization permanent. It is best to release words and incorporate more useful mental models to change them.

Organization change efforts often encounter some form of human resistance. Experienced administrators are familiar with this fact, but it is surprising that no one will resist the change initiative and that it takes little time to systematically evaluate for any reason before the organization's change . Instead, administrators often use a simple set of beliefs, using past experiences as guidelines. For example, "Engineers are independent of top management and are skeptical and may resist this change." This method can cause serious problems. Since individuals and groups can respond to changes in various ways, correct evaluation is often not intuitive and requires careful consideration.