1

Challenges/Barriers of Organisational Change

~rgai:ational change is about giving up current practices iri favor of something new. Change could be
ann or emergent. In . corporate organizations, change is primarily planned. Change could be
t,::e:~ntal _or transfo~atto!l~l: Dunford, Dunphy, and Stllce (1990) argue that incremental change is

) . . ited where there is no cnttcal need fol' change, but where there is ii need for minor modifications or
i:provements. Typically, organizations that opt for incremental change fit with their ~viromnent;
t erefore ~ey do not need rapid changes to guarantee continued operation or existence. As for
transformatto~al ch~ge; D~~ord et al. argued that organiz~tions opt for this change strategy ·because
th
ey are not m_ fit with their m!ern~l and external enviro~ent; therefore, urgent action is required to
en~ure th~ s_urvivaI of the organization. An example ,of tran.sformational change would ~e reengineering
~here existing processes, structures, and workflow are dismantled and new ones erected. Continuous
change, on the other hand, is based ori existing processes, structures and procedures (Bigelow & Arndt,
2005).

O~ganizational change involves everyone in the organization. It requires the alignment of individual goals
with the organizational goals. Employees must buy into the change initiative for it to work. However,
companies often focus more attention on the more predictable components of the equation, such as
financials, operations and technology, with little or no consideration on what Timothy J. Galpin (1996)
call the "soft side" of change-the human factor. Bovey and Hede (2001) observed that management is
prim~u~eo~cupied with the sci~ntific aspects of chan~e and tends to see the hwnan componenf of
change, which is the main thrust of successful change initiative, as irrelevant or secondary. I posit that the
inability of management to recognize, understand, and bridge the divergent goals of the organization and
its employeesis manifested in the form of barriers to change initiates undertaken by organizations.

Why Do These Barriers Exist?

The overemphasis by companies on the more predictable and controllable factors in a planned change
initiative could be attributed to the western intellectual and epistemological traditions of science,
research, and theories. Humans are very complex beings; attempts to predict their behavior would have to
address behaviours, beliefs, and values. Nevertheless, without the support of the human component,
change would not happen. It can be said further that without the human element, organization would
cease to exist.

The barriers to change come from three sources: (a) the organization that is targeted for change, (b) the
change to be initiated, and (c) the employees affected (Conner, 1998). The following represent potential
reasons for the existence of barriers to change:

Resistance to change
People do not resist change itself, but the fallout from change (Conner, 1998). W~d~ell and Sohal (199_8)
argue that "people. do not resist chan~e_ per se, i:~the!_ th~y resist the uncert~tl~ an~ ~e potential
outcomes that cliange can cause." People are afraid that they may not be able to cop~ m the new
environment because they may have to learn new technology or acquire different sets of skills to be able
to do their jobs in the changed environment.

Fear of venturing in to unfamiliar territory · . ..

Some of these fears arise due to lack of communication and skills. What employees enVIsion from the
proposed change is not congruent with what management sees.

Management is concerned that there may not be enough resources to handle th~ outcome from
change . . . . fr 'ddl . th
This may be a sign that the senior management did not seek or consider mput om mi e mang~ m e
planned change initiative. McCarthy (2004) posits that, leaders should first work on developmg and
 'ti Cl)
°"·
c:::
0rJl
·"',.gtdo
0 '"j"
... rJl '"' t-.
2 - · ... -c, Cl)
0 0 0 C:::
.=
8o..e' -:3!
S.'ij gJ
supporting the ~anagers who report to them in their own personal evolution and then assist them in di\~
the same for their teams." rn

