Summer Training Report

on
Employees’ Resistance to Change in Organization

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

To
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi

Submitted by: DivyaGaur

Submitted to :

Guide Name: Ms.Madhavi Singh

Enrolment No:41120803917
Batch:2017-2019

BPIT
Bhagwan parshuram Institute of technology
DECLARATION
Ms DIVYA GAUR Roll No. 168740824 certify that the Summer Training Report
(MS-201) entitled “Employees’ Resistance to Change in Organization_” is done
by me and it is an authentic work carried out by me at Bhagwan parshuram
institute of technology. The matter embodied in this report has not been submitted
earlier for the award of any degree or diploma to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

Signature of the Student

Date:
Certified that the Summer Training Report/ (MS-201) entitled “Employees’
Resistance to Change in Organization_” Done by Ms DIVYA GAUR, Roll No. is
completed under my guidance.

Signature of the Guide

Date:

Name of the Guide:

Ms.Madhavi singh

Designation: Faculty Member

Address: BPIT ROHINI

New Delhi-110089

Countersigned

Programme Director/HOD
Acknowledgement

I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Mahesh sharma , my supervisor at SHIVAS

Departmental, Delhi and Ms Madhavi singh, my supervisor at Bhagwan parshuram
institute of technology at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), who
have provided me with various inspirations and support which made this research
study possible. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr. karan upadhaya, who
provided the contact information of all the participants.

I would like to thank all the employees who participated at various departments for
their support and devoted time. Your help and kindness are so much appreciated.

My gratitude too, to my family members who have always be there in

encouragement.

Without all your help, I would not finish the study on time.

DIVYA GAUR
TABLE OF CONTENT
Executive Summary

The purpose of this study is to describe and analyse the consequences of Human
Resource (HR) transformation from an individual perspective. With the theory brought
up by Ulrich, transformation is a process and means for organizations to restructure in
order to deliver the right support in the HR area to be more global and competitive.
This study investigates how employees react to change and resistance. What kinds of
resistance they have may determine the success of the implemented change. It’s
common that employee resistance comes along with change process and it is interesting
to investigate how transformation has influenced individual’s work and attitude. The
research was conducted at Shivas departmental private limited in Delhi by collecting
data from several semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. The researcher has
identified the factors related to employee resistance to change and suggest some
solutions to prevent resistance to change. On one hand, this paper will be of interest to
the organizational managers and the future researchers in a related area of study. On
the other hand, the article points out some avenues for further research on this topic.
 INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC
EMPLOYEES RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

In today’s complicated environment, change is common in every company and is

needed for an organization in order to remain competitive. It doesn’t matter if the
company is small, large, local or international; the process of organizational change is
just as important. Human Resource Management (HRM) is at the heart of the
organization in order for it to reach its goals (Nilsson et al, 2011). It plays a crucial role
in the success of the organization. Constant change is considered as an important factor
that can affect the organization and it is necessary to adapt to fulfil the requirements of
the society. There are numerous challenges that organizations need to face in order to
be competitive in the market. In HRM research, transformation in the organization as
a field of study has popular focus due to how it affects organizational processes.
Organizations can restructure the whole organization, or specific departments, such as
the HR department to achieve their goals.
Some common topics within the HR department are how the organization needs to be
aligned with its business strategies, be centralized and globalized and at the same time
be cost efficient. A result of the ongoing globalization in the world is organizational
reconstructions, which is called HR transformation (Ulrich et al, 2009). The
organization wants to make sure that employees are working as they are expected to
and employees should be encouraged and motivated to reach better results. As a result,
the organization has put an emphasis on dividing the working tasks into strategic and
operational within HR staff, they have begun to remap the HR structure by doing
reconstruction of HR, and such HR reconstruction is introduced by professor Ulrich
called HR transformation (Economist, 2009). Some obstacles that could negatively
influence HR transformation are poor planning, lack of direction or simply poor
implementation, which may lead to employee resistance. Resistance to change is
inherent in every kind of change process. It is the nature of humans to react negatively
when they experience the threat of insecurity and change. There are many
organizations that have done Transformations; however there seem to be a lack of
communicating the processes during and after the HR transformation period within the
organization.
HR transformation is seen as one of the most important restructuring processes of HR
department in the organization, but there are not too many HR transformation models
to follow (Thilander, 2013). The lack of models can be attributed to the limited research
conducted in this area. The biggest challenges for HR are to help the business achieve
its strategic objectives, sourcing and simply deliver what the organization needs.
Businesses can restructure their organizations and make significant changes to their
HR area – and this is what HR transformation is all about (Ulrich et al, 2009). There
are many organizations that have done Transformations, like the case organization
SHIVAS LTD.; they followed the self-made structure where the organization is divided
into department, department into sections and sections into further sub-sections, to
divide the HR tasks into operational and strategic level in order to deliver the right
support in the business area, by developing their own model in which there are four
Service Centres. The reason for developing their own model is that there are not so
many HR transformation models to follow. Existing models might have disadvantages
when implementing the change process, such as employee resistance.

Albert (2002) concluded in his paper that organizational change can cause scepticism
and resistance to happen to employees and it can make it difficult or impossible to
implement organizational change. It is important for managers to realize the
phenomenon and try to make an effort to overcome resistance. Otherwise, it may cause
unexpected problems and even undermine the effort that the company has made for the
change process. A lack of understanding of the underlying reasons for change in
relation to the context of other organizational factors is one of the most important
factors for resistance to change (Judge and Douglas, 2009). Communication and
communicative processes,
defined as how messages are produced, transferred/ delivered, shared and
decoded/understood by the receiver, is a crucial factor that might aid in the lowering
of barriers to resistance to organizational change. Employees may communicate
positive or negative information depending on the perception of the organizational
performance and if the company lost the faith and ambitions in their employees, it will
face a battle to rebuild their credit (Finbarr et al, 2003). Organizational change should
be well structured, planned; communicated and implemented to make sure that the
changes can lead to an expected result (Ulrich et al, 2009).

