Manage the resistance of Change management

Eng. Abeer Allam

abeer_allam@hotmail.com

1
 One of the main change is a clear Nowadays,
Abstract
problems faces the and essential point Changing is not
Day after day, in the operation of rare to do, but it is
change
Changing is an change setting in happening more
management is
important event in the organizations. and fast.
resistance.
all organization. By the end of the Sometimes, the
Resistance is the
Every hour, new paper, it will organization set the
enemy of change
enterprises and present the six change for editing
and one of the
projects are specific methods the people
important factors
discovered to make helping in behaviors to
can minimize the
the performance overcoming and achieve the
overcome.
better, to gain more managing the effectiveness and
Resistance must be
profits, and enrich resistance of the efficiency. Also,
overcome to
the organization change. change may be aim
achieve success.
outsmarts. to improve the
This paper argues
Introduction
the change condition of the
The changing is
management and work environment
happening to set
management the to edited the
new technology to
resistance to functional behavior
fit an extra mobile
change. It presents of the employees.
labor force,
the change And this will reflect
redesign a process
management model on the organization
to confirm the
anticipated by to achieve success.
accuracy needed or
John P. Kotter and Change is a serious
to get loyalty and
model by Kurt phase of every
satisfaction of the
Lewin. Moreover, business move
consumers.
the paper is going ahead. The

to preview field organization does

forces of change not do Change

and resistance. without studies.

Decreasing the They plan,

resistance to scheduling,

2
organize, control Change 1995). Change Resistance‘.
and managed the management Management Organization
operation of theory proposals process needed to achieving success
change. Of course, clear guidance on ensure the must face this
the outcomes of the driving change in successful change resistance. The
organization plane organizations within an organization is
of change are without proof if the organization. There doing the best it
identified before change is actually is major kind of can to minimise the
executing the necessary. This change in the undesirable result.
change, also the paper will discuss organization like The organization used
positive side and only two technics; change the vision the suitable model of
change management to
negative side of the three steps to or the mission,
defeat the Resistance.
change. change according change the
By the change
to Lewin organization management model, it
theoretical which strategy, change is expected to reduce

are Unfreeze, the organization the resistance to

minimise negative
Change, and management and
result and maximize
Freeze(Lewin, leadership, and
the positive result. The
1951), and the eight change the change process may be
steps according to technology method successful in one
Kotter’s theory are of the organization, organization at a time
and could be not
Create Urgency, then all this
successful in the same
Form a Powerful change, of course,
organization in other
Coalition, Create will reflect on the time. Also, change in
Vision, performance the successful
Communicate organization. organization could
Vision, Remove Every action has an not be achieving
Obstacles, Create opposite reaction success in other
Short-term Wins, when the change organization.
Build on Change, happens there is Change almost
and Anchor the opposite reaction unique journey. It
Change (Kotter, ‘the change must be customized

3
according to the approach, To implement implementing
time of change, the knowledge, and change changes can be a
culture of the methods to execute successfully, the major determinant
organization and their tasks or jobs. correct knowledge of its short- and
situation. Change Hard field impact Management long-term success
management steps is always simply strategy needs to be (Appelbaum,
can be classified as observed, noticed identified and Habashy, Malo, &
“hard” and “soft” measured and can engaged. Shafiq, 2012). To
fields. The hard be adjusted. Understanding this achieving success
fields are like the Because it is easy to can aid the in the organization
project planning, measure and readiness for there are many
fitting new evaluate the hard change phase and points: resistance
technology to field, it is clear to reduce cynicism to change,
facilitate an easier watches and within the readiness for
mobile labor force; observes. But, Soft- workforce change, leadership
redesign the field impacts are (Cummings, effectiveness,
operation to difficult to Bridgman, & employee
improve the understate and Brown, 2015) commitment and
performance or detect. So, the soft (Hornstein, 2014). participation in
developed the final field is harder to Many change initiatives,
service or product measure and organizations, in an and the roles and
to gain the estimate (Sarayreh, attempt to adapt to competencies
consumer Khudair, the constant needed to ensure
satisfaction. The &Barakat, 2013) evolutions of their the success of
soft-field or the (Hornstein, 2014). environment, are strategic change.
human side adopting cultures The article focuses
contains the of a learning or on one of these
procedure and agile organization. themes: resistance
arrangements Whether or not an to change. Dealing
prepared to train organization tries with resistance and
the employees to to constantly accepted it help
know new evolve, successfully managers to

4
minimise collision One of the fastest This Literature In this literature,
and maximizing fields Exposed to review tray to clear the researching
teamwork change is some point by resulted in 43
harmony. In information reviewing the articles focusing on
addition to that, technology, where recent literature change
Managers must be every moment related to the management and
knowledgeable to there is new purpose and sets overcome
deal with resistance innovation out to explore the resistance.
by well-educated to -software or extent to which this
The list of articles
solve all conflict hardware-which literature has
was examined and
and this will appears on the responded to these
selected the articles
automatically scene and need to earlier reviews.
that, closer to the
overcome the lunch with This Literature
objectives of this
resistance. This changing the review tries to
literature review
article points out infrastructure of declare the
and mat other
important types of the organization to mythology of
formal
resistance for be compatible with change
requirements like,
organizations to this change. The management,
period, journal, etc.
address (Bateh, organization needs reduced resistance,
After the
Castaneda, & also to change the and build a
completion of this
Farah, 2013) mindset of the sustained business.
process, 30 articles
Change players of the
Literature remained and
management built changes either
Review reviewed in detail.
on a strong base of from the external
clear objectives or internal the METHOD Change
with measurable organization
methods is the first (Culmer, 2012).
step to decrease the
resistance and gain
successes.