nd
Th_e t_e e~cy by management to mandate change
This ts typical of bureaucratic organizations. The premise is that mana~ement knows be~er; therefore,
~ploye~s should take orders without questioning. Deci~ions are .made at th~ to~·
th
~? m mo st cases,
1
w• ~ut mput from the bottom. This philosophy has roots in the ~lassical and sc1ent~fic mana~em~t
th00 st
n s (Mor?an, 1989). According to Morgan, the view of Frederick Taylor, the. architect of .gci_enttfic
management, ts ~at management should be responsible for plarming and designing work while the
workers shou!d he responsible for getting the actual work done. . ..
C?mpany-wide unde.rtakmg__that does not take in to consideration the business units.Management
f~tls to reco~ize the different sub-cultures that exist within the corporate culture. There is a tendency for
different umts within a company to act as independent silos, without ·a common organizational goal
(Morgan, 1989).
lnfo~~a~on overload-giving people too much information to digest.Managers should lead the way in
a fa~1~1tattve role to see through the process. ·
Dec1S1ons based on the wrong cultural assumptions. Understanding the organizational culture and sub-
cultures are prerequisite to anticipating and mitigating the barriers to planned change.
Push for instant success by management. Organization~! change does not happen instantly;
management should set realistic timelines and specific target dates to monitor progress, and make
alterations if needed.
Communicating change by memo without any discussions and no ownership.This is the epitome of
the command and control structure typical of hierarchical organizations.
Satisfaction with status quo.Management fails to think outside the box or is unable to see developments
in the business environment. Marketers often see it as management failure to read the market trends and
changing consumer tastes and preferences.
Reliance on past glory-resting on your laurels.A specific example is the US big three auto makers'
failure to ·a nticipate the for sro.~I, .fuel-efficient cars in the 1970s, which led to the ~c!l?.anese
invasion and capture of US market for small, fuel-effidenf cais (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). -,
Inadequate reward systems. Due to competitive forces, companies are asking their employees to do
more with less. This is often not well received by the employees, who demand better reward for their
sacrifices. When employees are asked to make financial concessions for improved profitability of the
company, they want to know what's in it for them.
Politics, as opposed to what good for the organization. Instead of cooperation, there is competition
between different units and managers for resource allocation, recognition, and promotion.
A culture that supports criticism rather than seeks solutions. It is easier to point fingers, so to speak,
than to find solutions to problems. Perhaps the rationale is that solutions to problems are not guaranteed
to work; therefore, management may be feverishly jumping on solutions that may just lead to more finger
pointing. ·
Not having the right management talent for the change process. On the contrary, Jon Griffith (2002)
argues that it is the search for a change management solution-"in the form of tailor-made programmes,
specific actions, or sets of skills (supported by an emerging industry of approaches, methodologies and
technologies)" (p. 297) that can be blamed for the failure of many change management initiatives. He
writes, "change management fails, not because people pick and choose the wrong approaches, methods
and technologies, but because the choices are illusory: there can be no such thing as successful change
management programmes, actions or skills. In short, the whole industry is a fraud" (p. 297). His rationale
is that organizational change management, just like individual change management, cannot guarantee the
certainty of a desired outcome. In summary, what worked for one firm may ?ot work for another firm,
even if both firms are in the same industry. In essence, each firm has to expenment to find out what will
work for its unique situation. ·
The relationship between management and employee is adversarial. The classical management
practice found in most organizations is not unconnected with the adversarial relationship between
management and employee.
 e propo~ed ch 3
seen · · ange ch n
ano IS the "ifI't' a enges establi h
Prop ed snot hr k s ed org · · · · th·s
the ~s chan~e is 'perceiv o e, don't fi~ it" mentalit~IZational norms and values. The barrier in 1
~er-loser per . ed as beneficial to one Y . . 1·s.
Perceived lo ception. party and detrimental to tlie other party. Again, thtS
. ss of contr I
resources .to deal . . o and influence Man . the
would dr . with the change initi t' •. . agement is not t:t:ained and lacks; experience. and •
would ag Its feet in supporting and ~;;e. and outcomes ...~e~ -f~ced with thi.ssitnatjon~ ~anjlgeill~t
r . ~ork. They are afraid of a · di~g. th e change m1tiatI~e:because they do not behev~ that_ it
ehnqu1sh power and authority. P wer shift, therefore, they resist any change ~at would make them ..
O
. I