New roles and responsibilities make employees fearful of losing their current jobs. The
lack of information why this happens leads to some employees not trusting the
company anymore and develop a negative attitude. According to a pilot study with
employees at SHIVAS LTD., they always feel confused why the organization changes
all the time, what is the purpose of that? They feel scared and think it is unnecessary to
change and want to be better informed. It is interesting to get an understanding of how
the organization looked like before and after they implemented the HR transformation
and how individuals that got influenced by the transformation process react due to their
own feelings.

The study investigates the consequences of organizational transformation in SHIVAS

LTD., Delhi - reflected by employees and the use of communication from the HR
transformation. Organizational transformation can be defined as: ”an integrated,
aligned, innovative and business focused approach to redefining how organization
work is done within an organization so that it helps the organization to deliver on
promises made to customers, investors and other stakeholder” (Ulrich et al, 2009). In
order to analyze and explain the reflections of employees about transformation, it is
crucial to find theories that can explain it. This chapter starts with giving various
definitions about HR transformation, the change process, followed by the effects
resulting from HR transformation. The theory and model of this study is the Ulrich
model and employees’ resistance to change also referred to by Lawrence (1969).

HRM in organizations have made significant progress over the years in reducing costs,
improving operating effectiveness through HRM systems, outsourcing, employee self-
service and shared services. Apart from these services, the next big step for HR is to
aid their businesses in achieving their strategic objectives for growth and performance.

The problem of resistance was brought up by Lawrence (1969), he argued that

resistance to change is one of the most baffling and recalcitrant of the problems which
business executives face. Researchers have studied the reasons of employee resistance
by using a normative approach focusing on what is resistance to change, the reasons
for it and how to overcome it. The reasons why employees resist change can be various
from fear of the unknown, lack of trust, failed change before can be important factors.
Employees always feel anxiety and are worried that change will influence their current
job, performance, working environment, relations among colleagues and other factors.
As a result, it is crucial for managers to choose the right channels to communicate with
employees regarding the uncertainty of change process and the influence on the
individual. Effective communication between employees is the key elements in
implementing a change process as it can reduce resistance by providing a sense of
community and belonging to the company.Communication has been considered a key factor
in the process of implementing change. Communication in organizations represents the

interactions between the employees and members of an organization. Deetz defines

communication as a “Phenomenon that exists in organizations” (Jablin& Putnam,
2001). In his view, this means that the organization is a container in which
communication takes place. Deetz also defines communication as “a way to describe
and explain organizations” (Jablin& Putnam, 2001). If we consider this definition, this
means that communication is the central process through which employees exchange
information, create relationships, and build meanings, values, and an organizational
culture. Managers use communication as a tool to advertise, announce, explain and
inform people to be prepared for the change process and the effects it brings (Spike &
Lesser, 1995). The use of communication can motivate employee commitment to
change and reduce the confusion and resistance (Lippitt, 1997).

Previous studies have strengthened the links between communication and successful
change management in two perspectives: theoretical and practical (Finbarr et al, 2003).
Communication has an impact from the commonality of factors on both sides, such as,
organizational structure and culture, business environment and leadership styles
(Finbarr et al, 2003). Researchers who are working independently in both areas
identified the factors from a theoretical perspective and established it. De Nisi (1991)
studied the link between communication and change management from an academic
perspective by a study of employee communication during a merger process. He found
when managers are honest regarding the information and communication process, the
employees turn out to have high levels of productivity, lower levels of turnover
compared with lack of communication. According to Lawrence (1969), managers
should have a better communication strategy to deal with employees’ attitude by
encouraging a broader perspective and facilitating creative thinking. According to
Baker (1989), managers should have correct action by providing proper information
about change and consider employees’ fear when they announce the information. They
should also try to convince employees with real reasons for change to ease the
transition process and reduce employees’ frustration. What is more, managers have to
create an encouraged work atmosphere to motivate employees try out new ideas related
to change and these actions are connected to an effective communication.
Changes in HR

HR transformation
In the perspective of HRM, HR transformation is an extra need for organizations to
manage the complexity from outer changes (Ulrich et al, 2009). A stronger connection
could be created to organizations stakeholders by transforming the HR department.
Such a transformation could occur when an organization is restructuring itself or when
internal and external conditions need to be better reflected by the HR practices. A key
difference between HR transformation and HR change is that HR transformation is a
fundamental reconstruction of the HR (Ulrich et al, 2009).

HR transformation aims to change the structure of the HR department by doing less

operation tasks and more focusing on strategies, so that to make HRM practices more
efficient and flexible. This trend as such began in 1995 (The Economist, 2009).

The Ulrich Model

There are several discussions about what HR should do in order to deliver the right
support to business during the past years and it has been found that there are several
ways that HR could be organized (Taylor &Woodhams, 2012). The HR transformation
requires building a structure that can link business organization and HR strategies
together. Many organizations follow the Ulrich Model to go through HR
transformation and it has been more and more popular (Economist, 2009). The model
has an emphasis on how to design the newly transformed HR department; there are
three components in his model: business partners, shared services and a centre of
expertise.

The business partner works close to business unit and line managers, they have the
responsibilities to develop strategies. They are always working in the business unit
where they have a chance to implement strategies and deliver the support to
management teams. The role of responsibilities varies in different organizations, size,
culture and HR structure, etc. (Ulrich et al, 2009). The shared service center works with
salary review, administrations, recruitment, training and development, etc. The shared
service center aims to create values for its stakeholder deliver the right support in
operational tasks. It is a good back up for people in the company when they seek for
help (Granberg, 2011). The center of expertise works with talent management,
organizational change management, employee relations, compensation and benefits,
etc. They are expected to deliver high quality HR services. The employees in the center
of expertise have the knowledge to deliver services in the area of learning, training and
such (Ulrich et al, 2009).