5
“Change alone is Change is the changes are the Organizations
unchanging and movement from a style of nowadays. changes in reacted
nothing endures known state to a The expression with the fast
but Change” – suitable state for ‘change readiness’ changes happing in
Heraclitus, Greek future. Change is is a new the world around.
Philosopher. “God, an important management Changes may be
grant me the aspect of every change. This term regularly or
serenity to accept business. The main indicates the state critically. Changes
the things I cannot role of the changes of the organization are on every step in
change, the is to help continuous ready the business - on
courage to change businesses to to change. This processes, on
the things I can succeed and change always aims technologies, on the
and the wisdom to sustain. Change to generate system, an
know the management is the position, decrease organization’s
difference”. – operation of the risk, and strategies, or on the
Reinhold Niebuhr. planning, improve the structure of the
“We must become controlling, organization organization.
the change we want organizing, performance. Change
to see”. – Mahatma executing, management helps
Gandhi. evaluating and the organization to
monitoring the stay stable in
changes in the business and
business, which continue success.
helps the Organisational
organization, change theories
continues success classify the
through the time. Following six
(Sarayreh, types:
Khudair, and
(1) Evolutionary
Barakat, 2013)
(Hornstein, 2014). (2) Teleological

It is clearing that (3) Lifecycle

6
(4) Dialectical When an working together Bob Doppelt is

(5) Social cognition Organization starts every day. When Executive Director
to change, it should the organization of The Resource
(6) Cultural.
combine elements started the changes Innovation Group
(Kuipers, Higgs, of these six. For – the culture (TRIG), which is
Kickert, Tummers, example, reflects the level of joined with the
Grandia, & Voet, teleological tools, acceptance change. Sustainability
2013, P.4.). such as establishing The culture Institute at
a vision, planning imitated the Willamette
or strategy, with success of the University. Doppelt
social organization cautions about the
understanding, change. Put specific soft field of change
symbolic and goals during and how to deal
political strategies planning the with. He
that help the change are very recommends a
organization to important. “wheel of change”.
change with Reaching these This model
knowledge about goals affect the contains seven
the people in the trust inside the steps. The first step
organization. One organization. One is changing the
of the difficult to of the most mindset of the
change is the beneficial strategies effective person
culture of the is to put Short- who acts the
organization. The term Wins, Build change. The second
organization on Change, is very step is rearranging
culture mean the important to be the system. The
environment inside sure that the third step is
the organization change applied in altering the vision
and it reflects the this organization and the mission of
existence way the Implemented and the system prospect
people inside the achieved the of change. The
organization successful change. fourth step is

7
reformation the tool to run and inspire the people
rules. The fifth step implement the (Manu, 2013).
is distributing the change to achieve Organizational
information. The the expected change
sixth step is getting objectives of the management
feedback loops and change. In other (OCM) is a term to
correcting any words, Change define as the
necessary. The management (CM) integration process
seventh step is is a combined term of change
regulating the for all the resources management,
factors (Exter, available in the which contains the
Grayson, and organization to full solution to
Maher, 2013). driving and implement the
supportive the change until
Change types organization in gaining the result.
Change can making the change Organizational
categorize and gaining the change
according to the outcomes. The management is
definition, time resources available compromised with
period, and the are the business the almost kind of
quantity of change. process; the budget restraint from
Those make it easy allotment or other physiological and
Table (1) analysis
for the manager to assets have the social sciences to
the change
decide the suitable significant change information
literature
model of change in the organization. technology and
(AlHaddad, &
management. The Essential part, entrepreneurship
Kotnour, 2015, p.10,
change solutions. Another
The following table figure 3).
management in an definition to
(1) is analyzed to
Change organization, is change
the change management using a leader to management is the
literature. Change establish the planning process,
management is a regulation and driving, realize,

8
control, and enhanced organization. Model of
change
stabilize the change recognition to However, SWOT
process on both setting good analysis is Scientists put many

levels the business system. benefiting tool to theories and model

and the individual evaluate the to apply the change

by avoiding and Sometimes, the internal strengths management

solving any change in the and weaknesses. (Appelbaum,

problems anxiously organization can The external Habashy, Malo,

(Vries, & disturb the mission environment is Shafiq, 2012).

Haverkamp, 2015). and vision of the satisfied with the They are not all
organization. The organization. This scientists. Some of
One of the most change in the is an indicator of them are
important changes organization may the role of the consultants and
is change be far from organizations in experts in change
technology. Using organization’s the society. that management
New technologies operation, task, implies effectively (Hornstein, 2014).
in the organization legitimacy, and and efficiently They gain
affects the over all performance. respond to the experience from
of the performance PESTL is an surrounding achieving
of the organization. organizing environment successful change
Of course, these framework analysis (Arjen, Jochen, & in their work. This
effects have and identifies Christe, 2013). paper will discuss
gradually from one opportunities and only two models.
organization to the threats. This The models are
other. There is a framework is study Kurt Lewin (CATs)
strong desire to and analysis and Kotter’s model
theories that political, economic, (8’s steps).
support and help social,
both technology technological, and
designers and legal issues to
strategic leaders of evaluate external
organizations to environment of the

9
The first model, freeze) distributing the Lewin was very
Kurt Lewin (Appelbaum, behavior at the new interested in
(CAT’s) is widely Habashy, Malo, level after the human behavior or
model. Lewin is the Shafiq, 2012). change (Brian, & physiological
father of change Lewin's three-step Hurn, 2012). (Hornstein, 2014).
management is considering Lewin developed In addition, his
(Hornstein, 2014). opening model for the model and theory was built in
His model is in an organization exposure it as a a quasi-stationary
three steps they are change tool to any balance endorsed
unfreezing, (Appelbaum, successful change by a difficult forces
changing, and Habashy, Malo, project or field. Unfreezing
freezing Shafiq, 2012) organization means move or
(Appelbaum, (Brian, & Hurn, (Sarayreh, destabilized the
Habashy, Malo, 2012). The term of Khudair, & behavior before the
Shafiq, 2012). Also, unfreezing is Barakat, 2013). change by rejecting
they knew by CATs meaning the the old behavior
Three steps within
‘changing as three routine of work and setting the new
detailed will be
steps’. Lewin before the change. behavior
following: Step 1:
invented the model In this step study successfully. Lewin
unfreezing:
from 1940s the old behavior knew that it is
(Appelbaum, and analysis it difficult to adopt
Habashy, Malo, before moving to a this method in all
Shafiq, 2012). new level of situations
Although, the behavior (Appelbaum,
model is stealing (Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo,
very influential. Habashy, Malo, Shafiq, 2012).
CATs are the early Shafiq, 2012). The Lewin pointed to
model of change. change is the next the important side
CATs advanced step after to Stir up emotion
and labeled change unfreezing. The and enthusiasm for
like three steps third step is change (AlHaddad,
(unfreeze, change, refreezing to Kotnour, 2015)

