DIGITAL ASSIGNMENT - 1

“ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE & DEVELOPMENT”

(BMT-2003)

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

Prof Anil Verma Muhammad Yasir K

VIT Business School 19BBA0041
Vellore Institute of Technology F1-SLOT
Vellore 15/09/2021
Question: Why did middle managers show resistance to team building
approach of organisation development

Answer: Middle managers show resistance to team building approach of

organisation development because

 Managers are clearly more concerned about the organization's well-being than
employees. As a result of the above-mentioned statement from a manager, the group
of managers is truly concerned about employing high-priced consultants for training
when they are capable of doing the team-building work within the organisation.

 People are less likely to embrace organisational changes if they are not kept informed
about the reasons and procedures involved. When such changes are made without the
knowledge of the managers, the organisation will almost certainly meet opposition.
Managers may feel underappreciated or left out. This might lead to a significant loss
of faith in the leadership of the organisation.Top management did not make an effort
to adequately communicate the change; it was told via a circular; while the procedures
were briefly stated, the reason for employing an external consultant was not revealed.
Even the upper management seems unconcerned by the opinions of the middle
managers.

 The managers collectively believe that their authority and power are being questioned.
They believe the upper management believes the managers are unqualified to teach
and supervise personnel, so they engaged an outside consultant to help them. As a
result, they have the impression that they are being replaced and that their position is
being eroded. As a result, they are hesitant to adapt and accept instruction from an
outside expert.
 In an organisation, a climate of mistrust and organisational politics are essentially
unavoidable. In this scenario, top management does not appear to believe in middle
managers, so they hire an external consultant; it may or may not be true that the
managers lack team-building abilities; but, top management has made the decision to
hire an outside consultant for training. This may not be in managers' best interests; as
a result, they have lost faith in top management and are hesitant to change.

 Previous experiences: when a similar circumstance arose during sensitivity training

and things went terribly, people began abusing each other.As a result, the managers
reasoned that hiring an outsider, who might not get the job done, would be a good
idea. The pulse of the organisation, its culture, and its behaviour would become
ineffectual. can, as in the past, have bad consequences. As a result, they were adamant
that they would not accept a compromise.

 Believing that better team training isn't necessary in and of itself: The managers
believe that the organisation is already effective and that it has a solid team-building
strategy in place. As a result, the training would be pointless. Also, since providing
team building training is so important, managers believe they are knowledgeable
enough to update and deliver updated team building training to their personnel
without the need for an external consultant.

Question: Discuss the type of resistance exhibited in the case.

Answer: Here is the type of resistance that exhibited in the case,

 We can see several types of resistance from the group of managers in the case study.
Individual opposition is less common than organisational resistance. It's because
there's a phenomenon known as group inertia. The Groups' Inertia : Groups may resist
change because, like people, they adhere to a set of behavioural patterns, norms, or
 culture, and as a result, they are resistant to change that can disrupt their established
ways and techniques. As a result, the managers exhibit a similar pattern of conduct
and are hesitant to hire an outside consultant. Furthermore, when the managers are
observed closely, the main underlying cause of their resistance is the "threat to their
competence." According to the circular, the training includes domains such as "issue
sensing," "evaluating differences," "providing and receiving feedback," "building
interactive skills," and "follow-up actions." But, in order to manage effectively, a
manager must meet all of these qualities. When the management saw this, they were
threatened that the corporation was replacing their knowledge with consultants, so
they fought back hard. Furthermore, they must have believed that there was no point
in learning what they already knew. Individual and organisational forms of resistance
can be found in this scenario. Both subliminal and explicit forms of resistance exist.

 The organisation is experiencing middle-level pushback. Managers are frequently the

change agents that assist employees in adapting to the change. The intermediate
managers, on the other hand, are hesitant to accept the adjustment in this scenario. As
a result, it is now up to top management to persuade them and help them through the
process, so that later on, these managers will be capable of guiding other employees to
adopt the change.

CONCLUSION: Overall, we can see that all of these arguments are a combination of
rational and psychological as well as sociological resistance. To deal with this, top
management like a Corporate Personnel Director must listen to manager ideas, analyse
them, and make a decision even if a change has been achieved despite manager resistance
to change. Despite the fact that resistance to change is virtually always there, it is
possible to overcome it. In addition, the management must work to assist its middle
managers and staff in adapting to new situations and facilitating the introduction of new
ways of working.