Employee resistance to change

The restructuring of the HR department can be one of biggest changes in HR employees

when one move to more strategic work from operational one and such changes could
cause employee resistance.

Employee resistance is common existing topic in psychology literature and

management books and the focus was out on employees (Ackar, 2013). It is important
to cooperate with employees if an organization wants to successfully implement the
change (Piderit, 2000). What resistance consist of is hard to define but it is certain that
it can stop the implementation of change. Thomas and Hardly (2011) divided people
into two groups when they react to change: for and against. The kind of people that
react negatively, or the ones who do not accept change can be divided in the group with
“resistant to change”. People react differently with their emotional feelings with
aggression, fear, happiness and excitement; these feelings can be seen as resistance
(Piderit, 2000). Both positive and negative sides of the resistance have been argued to
affect individual’s behavior. Researchers argued multi-dimensional aspects of
employee resistance to change, when an individual respond to change, it is their
behavior, feelings and thoughts that are involved (Erwin & Garman, 2010).

There are various reasons why employees resist change. First of all, the involvement
in the change process is argued as one of the sources that can cause resistance
(Giangreco&Peccei, 2005). Secondly, employee attitude, behaviors and emotions is
another factor in how they react to change (Thomas & Hardy, 2011; Piderit, 2000).
Coch and French (1948) concluded that motivations are the causes of employee
resistance during change process. Moreover, it is l inked to psychological mechanisms
according to Folger&Skarlieki (1999). The cause of employee resistance to change can
be summarized as misunderstandings, lack of information, different individual
characteristics, emotional effects, etc. Most of the literatures agreed that the job
insecurity is the cause of resistance to change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).

Communication

Many researchers have discussed the importance of communication during the change
process. To inform the involved person beforehand is one of the most efficient ways to
overcome employee resistance (Raluca, 2010). They have the right to know when the
change happen and how it will be implemented, what is expected from them, how it
will influence their jobs and what kind of support they can get in order to be motivated
and engaged to change (Kottor& Schlesinger, 1979). The early information can
effectively decrease employee resistance, confusion, and anxiety before rumors spread
out in the whole organization.

People have a wish to have their working environment predictable and this is the reason
why managers should be well prepared with the outcome from change and give
employees reasonable information about why, how and what is implemented in the
near future (Cilgeous& Chambers, 1999).

Organizational communication
Organizational communication can be defined as “process whereby members gather
pertinent information about their organization and the changes occurring within it”
(Kreps, 1990). It is crucial to use communication within organizational members to
discuss their personal experiences and pertinent information. It also enables individuals
to reach their goals by understanding organizational change and coordinate their
personal needs with the responsibilities of their involvement. Moreover,
communication can be seen as a data-collecting usage for individuals to gather
information that makes sense.

Communicating change

Communication commonly exists in daily life at work. Managers and employees use
communication to collaborate, exchange knowledge, information and get people
motivated (Deresky, 2000). Communication includes different aspects, such as: timing,
communication approach, the content of the message, etc. It is crucial for managers to
be aware of is that it is impossible to successfully implement change process without
an effective communication. Barrett argues that “without credible communication, and
a lot of it, the hearts and minds of the troops are never captured” (Barrett, 2002).

How effective the communication is can determine the level of employee resistance
during change process, also can encourage employee to be engaged to it, accept and
support, maximum the extent of outcome from change. Organizational performance is
also influenced by one of the key factors –the communication between employees and
employers (Harshman&Harshman, 1999)
COMPANY PROFILE
Shivas Departmental Stores Private Limited's Annual General Meeting (AGM) was
last held on 30 September 2017 and as per records from Ministry of Corporate Affairs
(MCA), its balance sheet was last filed on 31 March 2017.

Directors of Shivas Departmental Stores Private Limited are Om Prakash Sharma,

Vikas Sharma, .

Shivas Departmental Stores Private Limited's Corporate Identification Number is

(CIN) U51909DL2003PTC119536 and its registration number is 119536.Its Email
address is rks_ssv@yahoo.com and its registered address is 25DEFENCE ENCLAVE
VIKAS MARG NEW DELHI DL 110092 IN , - , .

Current status of Shivas Departmental Stores Private Limited is - Active.

The need of the project is to study and analyses certain issues in Shivas Departmental
Store Pvt. Ltd.which need further attention. And some suggestions have been given to
make the Shivas Departmental Store Pvt. Ltd.and Marketing Strategy industry more
effective in order to utilize its full potential and serve the objective of an event and be
mutually beneficial for the agency, the Corporate and the customer..
SHIVAS DEPARTMENTAL has a Systems & ERP Division comprising a highly
professional team to cope with the highly competitive environment. SHIVAS
operational offices are all equipped with modern computing tools. ERP has been
implemented. A user friendly intranet based Knowledge Management Solution has
been made available to its officials.
Shivas Departmental Store Pvt. Ltd.operates. Important factors include not only the
legal, cultural, political, and economic environments of the overall society but also the
company’s corporate environment and the financial constraints in which it operates.
Marketing research is the phase of Marketing concerned with obtaining usable
information, to make it more effective it is necessary to define carefully what
information is required to make a better decision. After defining the problem, the
marketers specify the source of information to be collected and analyzed. Consumer
research is another important aspect of Marketing research, concentrates on buyer
behaviour.
Segmentation is also an important aspect of Marketing. The consumers who need
product category are diverse; not everybody will want the same thing from the product
category, will want to buy it in the same place, is interested in the same kinds of features
or services.
On the other hand it is not realistic to offer a unique product for each customer. There
are group of customers with similar sets of needs, and the market can be divided into
such groups. This concept is known as Market Segmentation.
Once the needs of the market are understood, the marketer considers the details of what
the Shivas Departmental Store Pvt. Ltd.might offer. It should try to develop the product
that will satisfy the needs of the consumer in the market segment that had been
identified and selected; provide the product at a price customers are willing to pay;
create a distribution system that makes the product available to the customer in the
place where it can be purchased; and communicate the appropriate information to
promote the product, making customers aware of and interested in the product, helping
them understand what the product offers, and reminding them that the product is
available. These four elements:- product, price, promotion and place constitute the
marketing mix. They are sometimes referred to as the “four P’s of Marketing”
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To be a leading International Trading House in India operating in the competitive