10
(Hornstein, 2014) After the previous Kotnour, 2015) This step is for
(Appelbaum, step, Unfreezing (Sarayreh, setting the new
Habashy, Malo, step, there will be Khudair, behavior. The
Shafiq, 2012). great information &Barakat, 2013). organization
about all forces pursues the group
Step 2: change: Step 3: refreezing:
negative or to go ahead with
positive. Negative the new quasi-
force is resistance stationary balance
the change. The in order to warrant
positive change that the new
Creates motivation behaviors are fairly
and accepted the safe and gain the
resistance. The two objective from the
kinds of forces change. The new
must be taking into behavior must not
account. Although, very draft
there are not compared with the
certain predict the past behavior
direction to the (Sarayreh,
change or control Khudair, &
to the future of the Barakat, 2013). In
change. So, addition, the new
through the change behavior must be
control, feedback, compatible with
evaluate and edit the other rest
are highlighted behavior to some
depend on the degree. If that is
situation. Through not, simply it will
the change step all generate an
option are Objective behavior
available. (Sarayreh,
(AlHaddad,

11
Khudair, & But, the experience, they division. it divided
Barakat, 2013). Disadvantages of gain in their the people into two
Lewin´s model is journey in the groups one is for
The Advantages of
very based on or in work (AlHaddad, and against the
Lewin is provides a
accordance with Kotnour, 2015). change(AlHaddad,
model supported
reason or logic They expected to Kotnour, 2015).
all type of change.
(AlHaddad, find themselves
The model is
Kotnour, 2015). understanding the
consolidating the
The model as change. But in the
outside and inside
theory looks like opposite, they
factor effect
easy to apply. But started to learn
change. Also, it
once it again.
collect all factors
implemented the Consequently, a
effected the change
change faced group little resistance or
for the decision in
of negative side. enthusiasm
one graph. In
These negative are appears in the
addition, the
as absence of area. Setting
continuous
human feelings and change requires the
evaluated the
experiences. So, full participation of
forces effect the
that will due to far- everyone in the
change gives
reaching organization to
Lewin’s model
consequences. For ensure good
sustainability
example, at the feedback. Also,
(Hornstein, 2014).
start of the change unrealistic
people in the information is a
organization disadvantage due
become so excited to the possibility
about the change giving a false
(Hornstein, 2014). result. Actually, the
And they try to use famous problem
their attitudes, past happening in the
knowledge, and organization is

12
One of the within the overall The Second model, In this step, realize
important analysis process of Kotter´s model is a the present
tools is evaluating the model change position, build the
Effectiveness. But forces. These forces management. He base to the change
it depends on the are control and realized this theory by identify it, clear
team. if the drive the change in 1996. Kotter the cause of it
analysis is (Sarayreh, introduced his (Brian, 2012). The
effectiveness(Saray Khudair, & theory of change in needing of the
reh, Khudair, & Barakat, 2013) his book “leading change plays as a
Barakat, 2013). (AlHaddad, the change” generator of
This indicated the Kotnour, 2015) (AlHaddad, enthusiasm
team working in (Hornstein, 2014). Kotnour, 2015). He through the change
this analysis has represent the (Hornstein, 2014).
high skills and change in logical Kotter believes in
knowledge. This eight’s steps inspiring the
analysis always (Brian, 2012). He people to work in a
builds on focused on workgroup, on
forecasting convince the innovative ideas,
information Employees to be and keenness to
(Hornstein, 2014). part of the change make the change
But when you deal (Hornstein, 2014). successful. Once,
with the behavior Kotter's 8-Step people in the
of people it is Change Model organization
difficult. Of course, such as: become
this data analysis enthusiastic about
1- Create Urgency
to measuring and the change. The
determining the operation will start.
forces the 2- Form a
interpretation of Powerful Coalition:
the data shouldn't
be construed as
being objective

13
The existence of the When, all Short term wins is After the seven
leaders, who could employees are build the trust in steps, continuous
be effective and acknowledge with the change and dealing with any
incredible to do the the vision of the plays as motivation feedback, either
change, is essential. change they can for the members of negative or
And, these leaders calculate the the organization to positive, and the
are capable to Benefits to continuous in the acceptance of the
inspire the rest them(Appelbaum, change process change in the
team. Then, they Habashy, Malo, (Manu K. Vora, - organization, the
will choose the Shafiq, 2012). 2013). change became in
members of the 5- Removing 7- Build on the the heart of the
team, who will be Obstacles: Change organization as
capable of feature on it.
Clear and realistic Keep the Change
implementing and (AlHaddad,
information helps fully grown, by
executing the Kotnour, 2015)
in the right lighting on short-
change. (Hornstein, 2014)
evaluation. Also, term wins.
3- Create a Vision (Appelbaum,
this will solve all 8- Anchor the
for Change: Habashy, Malo,
conflicted problem Changes in Shafiq, 2012)
Clear vision and (AlHaddad, Corporate Culture (Brian, 2012).
mission, and Kotnour, 2015).
spread this for all The Advantages of
6- Create Short-
the organization Kotter´s model
Term Wins:
help in
understanding the
change)
(Hornstein, 2014).

4- Communicate
the Vision:

14
The process is Kotter’s model The relation Corporate Culture
simple to apply sorted sequence, we between, Lewin’s of Kotter
step-by-step. The could omit step. model (1947) and (Appelbaum,
steps are easy to Every step takes a Kotter’s model Karelis, LeHenaff,
Understanding. long time to (1996), is Lewin’s and McLaughlin,
Changing from one process. The model model General but 2017-part3).
state to the other is is drawn from Kotter’s model
easier with this managers to the detailed
model(Brian, employees. No steps(Appelbaum,
2012).. the model attention to the Karelis, LeHenaff,
does not only employee's and McLaughlin,
concentrate on the participation 2017-part2). The
successful but also (AlHaddad, step unfreezing of
on the employees. Kotnour, 2015) Lewin is equal to
the model pays (Manu K. Vora, - Create Urgency,
attention well to 2013). Form a Powerful
the culture of the Coalition, Create a
organization(Appel Vision for Change,
baum, Habashy, and Communicate
Malo, Shafiq, the Vision of
2012). Kotter. The step
change of Lewin is
The Disadvantages
equal to Removing
of Kotter´s model:
Obstacles, and
Create Short-Term
Wins of Kotter.
The step refreezing
of Lewin is equal to
Build on the
Change, and
Anchor the
Changes in

15
Kotters change end. It can apply in model pay However, Lewin
model and Lewin the preparing, attention to the did not see
change model planning, vision of change organizations as
define the steps of organizing, and bypass this rigid or fixed but
change happens in controlling, and vision to each instead believed
organizations overall activities of employees. Lewin that 'Change and
(Appelbaum, organizational. is most frequently constancy are
Karelis, LeHenaff, Both methods criticized; most relative concepts.
and McLaughlin, debate the hard to have argued that Group life is never
2017-part2). In pursue the people Lewin's planned without change,
addition, the two to acceptance to approach is based merely differences
models undertake move from the on a static, in the amount and
the behavior as a known to the simplistic and type of change exist
basic to doing unknown after mechanistic view of (Sarayreh,
successful change. change. In both of organizational life Khudair,
Also, they depend the models they did Start (Sarayreh, &Barakat, 2013)
on participation of not discuss the kind Khudair, & (AlHaddad,
some people of the of change Barakat, 2013) Kotnour, 2015).
organization (Appelbaum, (AlHaddad, & But, in a successful
involved in the Karelis, LeHenaff, Kotnour, 2015) change initiative is
change and McLaughlin, (Hornstein, 2014). an order. Thus,
(Appelbaum, 2017-part2) Kotter describes
Karelis, LeHenaff, (Appelbaum, the same process of
and McLaughlin, Karelis, LeHenaff, change by going
2017-part3). and McLaughlin, through the eight
However, model 2017-part3). In the steps that people
change of Lewin two models, they need to do to work
differs from the begin with identify and otherwise
other in that it can the need for (Sarayreh,
apply on all the change. Then, they Khudair, &
operation from the implement the Barakat, 2013)
initiation to the change. Kotters (AlHaddad,

16
Kotnour, & changing public Information is Participation in the
Hornstein, 2014) organization is important factor in change motivates
(Kuipers, Higgs, regarded as a the change process. the staff to share
Kickert, Tummers, subject thus Information is and continuous in
Grandia, & Voet, resistance is high to effected the the change
2013). The change change (Kuipers, behavior in the management. It is
management in Higgs, Kickert, organization. The enthusiastic the
public Tummers, more information staff to successful.
organizations takes Grandia, &Voet, is given the less The More
some differences. 2013-p15). resistance and participation
The change in the more cognitive to decreases the
public organization Changes the important to resistance
evaluated
is from top to the change and (AlHaddad, &
The change process
bottom. But the accepted it. The Kotnour, 2015).
was weighed by
change responds resistance is due to Trust in the change
many factors. We
very slowly in that lack of details and in the
will discuss only
public about this change management
the following
organization. The (Simoes, Espsiteo, reflects on the
variables:-
overall public 2012). acceptance of the
sector model is  Information change. Trust is
enabling political . variable with
and administrative  Participatio significantly
decision-makers to n. influences affects
agree on  Trust in cognitive and
implementing managemen behavior (Simoes,
t.
actions. Change in Espsiteo, 2012).
 Communica
the public Simone and
tion.
organization needs Espsiteo have been
to modify or study the factor
create new policy. communication
the employee (or within one
civil servant) in the organization under

17
radical change pro Figure  personalization The two strategies
cess. At the end of 1.Communication strategy – (Personalization
study, they found and resistance to engaging with strategy and
the relation change average person-to- Codification
between evolution person strategy) have
communication organization X knowledge positive impact in
and resistance transfer, either the successful
(Simoes, Espsiteo,
(Simoes, Espsiteo, individually or change
2012 Figure 1 page
2012). The study in a group management.
14.).
was in setting; and Readiness for
Organization X, From this study, change facilitated
 Codification
during two years Resistance to successful change
strategy –
after acquisition. change is decreased management.
communicating
They found when when the
on a large scale
the communication communication is
through
was highly the highly. In other
organization-
Resistance to words, Resistance
wide
change was is maximizing
information
descending as in when the
blasts (physical
figure 1: communication
or electronic).
within the
organization is "The only
very low. constant is
Readiness for change:
change is a major Knowledge
point in execution management as
change. There are the key to
two knowledge successful
management organizational
strategies: change".

18
Resistance to In an increasingly resistance by of the goals and
change volatile and employees, as it strategies in the
disrupted global forces them out of beginning of this
marketplace, their comfort zones metamorphosis
organizations need and into process. And, it
to act change faster uncertainty used properly, to
and more often to (Cummings, enhance the aspects
stay competitive. Bridgman, & for successful
The success of Brown, 2015). exertion (Simoes,
change Change process Espsiteo, 2012).
management cannot be resolved
depends upon individually, but Resistance
forces
investing in new operationally-wide
The diversification
organizational metamorphosis
of forces identified
capabilities, demand all-hands-
as exercising
planning and on-deck
influence on the
putting clear vision engagement
acceptance or
and mission of the leadership
objections of the
organization, management.
change conception
recognizing Organizational
in any
embedded tensions change should have
organization.
and paradoxes and a clear and valid
handling them, and reason, vision and
employees’ mission (Bateh,
commitment Castaneda, Farah,
towards the 2013). Resistance,
change-related appropriately
goals (Bateh, understood as a
Castaneda, Farah, reaction, can be an
2013). Change, effective estate in
however, is often developing the
embedded with quality and clarity