global trading environment, with focus on “bulk” as core competency and to improve
returns on capital employed.
2. To retain the position of huge multi store brand under one umbrella
3. To promote development of variety and variation.
4. To provide support services to the medium and small scale sectors.
5. To render high quality of service to all categories of customers with professionalism
and efficiency.
6. To streamline system within the company for settlement of commercial disputes.
7. To upgrade employee skills for achieving higher productivity.
SHIVAS.’s tagline is “Touching Lives, Adding Value”. The Company has put a lot of
emphasis on acting in a nimble way and valuing people. With the People Strategy, the
company tries to build efficient and engaging working environment with passionate
people to align with business strategy. Since the acquisition of the company, the
structure, leadership, technology and the concept of the company has been an ongoing
change.
The HR Transformation is all about building HR capability to deliver the People
Strategy. HR needs to become thought leaders in people areas, real change agents, true
business partners, people specialists and efficient. HR also needs to become more
customer focused, faster, more flexible and global (Carlsson, 2013). It is vital that, as
a company, it succeeds in reaching a prioritized and mutual global HR agenda. As a
result, SHIVAS LTD. developed a new HR service delivery model trying to
standardize the way of work to improve the quality and quantity of HR’s deliveries.
LITERATURE REVIEW

Many authors (Lawrence, 1954; Maurer, 1996; Strebel, 1994; Waddell and Sohal,
1998, among others) stress that the reasons for the failure of many change initiatives
can be found in resistance to change. Resistance to change introduces costs and delays
into the change process (Ansoff, 1990) that are difficult to anticipate(Lorenzo, 2000)
but must be taken into consideration. Resistance has also been considered as a source
of information, being useful in learning how to develop a more successful change
process (Beer and Eisenstat, 1996; Goldstein, 1988; Lawrence, 1954;Piderit, 2000;
Waddell and Sohal, 1998). Undoubtedly, resistance to change is a key topic in change
management and should be seriously considered to help the organization to achieve the
advantages of the transformation.Considering the importance of resistance to change,
this paper aims to deepen in this field through a theoretical exposition of the concept.
Later, we will offer the results of an empirical study of the firms that had recently
undergone a change process. In this study, we analyzed the main sources of resistance
to change and their relationships with type of change
Organizational change is an empirical observation in an organizational entity of
variations in shape, quality or state over time (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995), after the
deliberate introduction of new ways of thinking, acting and operating (Schalk,
Campbelland Freese, 1998). The general aim of organizational change is an adaptation
to the environment (Barr, Stimpert and Huff, 1992; Child and Smith, 1987; Leana and
Barry,2000) or an improvement in performance (Boeker, 1997; Keck and Tushman,
1993).This definition encompasses many situations that should be distinguished by
applying certain dimensions to establish ‘typologies of change’. We will refer to the
scope of change, because it is one of the most used variables in literature to design
change typologies. That way, changes can be defined along a continuum starting in
low-scope or evolutionary changes to high-scope or strategic ones. With the aim of
making the use of this dimension (scope) easier, we will describe both extremes of
thecontinuum, but we should always keep in mind that real changes are not a pure type
First, we will describe evolutionary, incremental, or first order changes. These are
small changes that alter certain small aspects, looking for an improvement in the
present situation, but keeping the general working framework (Blumenthal and
Haspeslagh, 1994; Goodstein and Burke, 1991; Greiner, 1972; Levy, 1986; Mezias
andGlynn, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1989; 1990). The second type of changes
arestrategic, transformational, revolutionary or second order ones. They are radical
transformations, where the organization totally changes its essential framework
(Blumenthal and Haspeslagh, 1994; Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1996; Goodstein and
Burke,1991; Marshak, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1989, 1990), looking generally for
a new competitive advantage (Hutt, Walker and Frankwick, 1995) and affecting the
basic capabilities of the organization (Ruiz and Lorenzo, 1999)

Once we have introduced the concept of organizational change and have presented a
typology, we will analyze the term ‘resistance to change’. On one hand,resistance is a
phenomenon that affects the change process, delaying or slowing down its beginning,
obstructing or hindering its implementation, and increasing its costs
Ansoff, 1990). On the other hand, resistance is any conduct that tries to keep the status
quo, that is to say, resistance is equivalent to inertia, as the persistence to avoid
change(Maurer, 1996; Rumelt, 1995; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). So, inertia and thus
resistance are not negative concepts in general, since change is not inherently beneficial
for organizations. Even more, resistance could show change managers certain aspects
that are not properly considered in the change process (Waddell and Sohal, 1998).Our
research follows Rumelt (1995), and divides the sources of resistance into five groups.
We have added certain sources of resistance to Rumelt’s proposal, so we have also
altered the names of the categories in order to include the new topics.Although Rumelt
(1995) insists that inertia is a problem in the strategy formulation stage as well as in
the implementation one, it does not distinguish the five groups of sources of inertia
according to both stages. We have tried to make this distinction and suggest that the
first, second and third group are sources of resistance that appear during the
formulation stage, because they deal with factors that complicate the
situation’sanalysis and the evaluation of the various change alternatives. Groups four
and five correspond to the implementation stage, since they are an obstacle once the
change strategy is already formulated.