19
In relation to they fear the The external Which are set of
where it is unknown or they forces: more sophisticated
embedded from haven’t been reasons related to
whether from consulted or there the surrounding
external is lack of environmental
circumstances or competence or forces; it exerts
internal changing their more compelling
circumstances routines where they actions over
(Mariana, Daniela, get out of their organizations. The
Nadiana, 2012). comfort zones. category of external
Certainly, the most  Forces which forces the following:
influential force of are related to the workplace
resistance is the managers that demographics where
stakeholders coordinate the the unemployment
themselves, they change where they level in the region
afraid of staying do have poor varies from a year to
stand still in communication or another, the rapid
moving forward to they do not have a development of
this transformation clear reason for the technology affecting
of the organization change; the pace of the
(Mariana, Daniela, national economy
 Forces
Nadiana, 2012). development, the
connected with the
purchasing power of
organization
citizens,
features and
The internal globalization where
forces processes that take
professional
 Forces that place within
reintegration
relate with the it(Mariana,
opportunities took
particularities of Daniela, Nadiana,
place as well as
the decided change 2012).
living standards
to be carried out.
change, national
 Forces related
culture
to employees where

20
characteristics and In organizations, or deliberate labor and
the dependence of resistance to change sabotage as some workforce become
an area or locality. which concerns people mistake variable as the
Certainly, the thought of the compliance for number of
greatest resistance implications about acceptance as they employees affected
influence on the change appears to don’t find by the change;
organization is oppose the themselves in change and change
employees respond conception itself in commitment to the processes.
to a change diverse dimensions. corporate they just Employees resist
(Mariana, Daniela, In fact, resistance to go with the flow changes because
Nadiana, 2012). change is a and tend to resign they expect to have
resistance to loss of a lot. The manner an unwanted
Reason of something that is in which it reduces outcome as benefits
Resistance
valuable or loss of employee and rewards are
the known by resistance to not seen as
moving to the change is adequate for the
unknown. correlated with trouble
Sometimes, people several dimensions involved(Mariana,
resist the of change: Daniela, Nadiana,
imposition of amplitude (the 2012). The
change that is vertical size of frequency with
accepted as a change) that which the change is
universal truth reflects the conflict made; the way in
something that is and points of which it keeps or
admitted by all comparison not certain
studies, between the old elements of
observations and and the new state; continuity from the
by all people in stretch (the past they don’t
various fields. horizontal size of trust the new
Nonetheless, change) that procedures &
resistance can be reflects the criteria and the
passive resignation percentages of the new competencies

21
& requirements; purposeful so it is - Fear of - If employees and
the way in which indorsed to change: One of the stakeholders aren’t
the announcement increase the most common being consulted as
of the change has bivalence and its reasons for they’re not able to
been prepared; the acknowledgment objection is fear of feel that they are a
pace of this because it will conception itself of part of the change
metamorphosis increase positive this by not being
and its exertion effects than the transformation. Th informed enough
handled by fear and negative is includes the fear with the change
managers; and last effects. Organizing of necessitates because there is a
but not least, the the reason of changes in skills lot more
extent to which the change as follows: where lack of motivation to be
proposed change competence took part of the journey.
amends the way in place or feeling not
which employees being good enough
achieve their tasks. according to the
A huge new requirements.
transformation People also fear the
change uncertainty and the
management unknown. It's a bit
approach would like the sailors of
not work because it old who feared the
would lead to too uncharted oceans.
much resistance
among the
employees. These
reactions can be
categorized
according to three
dimensions:
cognitive,
emotional, and

22
- Poor communication is - Changes to Whether its new
communication the essential routines: move procedures, new
when it comes to phenomena to set from comfort zones competencies, new
change the organization to really referring rules, or new
management, it is a culture, build the to routines as they organization
self-evident organization pillars feel secure to the culture built upon
process. All the and put environment they it new way of
studies based on organization’s have been into for communication,
examining people ethics (Appelbaum, such a long time changing routines
attitudes’ also Karelis, LeHenaff, where they got can be
indicated that and McLaughlin, used to every single uncomfortable.
communication is a 2017- part2) detail and they Tab.3. the influence
common problem if (Appelbaum, have known how to of the change on
it is not initiated Karelis, LeHenaff, handle everything, the intensity of the
right. Also, and McLaughlin, they have been resistance to
communication is 2017-part3). adapted to it and change manifested
not one way its two they required a lot by employees
way of time and effort (Yilmaz, Kılıçoğlu,
communication and passed by too 2013):
depending on the many obstacles to
aim of the reach this point of Resistance to change
Forces that
communication, its comfort. Resistanceinfluence Small Big
occasion, the time whenever changeAmplitude Small Big

of occasion and requires us to do Stretch local general

entities (external things differently. Frequency repeated singular

connected to
the organization or Continuity discontinuous
the past
internal Surprise Expected unexpected
organization) Urgency Small Big

which received the Implementati

Small Big
on speed
knowledge to a small
Changes the
extent to a large
message. In the way things
extent
are done
light of that,

23
Even though, decision in pointing out to  Confusion and
resistance to continuity with the the reason Frustration, Too
change can take commitment to the behind this many parties
many forms, it is organization such phenomena and and shares have
difficult to identify matters like job why is it been involved
the reasons for the security, important to and appeared in
resistance. The employment take place in the the picture
forces against position, loss of job organization without
change in work satisfaction due to and how does it mentioning each
organizations lack of trust to this affects the and every role of
includes shortage change, different organization them and their
of benefits, rewards income rates, loss positively in authorities in
and the income of individual’s matter of time. the corporation
itself and the new control along with People may only and this is due to
distribution of the new procedures understand the lack of clarity of
labor and and the new change in broad the vision and
workforce culture (Yilmaz, terms and not in mission of this
regarding Kılıçoğlu, 2013). practical terms. change and lack
employees  Employee does of information
Some common
replacements and not know how provided to the
reasons for
dismissals ; they should stakeholders.
resistance to
providing
change:
change  Changing
inaccurate practically by routines, Feeling
information about  Lack of changing their of comfort and
the nature of Communication, skills trying to security within
change and not The manager adapt to new the current
acknowledging the used one way system when routines and not
reason behind this communication they’re even interested in
change. Therefore, and didn’t give against the changing it
people’s fear and the detailed conception itself requires a lot of
anxiety take aspects of the from the being. effort and
control over their change by procedures.