Sources of Resistance and Inertia in the Formulation Stage

Regarding the first group of sources of resistance, change starts with the perception of
its need, so a wrong initial perception is the first barrier to change. We call this first
group ‘distorted perception, interpretation barriers and vague strategic priorities’. It
includes:
(a) myopia, or inability of the company to look into the future
6with clarity (Barr et al., 1992; Krüger, 1996; Rumelt, 1995);
(b) denial or refusal to accept any information that is not expected or desired (Barr et
al., 1992; Rumelt, 1995;Starbuck et al., 1978);
(c) perpetuation of ideas, meaning the tendency to go on with thepresent thoughts
although the situation has changed (Barr et al., 1992; Krüger, 1996;Rumelt, 1995;
Zeffane, 1996);
(d) implicit assumptions, which are not discussed due to its implicit character and
therefore distort reality (Starbuck, Greve and Hedberg, 1978);
(e) communication barriers, that lead to information distortion or
misinterpretations(Hutt et al., 1995); and
(f) organizational silence, which limits the information flow with individuals who do
not express their thoughts, meaning that decisions are made without all the necessary
information (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Nemeth, 1997).
The second main group of sources of resistance deals with a low motivation for change.
We have identified five fundamental sources:
(a) direct costs of change(Rumelt, 1995);
(b) cannibalization costs, that is to say, change that brings success to a product but at
the same time brings losses to others, so it requires some sort of sacrifice(Rumelt,
1995); (
(c) cross subsidy comforts, because the need for a change is compensated through the
high rents obtained without change with another different factor, so that there is no
real motivation for change (Rumelt, 1995);
(d) past failures, which leave a pessimistic image for future changes (Lorenzo, 2000);
and
(e) different interests among employees and management, or lack of motivation of
employees who value change results less than managers value them (Waddell and
Sohal, 1998).The lack of a creative response is the third set of sources of resistance.
There are three main reasons that diminish the creativeness in the search for
appropriate change strategies:
(f) fast and complex environmental changes, which do not allow a proper situation
analysis (Ansoff, 1990; Rumelt, 1995);
(g) reactive mind-set, resignation, or tendency to believe that obstacles are inevitable
(Rumelt, 1995); and
(h) inadequate strategic vision or lack of clear commitment of top management to
changes (Rumelt,1995; Waddell and Sohal, 1998)

Sources of Resistance and Inertia in the Implementation Stage

Implementation is the critical step between the decision to change and the regular use
of it at the organization (Klein and Sorra, 1996). In this stage, two more resistance
groups can be found. The first of them deals with political and cultural deadlocks to
change. It consists of:
(a) implementation climate and relation between change values and organizational
values, considering that a strong implementation climate when the values’ relation is
negative will result in resistance and opposition to change (Klein and Sorra, 1996;
Schalk et al., 1998);
(b) departmental politics or resistance from those departments that will suffer with the
change implementation (Beerand Eisenstat, 1996; Beer et al., 1990; Rumelt, 1995);
(c) incommensurable beliefs, or strong and definitive disagreement among groups
about the nature of the problem and its consequent alternative solutions (Klein and
Sorra, 1996; Rumelt, 1995; Zeffane,1996);
(d) deep rooted values and emotional loyalty (Krüger, 1996; Nemeth, 1997;Strebel,
1994); and
(e) forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes (Lawrence,1954; Schalk et al.,
1998).Last but not least, a set of five sources of resistance with different characteristics
have been bunched together around the last group of sources of resistance:
(a)leadership inaction, sometimes because leaders are afraid of uncertainty, sometimes
for fear of changing the status quo (Beer and Eisenstat, 1996; Burdett, 1999; Hutt et
al.,1995; Kanter, 1989; Krüger, 1996; Maurer, 1996; Rumelt, 1995); (b) embedded
routines(Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Rumelt, 1995; Starbuck et al., 1978);
(c) collective action problems, specially dealing with the difficulty to decide who is
going to move first to8how to deal with free-riders (Rumelt, 1995);
(d) lack of the necessary capabilities to implement change – capabilities gap – (Rumelt,
1995); and
(e) cynicism (Maurer, 1996; Reichers, Wanous and Austin, 1997).After this theoretical
exposition, we will tackle the objectives of our empirical research. We will start with
the methodology of our research and the description of our sample. Then, we will check
if the sources of resistance resulting from the literature review agree with the ones
observed in business practice. Finally, we will analyze the relationship between both
types of changes described in the theoretical framework and the sources of resistance
within each of them
SWOT ANALYSIS
STRENGTH
PURCHASING POWER: An increasing number of Indian consumers are ascending
the economic pyramid to form an emerging middle class.

In 2010, there were about 470 million people in the emerging middle class. As per
PwC estimate, this segment will grow to 570 million by 2021.

B. POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS: India’s working population is expected to

be 117 million over the next decade as compared to China’s four million. In the
following decade, from 2020, the former will add 98 million to its workforce, while
China will contract 51 million.

WEAKNESS

POOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Infrastructure will play an important role in deciding how this sector will evolve and
retailers will manage the supply chain. Due to poor infrastructure, multiplicity of
taxes, high cost of fuel, dependence largely on the road transportation, etc., logistics
still remains a high percentage of the cost of a product, in certain cases going beyond
15 to 20%.

OPPORTUNITY

Retailers in India have been experimenting to arrive at a successful formula, but there
is no ‘one size fits all’ strategy. The market is still undergoing a lot of changes, both
from the regulatory as well as demand side.

A. DIGITAL STRATEGY: Going digital is not only about e-commerce but the way
interaction with employee and customer engagement and investment in
technology. Customers are demanding an improved experience in terms of how to
search, browse products and conduct transactions online. Organizations need to
 engage with customers differently, in terms of using a range of channels. Social
media is also becoming a popular tool for consumers to educate about products
and compare brands. For retail companies it is important to define how social
media can support sales activities throughout the various channels, especially e-
commerce. Social media analytics is the focus area for retailers.

THREATS

Retail space and rentals are key considerations in multi-brand retail and getting a
feasible rate in the desired location is important. There retailers who have exited
cities because of the high rentals that put more pressure on profitability.

B. HUMAN CAPITAL: With attrition still very high in the industry, human capital
management continues to remain one of the top three agenda points for the retailer.
The attrition in the industry can be anywhere between 20 and 25% in non-food and
grocery business to as high as 60% in the food and grocery segment.

C. SHOPPING CULTURE: ØShopping culture has not developed in India as yet.

Even now malls are just a place to hang around with family and friends and largely
confined to window-shopping
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

There are three kinds of research methods: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory
(Saunders et al, 2003). The study aims to analyse and describe changes at Shivas
Departmental pvt ltd Delhi ,. Emphasis is made to evaluate the change, which is
transformation from the employees’ perspective. In order to know what kind of
consequences and reflections from employees can be obtained from such a process of
transformation, a combination of exploratory, descriptive and explanatory approach
will be adopted.

Qualitative methods will be conducted in my study. A more personal opinion from

employees will give a better understanding of the actual situations. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with some of the employees’ process in order to get more
direct reflections about their feelings. The qualitative approach gives the advantage of
having a closer relationship and relaxed atmosphere, plus a more open discussion
(Raluca, 2010). By conducting interviews, it is possible to get an overall picture of the
organization about the organizational change and its actual influences on the HR work.

A survey was also conducted and has been useful in this study since it is a great way
of collecting data from a larger sample. However, this study focuses on the individual
reflections from specific changes, which is hard to gather data and find right persons.

A meeting was set up with the HR manager. He introduced the change situations these
help me to formulate research questions as well. He settled possible contact persons
that would be suitable for the interview during the preparation phase.
There are two sorts of data that can be collected in a research: primary data and

secondary data. Saunder et.al. (2003) State that whatever sources the research choose,
they have to be aware of their weaknesses and strengths. Weidersheim-Paul and
Eriksson (1997) define primary data as “data that a person gathers on his/her own with
a specific purpose in mind” and secondary data as “data that has already been gathered
by other researchers with different purposes in mind”.

In my paper, I used both primary data and secondary data.

The primary data consists of interviews and questionnaires.

The secondary data consists of the company’s internal sources of communication and
published articles, such as, intranet, company newspaper and meeting materials,
presentations, annual reports, etc.

I collected the secondary data first to analyze the company’s situation, understand the
problem such as, HR transformation process, consequences, employees’ resistance to
change, how do they deal with these factors, did they just let it go or try to
communicate, what kind of communication has been used during HR transformation.
Additional information was collected from articles, scholars or other database in order
to get as much information to conduct the study.

The data was then analysed via discourse analysis, which is a close and systematic
reading of how the participants use language when talking about organizational change
and management (Mumby 1988; Cordeiro-Nilsson 2009). In this case, the word
’discourse’ not only refers to the language in use, but it is also seen as a process, which
is socially situated. As Candlin (1997:ix) said, ”However...we may go on to discuss the
constructive and dynamic role of either spoken or written discourse in structuring areas
of knowledge and the social and institutional practices which are associated with them.
In this sense, discourse is a means of talking and writing about and acting upon worlds,
a means which both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices within
these worlds, and in so doing both reproduces and constructs afresh particular social-
discursive practices, constrained or encouraged by more macro movements in the over-
arching social formation.” With the case study, the data analysis based on interviews
among HR employees and the author analysed it from an objective point of view, since
different respondents have various opinions and perceptions of the phenomenon. As
for the questionnaire, this method acts as a great source or a facility for the collection
of the data from the diverse and scattered group of people. A questionnaire consists of
a variety of the questions printed or typed in a definite order on a form – which are
mailed further to the respondents. The respondent has to answer these questions on his
own. The main function or the objective of the questionnaire is to collect data from the
respondents, who are generally scattered in a vast diverse area. This method also helps
in the collection of reliable and dependable data. According to Bogardus, “a
questionnaire is a list of the questions sent to a number of persons to answer. It secures
the standardized results that can be tabulated and also treated statistically.”
 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION29

Do you support changes

taking place in SHIVAS?

5%0%

14%

36%
strongly support
support
neutral
against changes
does not support
45% INTERPRETATION:

When the employees were

asked if they support changes taking place in SHIVAS, majority of the employees gave
a positive response that was 45% ( 15 employees out of 32) Support whereas 36% of
the employees (12 out of 32) Strongly Support the transformation. Rest 14% were
neutral. Furthermore, remaining 5% were against the changes.
Positive impact of
changes on the
organisational
profitability

strongly agree agree

0%
neutral disagree
strongly disagree
14% 10%

38%
38%

INTERPRETATION:

Employees were asked about the positive impact of the subsequent changes on the
organizational profitability, where 38% (13 out of 32) with majority has shown 'agree'
and 'neutral' opinion individually. 14% (3 out of 32) of the employees were disagree
and 10% (3 out of 32) in lesser proportion were strongly agree about the fact of the
positive impact. None of them were strongly disagree about the same.
Observed resistance
to change by
employees

often not much never sometimes

32%
45%

18%

5%

INTERPRETATION:

The employees were asked if they observed resistance to change in organization the
following responses were received : 45%(15 out of 32) of sometimes, 32%(11 out of
32) of often, 18%(5 out of 32) of not much, and 5%(1 out of 32) of never.
Employees productivity
improved after
implementatation of
changes

excellent above average average

5%
below average 9% 9%
unsatisfactory

32%
45%

INTERPRETATION:

When the employees were asked about the measure of their improved productivity
after any implemented change, most of them showed the 'above average '
proportionality in the scale which is 45% ( 14 out of 32) of the employees and then
32% (10 out of 32) of the employees with the 'average' proportion. 9% of the employees
also showed the 'excellent' measure of the improved productivity. Rest of the
employees had shown 'below average'& 'unsatisfactory' result.
 Employees
participation in
Implementing changes