24
 Lack of  Fear of the (Kansala, Overcoming
resistance
confidence unknown, it is Chandanib,
to change
where people because of 2014(.
Organization may be
don’t believe uncertainty could not completed
that they, or the about the the change. This will be

company, can witnessing due to the resistance

that faced the
competently nature of change
organization. The
manage the and where is it
reason for this
change, It is also going to lead resistance is
a double edged them in which organizations ignoring

weapon where it direction the impact of the

is also a whether positive change on the
predominant or negative. people in the
reason for the  Loss of organization. For
people to successful change
Competency,
compliance for implementations, it
Existing skills
acceptance. is necessary to
and the
 Fear of manage
competencies
psychological
insecurity, the person
transition of
People are possess isn’t
employees
worried about suitable any
effectively (Yilmaz,
their positions more in the new
Kılıçoğlu, 2013). In
would they be nature of the
a study by Van
replaced, would work they are
Dam et al. (2008),
the new asked for.
the metamorphosis
employee  Lacks of
process was
assessment be support, direct
evaluated by three
fair enough with supervisors are
process
them or the old not carrying out
dimensions:
one has been a systematical
more beneficial. management for  information
change

25
 participatio (Simoes, Espsiteo, empowering staff communica
tion
n 2012). Resistance to by letting them
If the organization
has been classically being consulted
 trust in
is started to
understood as a throughout
organization
change, It must
foundation providing them the
managers
educated their
consequence of rules and reasons
people the
conflict that is why this change
importance of the
undesirable to happen,
change and explain
organizational measurement and
the best side return
health (Waddell, transparency, like ,
on them. When it
Sohal, 2014). as “employees pay
implements the
Resistance tends to close attention to
change, it must
let the organization how people are
distribute all
reach stability treated in terms of
responsibilities to
(Waddell, Sohal, distributive,
all within the
2014). One of most procedural, and
organization.
important elements interactional
Everyone in the
in overcoming this fairness” (Seo and
organization has
opposition is the Hill, 2005, citing in
his role or task
shortage of the Appelbaum,
"Participation".
resistance is to do Karelis, LeHenaff,
The organization
the change in and McLaughlin,
must enable people
fairways among all 2017-part3).
to be creative, give
employees. If the
There are six steps ideas, and share in
change is done fair,
methods helping in all process. This
clear terms and
managing the tactic is very useful
valid reasons,
resistance to and it converts the
mission and vision
change (Yilmaz, resistance to power
they will tend not
Kılıçoğlu, 2013): leading the change.
to resist the
change. Fairness of
Education Facilitation and
prospect, and support

26
Managers should resistors are offered required events for turn may give birth
ensure the flow of in negotiation and change are well to poor
the new procedures agreement method. planned and performance,
and providing full In fact, trade-offs for structured. When dissatisfaction and
details about the special benefits are aforementioned turnover.
new systems and arranged with these tactics do not work Finding
also providing resistors and and are seen as
facilities that ensure unblocking of the expensive,
People are the
the process of change initiatives is manipulation and
source of problem
changing regarding assured. Where, we co-optation
when their
the new get to let employees approach is
organization starts
competencies the feel that they’re common.
change. The solution
employees need. In being consulted and Explicit and implicit for this resistance is
addition to that, opinions and coercion change managing this
supportive suggestions have initiators enhance resistance.
principals make the been taken into the force of their Readiness,
work environment consideration, in authority for Knowledge, and
more pleasant and order to win them acceptance of the communication
enjoyable for to ensure the change by people in management are
change process, so, change smoothly organization. the key to successful
the leaders should without resistance. Resistors are organizational
be supportive by This approach is threatened with change (Rafferty,
putting employee preferred when undesirable Jimmieson,
assessments weekly someone in the situations that may Armenakis, 2013).
& monthly to let the organization is lead to employee
employees feel highly attached Recommendations
replacements and
recognized when some values they are to manage the
dismissals that
they’re adapted to have been believing resistance of change
affect their position
the change and it for such a long by the management
and their financial
being successful in time and they will (Vries, Haverkamp,
status. This method
it. This strategy is lose them in this 2015) (Bateh,
may be used when
essentially utilized phenomena. Castaneda, Farah,
the time bound of
when there are 2013) (Mariana,
Manipulation and
this phenomenon is
frustrated work Daniela, Nadiana,
co-optation short where crisis
constraints and 2012) (Kansala,
management should
difficulties that are In order to Chandanib, 2014).
take place
encountered in accomplish the immediately.  Establish a
change process and desired change, However, it should common goal
have adjustment influencing other be kept in mind that and vision. The
problems. people in there are negative purpose of the
organization is effects of using standardisation
Negotiation and
required, the coercion such as project needs to
agreement
necessary frustration, fear, be crystal clear
Incentives to actual information is fully revenge and and should be
or potential change provided and the alienation which in communicated