0%

20%
25%

20%

35%

strongly agree agree neutral

disagree strongly disagree

INTERPRETATION:

Employees were also asked about their Participation in implementing changes taking
place in Shivas to which the response received was diversified. Where 35% of the
employees (12 out of 32) were neutral.
 Cope with the changes

0%

seek support avoid the change acknowledge the change others

23%

0%

77%

INTERPRETATION:

When employees were asked about how they cope with the certain changes taking
place in Shivas 'Acknowledge the change and take actions' showed the highest
proportion with 77%, among the other given choices.
Employees' opinion is
sought during planned
change

5%

9%

32%
27% strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
27%

INTERPRETATION:

When employees were asked whether their opinion is sought or not during any planned
change, 32% (11 out of 32) with a bit higher proportion were agree, than the 27% which
has shown disagree and neutral outlook towards the same (16 out of 32 in total).
Remaining 5% (2 out of 32) and 9 %( 3 out of 32) were interpreted strongly agree and
strongly disagree respectively
 Resistance to change is caused by

3%

misunderstanding fear of the unknown lack of competence

poor communication 11%not being consulted others
23%

29%

26%

8%

INTERPRETATION:

Analyzing on causes of the resistance to change, employees' inclinations were not

shown with higher deviations. 29% (10 out of 32) believed that due to poor
communication and 23% (7 out of 32) reflected that due to misunderstanding they resist
change, 26% (8 out of 32)of the employees possess resistance due to fear of the
unknown ,11% (4 out of 32)of the employees were not being consulted that's why they
possess resistance and remaining 8% (2 out of 32)and 3% (1 out of 32) had the opinion
that lack of competence and other signified factors makes the causes of resistance to
change respectively.
FINDING AND CONCLUSION

When employees were asked on the types of changes SHIVAS emphasis more on, 31%
of the employees think it’s Process oriented and 22% of them inclined towards the
change of policies and legal agreements and remaining changes like Mission and
strategical, Organizational, people oriented and technological changes has been
shown up with much lesser proportion which is 12.5%, 15.5%, 6% and 19%
respectively.

Measuring the level of awareness employees have about the changes taking place in
SHIVAS, majority of the responses shown were in favour of the level of satisfaction
with 53% in proportion.

While interpreting that the subsequent changes taking place in SHIVAS where
purposeful and necessary, the results (80% of the employees) proved that the
employees belief towards the nature of the effectiveness of the changes were in the
favour of the positive impact i.e., the changes were purposeful and necessary.

The employees were also asked whether they are allowed provide feedback regarding
any implemented change or not, majority of the proportion i.e., 38% of the
employees, showed that they provide it when required.

While analyzing about the level of improvement in the employees' skills, the results
proved that the level had a neutral effect.

Interpreting and analyzing about the solution to prevent the harmful effect of
resistance to change, employees' prioritized ' Effective communication' and
'participation and motivation' with the higher variance and 'Training' and 'positive
motivation' with a bit lower primacy. The 'other tools' were also specified and being
mentioned particularly by other employees.
CONCLUSION

The study aimed to investigate the consequences of transformation and the impact on
individuals with a single case study at SHIVAS LTD., Delhi. The study was designed
to conduct questionnaire method as data collection method and empirical findings were
based on company’s material and the responses received from the questionnaires.

The study confirms similar findings that employees have different levels of resistance
based on the information and education they get before change happens from
management team. It is common that different people have different opinions based on
their own values and personalities, but it is obvious that employee resistance can lead
to the failure of the change. Vital tools to lower employee resistance can be more
employee involvement and using effective communication. Negative feelings can be
recognized when the goal is not fulfilled, such as frustration and confusion. Whether
employees react to change negatively or positively depend on their own personality,
perceptions as the study shows, and to what extent it affects their daily work varies in
each individual. According to the employees, to cope with the changes that occurs in
the organization employees acknowledge the change, seek support and take actions
accordingly. The study also reflects that employee resistance has connections with
motivational problems.

The management team should motive their employees alongside with the change
process, in case they become passive and not engaged with the active behavior. These
theories can have a good explanation about how employees’ daily work has been
affected by resistance to change. Employees at SHIVAS LTD., Delhi react to change
differently and resistance exists in the people that are not engaged with the change.
They did not get the clear view of why the change happens, but they spent time to
understand their new roles and the new structure. They want to have values in their
work life and have a contribution to the organization. If the change is too fast and they
do not have enough time to prepare for it, it would not turn into a good result.
Employees at SHIVAS Ltd. believed that resistance to change is caused by fear of the
unknown, lack of competence and poor communication. To overcome the resistance
employees believed that proper communication, training, positive motivation, and
participation of the employees as well as the managers should be there. The
transformation at SHIVAS LTD., Delhi got employees resistance from different
perspectives but everyone in the change process tried to let the negative emotions go
and work in a new more efficient and flexible way in order to reach the company’s
goal, which is good for the company.

The use of communication is discussed in the study. There are problems with the
communication during the changes taking place and the influence on individuals.
Employees care about the involvement and information during the change process. The
implemented change could cause negative resistance and emotions, such as worries
and anxiety, insecurity about the job status among employees, which may create bad
working environmentand affect efficiency. The unclear information can also be the
reason why employees are dissatisfied with the ongoing change project and thus rumors
and gossips are spread among employees, which lead to a negative impact on each
individual. It is crucial for managers to step out of their offices and listen to their
employees’ opinions in order to nurture a better relationship and collaboration with
them. Furthermore, employees need information about changes at the earliest stage in
order to prepare themselves. By listening to employees’ opinions before a decision
taken, employees will feel more involved in the change process and commit to the
implemented change process.
Limitations also exist in the study due to the fact that this is a single case study with a
certain organization. It might be difficult to say the result can be applied to all
organizations in different places. The culture differences may also lead to different
results. Moreover, I did not have enough time to interview more people from the
management level in order to get a better view from a more strategic angle. Lastly, the
interview questions were based on researcher’s own interpretation where subjectivity
should be part of the things that should be aware of.
SUGGESTIONS AND RECOGNITION
To prevent the harmful effects of resistance to change, we propose a model for leaders
with five pillars. Change team has several options to manage resistance to change in a
positive way.

Training

Participation &
Efficient
Involvement of
Communication
Managers

Participation &
Positive
Involvement of
Motivation
Employees
The first solution is the training of employees involved in making the employees
familiar with the change. The goal is to educate people about the change before it is
implemented, and to help them understand the logic and necessity of the process of
change. This approach is most effective when implementing radical changes in the
organization, such as the introduction of the latest IT systems and organizational
culture change. The training should be conducted by external consultants, and courses
must be attended by both performers and organization managers. Basically, as you are
running more information about the change, you achieve a higher degree of awareness
of it, increases the understanding of the need to change, and through the support of the
organization (information meetings, training, coaching, mentoring, etc.), it can be
achieved greater employee involvement and acceptance of the implemented changes,
initially at the individual level, then across the whole organization.

The second solution is effective and active communication. Clear, transparent and
honest communication, regarding the need for change and its impact is essential to the
success of the initiative. Also, the manager responsible for communication must have
sufficient authority in the organization. It is advantageous that the communication
process be focused more on the need to change and less on the details of
implementation, so that people don’t lose sight of the main objective during the
implementation of the process. Once fear about what will follow is reduced, the change
will be more easily accepted within the organization. If the change adversely affects
employees, this must be communicated clearly and honestly from the beginning, thus
avoiding rumors and generating respect and trust towards leaders. Leaders must work
to understand how the changes will affect the roles of employees and communicate
clearly. Clear planning is essential for employee adoption and success of the
implemented change.
Positive and negative motivation involves providing financial incentives to those who
have helped to achieve the goals of the transformation. Positive motivation, by many
satisfactions it generate, contribute to the establishment of a high moral and personal
development of employees, at shaping a good organizational climate for work and high
performance organization. In other cases, exist the situation in which managers’ offers
incentives to those who may oppose change. This compensations are managed to
provide special benefits in exchange for the safety of that changes will not be blocked.
This solution is good when we are dealing with a person or group of persons who lose
something valuable on change. Often, those who resist are threatened by a variety of
undesirable consequences if they not comply change. This situation (compensations)
appears in crisis situation, when speed is essential, as a last solution to manage the
severe consequences of failure to adapt.

The participation and involvement of employees is about obtaining employee support

and understanding the collective effort needed to make managerial reengineering.
People tend to support initiatives in which they are directly involved and have their
own contribution; their unique approaches from different angles, first-hand
information and professional experience add value to the strategic structure of the
project and bring things in concrete, feasible way. Thus, it succeeds a potential
directions of strategic action, with the advantage that there is already agreement to
employees. This type of involvement has a greater impact on change, resulting from
the fact that employees participate with proposals and implement effective solutions,
which is an important advantage because the process of change benefit from the
experience, commitment and creativity of the participants.
Typically, organizational change requires more resources (financial, human,
technological), time and leadership, which can only be achieved by involving the
general manager or some members of the Board of Directors. Leaders assume personal
responsibility for actions and circumstances that led to strained relations work, thus
gaining the respect of employees. Too many leaders focus too much on management
and too little on leadership.Companies should abandon the old stereotype when talking
about changes. The changes are not always negative, according to the findings of this
study. Regarding the existing implemented HR transformation project, a few
implications on the project and suggestions regarding HR transformation on how to
close down this process and what can be done will be given in this part.

This research study provides an understanding on sources of resistance to change in an

organization. During implementation of any change, employees of all types are likely
toresist change on some level. Everyone from front-line, entry-level employees to
senior managementhave their own motivations, fears and things that make them tick.
By identifying the sources ofresistance and building an organizational change
management plan, we can addresses the various human elements that contribute to
resistance. Finding solutions in terms of employee resistance to change is seen as an
essential process for an organization implementing transformations in order to achieve
expected results, to meet flexible business environments that are becoming
increasingly more dynamic. The change of mentality, attitude and behavior, to allow
fundamental rethinking and redesigning business activities, establishment of structures
and new working relationships in orderto maximize organizational efficiency, cannot
be created without the full involvement of employees. Throughout each phase of the
change, leaders and managers must communicate consistently to manage change and
adjust expectations.

Analyzing the existent literature and the answers of 32 employees of Shivas Ltd., we
conclude that resistance to change is the greatest challenge of management.
Trainingand alongside communication are some of the top factors that have led to a
successful organizational transformation. It requires that all changes be clearly
communicated to anyone involved, no matter how unimportant it may seem position
in the organization. Thus, all will feel "part" component of change and will assume
responsibilities more active. While transformation, the focus should be on people and
processes.
 REFERENCES

Albert F. B. (2002). Employee Resistance to Organizational Change.

http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Bolognese721.html (Accessed on: 4
January 2014).

Ackar, N. (2013). A change Seldom Comes Alone, neither Does the Feelings Attached
to Them: A study about employee personal experiences during a multiple change
implementation. Master thesis. University of Gothenburg.

Armentrout, B.M. (1996). Have your plans for change had a change of plan? , HR
Focus. 73 (1).

Baker, S. L. (1989). Managing resistance to change. Library Trends, 38 (1), 53--61.

Coch, L. & French. J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to Change. Human Relations. 1

(4), 512-532.

Elving, W.J.L. (2005). Communication and organizational change, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 10 (2), 129-138.

Folger, R. &Skarlieki, D.P. (1999). Unfairness and Rsistance to Change: Hardship as

Mistreatment, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 35-50.