27
 regularly (lingual others obtain.  Be flexible – Buisson, but the
aspect). This is Awareness and employees need change must be
important for an understanding of freedom to limited and near the
effective learning the need to learn influence culture of the
process are fundamental changes in their organization and
(analytical for this (Buckler, work and want to gradually (Exter,
aspect), 1996). A be taken Grayson, & Maher,
motivation decentralised and seriously, so 2013). The
(psychic aspect) informal adjustments clearances and well
and the structure during the definitions of
willingness to stimulates the process should change will be
change (historical development of be possible. This warranty that the
aspect). social knowledge. increases change is successive
 Educated and  Stimulate involvement and the continuous
raising the employees to (social aspect) organization
efficiency of the express (verbally and commitment (Kuipers, Higgs,
employees is a or non-verbally) (pistic aspect). Kickert, Tummers,
vital process to their ideas,  Adopt a Grandia, &Voet,
allow all concerns or decentralised 2013). Using
employees to feelings about approach with a theoretical form of
meet agreed- the clear project change
upon standards. standardisation structure management is
(Analytical project and give (historical essential to
aspect). them feedback aspect). achieving success
(lingual aspect). and deals with any
 Support to obstacles faced the
building a This increases
Conclusions change
knowledge understanding
(analytical management
through which After all the (Hornstein, 2014).
employees can aspect) and, as a
result, previous dissection Knowledge,
learn from each and the later participation and
other (Sprenger commitment
(pistic aspect) references, the field communication the
and Ten Have, of change most important to
1996). Social and action. Pay
attention to management is very topic to do change
knowledge gives interesting field. (AlHaddad, Kotnour,
insight in the commitment
(“Yes, we can”) And, it will continue 2015)
communicative to discuss due to
processes and is (psychical Resistance is a
aspect). “Change is the only nature phenomenon
required to Constance in our
support and  Give employees to change. The
life”. Over the organization keeps
coach one time to get used coming references, I
another to the idea that the focus on
figure out that the resistance to change
(analytical change is needed important of change
aspect). It gives (historical and get feedback
to any business to that help in
access to the aspect). continue this
knowledge overcome resistance

28
(Kuipers, Higgs, 10.1108/JMD-05- ght.com/0262- Sciences Amman
Kickert, Tummers, 2012-0058 1711.htm Jordan
Grandia, &Voet, [2] BEN S. International
2013) KUIPERS, Journal of
[4] Unfreezing
References MALCOLM change as three Computer and
HIGGS,WALTER steps: Rethinking Information
[1] Paula Matos KICKERT, LARS Kurt Lewin’s Technology (ISSN:
Marques Simoes TUMMERS, legacy for change 2279 – 0764)
Fundacao Dom JOLIEN GRANDIA management, Volume 02 –
Cabral, Belo AND JORIS VAN Stephen Issue 04, July
Horizonte, Brazil DER VOET, THE Cummings, Todd 2013
& Grenoble Ecole MANAGEMENT Bridgman, Kenne www.ijcit.com
de Management, OF CHANGE IN th G Brown First [6] "The only
France, and Mark PUBLIC Published Septe constant is
Esposito ORGANIZATIONS: mber 30, 2015 change:
Grenoble Ecole A LITERATURE Volume: 69 issue: Knowledge
de Management, REVIEW, 1, page(s): 33-60 management as
France & doi:10.1111/pad Article first the key to
University of m.12040 Public published successful
Cambridge, CPSL, Administration online: Septembe organizational
Cambridge, UK - Vol. 92, No. 1, r 30, 2015;Issue change",
Improving 2014 (1–20) published: Januar Strategic
change 2013 John Wiley y 1, 2016 Direction, Vol. 33
management: & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/1 Issue: 6, pp.35-
how [3] Nadine Exter, 0.1177/00187267 37,
communication David Grayson 15577707 https://doi.org/1
nature influences and Rajiv Maher 0.1108/SD-03-
[5] Comparative
resistance to Doughty Centre 2017-0057
Study: The Kurt
change for Corporate Lewin of Change Permanent link to
www.emeraldinsi Responsibility, Management this document:
ght.com/0262- Cranfield School Authors : Bashar https://doi.org/10.1
1711.htm of Management, Hussein Sarayreh 108/SD-03-2017-
Revised 14 ”Facilitating Amman Arab 0057
December 2012 organizational University
Accepted 26 change for [7] Serina Al-
Amman Jordan
February 2013 embedding Haddad, Timothy
Hassan Khudair
Journal of sustainability into Kotnour, (2015)
University of
Management academia: a case "Integrating the
Wollongong
Development study “The organizational
Dubai- UAE.
Vol. 33 No. 4, current issue and change literature:
Eyad. alabed
2014 pp. 324-341 full text archive a model for
Barakat
Emerald Group of this journal is successful
University of
Publishing available at change", Journal
Banking and
Limited DOI www.emeraldinsi of Organizational
Financial
Change

29
 Management, Management mprediscan@fea Sugandh Kansala,
Vol. 28 Issue: 2, Development, a.uvt.ro Arti Chandanib
pp.234- Vol. 31 Forces THAT *aMBA Student,
262,https://doi.o Permanent link to ENHANCE OR Symbiosis
rg/10.1108/JOC https://doi.org/1 REDUCE Institute of
M-11-2013 0215 0.1108/02621711 EMPLOYEE Management
Permanent Link 21125321 RESISTANCE TO Studies, Pune
to This [10] Employee CHANGE) bAssistant
document: Resistance To Professor,
https://doi.org/1 [12] Resistance Symbiosis
Organizational to change and
0.1108/JOCM-11- Change Justin Institute of
2013-0215 (PT) ways of reducing Management
Bateh, MBA, resistance in
[8] The Florida State Studies, Pune
educational Available online
integration of College at organizations
project Jacksonville, USA at
Derya Yılmaz a www.sciencedire
management and Mario E. and Gökhan
organizational Castaneda, EdD, ct.com
Kılıçoğlu b *
change California State aRes. Ass., [14] SURVEY
management is University at Los Osmangazi REGARDING
now a necessity Angeles, USA University Faculty RESISTANCE TO
Henry A. James E. Farah, of Education, CHANGE IN
Hornstein DBA, JD, Eskişehir, Turkey ROMANIAN
Algoma Jacksonville bPhd.Can.,
University, 1520 University, USA, INNOVATIVE
Osmangazi
Queen Street International SMEs FROM IT
University
East, Sault Ste. Journal of Institute of SECTOR1 Eduard
Marie, ON P6A Management & Educational Gabriel
2G4, Canada Information Science, CEPTUREANU
Received 28 Systems – Second Eskişehir, Turkey, PhD, Assistant
October 2013; Quarter 2013 E-mail address:
received in Volume 17, Professor,Buchar
gknklc@hotmail.
revised form 4 Number 2 est University
com
August 2014; Economic
[11] Predişcan [13] Symbiosis
accepted 21 Mariana, Studies, Romania
August 2014 Institute of
Braduţanu E-mail
Management
[9] Steven H. Daniela, Roiban Studies Annual eduard_cepturea
Appelbaum, Sally Roxana Nadina Research nu@yahoo.com
Habashy, JeanLuc Management Conference Volume 10 spring
Malo, Hisham Department, (SIMSARC13) 2015 ISSN1842-
Shafiq, (2012) Faculty of Effective
"Back to the Economics and 4562 Journal of
Management Of applied
future: revisiting Business Change During
Kotter's 1996 Administration, quantitative
Merger And
change model", West University Acquisition methods
Journal of of Timişoara

30
[15] Dianne Labor- quality control – philosophica l-
Waddell Management a philosophical- empirical
Department of Institute at The empirical approach",
approach , Henk International
Management, George
J. de Journal of
Monash Washington
Vries (Rotterdam Quality &
University, University, THE School of Reliability
Melbourne, JOURNAL OF Management, Management,
Australia, Amrik APPLIED Erasmus Vol. 32 Issue: 1,
S. Sohal BEHAVIORAL University, pp.18-41,
Department of SCIENCE, Vol. 35 Rotterdam, the https://doi.org/1
Netherlands) 0.1108/IJQRM-
Management, No. 1, March
Andries 01-2013-0004
Monash 1999 25-41 © Haverkamp (Inter
University, 1999 NTL face Europe [21] P. Saskia
Melbourne, Institute Manufacturing, Bayerl, Gabriele
Australia Scherpenzeel, the Jacobs,
Management [17] Alannah E. Netherlands) Sebastian
Decision Rafferty The Issue: 1, pp.18- Denef, Roelof J.
University of New 41, https://doi.o van den
Resistance: a
South Wales rg/10.1108/IJQR Berg, Nico
constructive tool M-01-2013-0004
Nerina L. Kaptein, Kamal
for change Jimmieson, The Birdi, Fabio
[19] M.S. Rao ,
Management University of Bisogni, Damien
(2015) "Embrace
36/8 543–548 Queensland, change Cassan, Pietro
[16] Eric B. Dent Achilles A. effectively to Costanzo, Mila
Susan Galloway Armenakis, achieve Gascó, Kate
Goldberg, The Auburn organizational Horton , Theo
University, excellence and Jochoms,
George
Corresponding effectiveness", Stojanka
Washington Author: Alannah Industrial and Mirceva,
University, Eric B. E. Rafferty, Katerina
Commercial
Dent is an School of Training, Vol. 47 Krstevska, Ad
assistant Management, Issue: 3, pp.145- van den Oord,
professor in the Australian School 150, https://doi. Catalina Otoiu,
Administrative of Business, The org/10.1108/ICT Rade
University of New -10-2014-0065 Rajkovchevski,
Sciences Program
South Wales, Zdenko Reguli,
at The George Kensington, NSW, [20] Henk J. de
Sofie Rogiet,
Washington, Australia 2052 E- Vries, Andries
Trpe
University., Susan mail: Haverkamp,
Stojanovski,
a.rafferty@unsw. (2015)
Galloway Michal
edu.au "Overcoming
Goldberg is Vit, Gabriel
resistance
associate director [18] Overcoming Vonas, (2013)
against quality
resistance against "The role of
of the Burdetsky control – a

31
 macro context Journal, Vol. Karelis, Anne Le and acquisitions:
for the link 25 Issue: 6, Henaff, Beverly part 3", Industrial
between pp.625-640, McLaughlin, and Commercial
technological https://doi.org (2017) Training, Vol. 49
and /10.1108/TQM "Resistance to Issue: 3, pp.146-
organizational -07-2013- change in the 150, https://doi.o
change", 0080 case of mergers rg/10.1108/ICT-
Journal of and acquisitions: 05-2016-0034
Organizational [24]Rod part
Change Erakovich, Tri 2", Industrial [29] Steven H.
Management, sha Anderson, and Commercial Appelbaum, Cath
Vol. 26 Issue: 5, (2013) Training, Vol. 49 erine
"Cross‐sector
pp.793-810, Issue: 3, pp.139- Karelis, Anne Le
collaboration:
https://doi.org/ 145, https://doi. Henaff, Beverly
management
10.1108/JOCM- decision and org/10.1108/ICT- McLaughlin,
05-2013-0076 change 05-2016-0033 (2017)
model", Intern "Resistance to
[22] Gabriele ational [27] Sara von change in the
Jacobs, Arjen Journal of Platen, (2015) case of mergers
van Public Sector "The and acquisitions:
Witteloostuijn, J Management, communication part 1", Industrial
ochen Christe- Vol. 26 Issue: consultant: an and Commercial
Zeyse, (2013) "A 2, pp.163- important Training, Vol. 49
theoretical 173, https://do translator for Issue: 2, pp.87-
framework of i.org/10.1108/ communication 92, https://doi.or
organizational 09513551311 management", Jo g/10.1108/ICT-
318031
change", Journal urnal of 05-2016-0032
of Communication
Organizational [25]Brian J. Hurn, Management, [30] Culmer, N.
Change (2012) Vol. 19 Issue: 2, (2012), “I.T.
"Management
Management, pp.150-166, https changes: an
of change in a
Vol. 26 Issue: 5, ://doi.org/10.110 exploration of
multinational
pp.772-792, 8/JCOM-06-2013- the relationship
company", Ind
https://doi.org/1 ustrial and 0049 between
0.1108/JOCM- Commercial motivation, trust,
09-2012-0137 Training, Vol. [28] Steven H. and resistance to
44 Issue: 1, Appelbaum, Cath change in
[23] Manu K. Vora, pp.41-46, erine information
(2013) https://doi.org/1 Karelis, Anne Le technology”, PhD
"Business 0.1108/0019785 Henaff, Beverly thesis, University
excellence 1211193417. McLaughlin, of Iowa, available
through (2017) at:
sustainable [26] Steven H. "Resistance to http://ir.uiowa.ed
change Appelbaum, Cath change in the u/etd/3280
management" erine case of mergers (accessed
, The TQM

32
December 20,
2017).

33