The phil h · · . ·
osop Y of the bureaucr f · · • ·· · ·· ·
which is also known as the . a ic _orgaruzation, ~~ch is h~w i_nany organjzations. can be clas~ified ~.
d
difficult to ada t t h hierarchical or mecharustic organ1zat1on, has s~me definite shortcommgs. I! is
innovation but t~ aco c ~ge because of the in~exible organizational structure. It is not designed for
t d th comphsh set goals. The pracqce can lead to entrapment because workers are expected
. ey are told with~ut questioning. It does not encourage initiative beyond the defined boundary
igatt~n. Stat~ents ltke "I am only hired to do this ... " are common'. Inefficiency can result due to
ac of action. Semor management is often not aware of what is happening at the frontline. There is no
coherent understanding of organizational issues due to a high degree of specialization and
departmentalization.

Overcoming Barriers to Change

For a planned change initiative to be successful, management needs to understand what the
barriers to change are, why they exist, and how to overcome them. A sincere commitment from top
management is a prerequisite in a successfully planned change initiation. Top management has to make a
case for the long-term benefits. of the proposed change initiative to the company, to its employees, and for
themselves. The employees must believe and trust the word and actions of top management in this regard.
A number of indicators can be used to measure the level of top management commitment to the change
initiative, including: (a) Resources, time, and energy devoted to the change initiative; (b) An
understanding of why previous change initiative failed or worked; and (c) The ability to allow for
discovery of other sources of problems, as opposed to the becoming fixated to the original problem
definition. Management should be open-minded to understanding the interdependency within the
organizational social system.
.
Another important ingredient is an organizational culture that is flexible and adaptable. According
to Conner (1998), there are five major principles in the "resistance to change" pattern: (a) Understand the
underlying reasons for human resistance; (b) Perceive resistance as a natural and unavoidable response to
a perceived shift in expectation; (c) See resistance as corning from lack of ·ability or willingness; (d)
Accept without punishment an open expression of resistance and; (e) Understand that resistance to
positive change is like resistance to negative change and that both must be ~ticipated and managed.

A painful mistake often made by change agents is failure to consider cues from the organization or
industry environment they are about to change. One explanation for the lapse is detest for the status
quo and a conviction to effect change (Beer &Nohria, 2000). According to the writers, Hillary Clinton
and the US healthcare system serve as a good example. She was said to have so reviled the administration
of the US healthcare system that she sought nothing less than a total transformations. By this action, she
failed to take into considerations the views of powerful forces behind the US health system, and as result,
she failed in transforming the system.

An organization should be seen for what it is-a collection of individuals. Therefore, when an
organization is faced with negative feedback, it tends to act like an individual. Instead of understanding
and learning from the negative feedback, it sets up defensive mechanisms. This behavior perpetuates the
status quo, even when it is apparent to many that change is needed. "To make the change effort work, we

I
 4 ._, 'l)'

• • t,;"

ust team· how to capitalize on the positive human qualities, such as trust, idealism, and dedication, llt> •• f
:tigate the impact of those other natural human traits (suspicion, stubbornness, anxiety) that often ,
undermine the change process" (Brill & Worth, 1997, P· 57).

Management should seek ways to utilize resistance ins_t~ad of fighting it (Waddel_l &So~al, 1998).
They argued tliat traditionally, management perceives resistance.t<fchange as-ap adver:sary, as ~ome~ng
that must be conquered and eliminated in order for change to take place. This perception, they ~gued, is
not unconnected with the classic management theory that sees resistance in the same light. They purport
that this paradigm has not shifted, although recent research .su_ggosts utifization of resistance. -Still, the
conventional management practice on overcoming resistance to change is to force employees to
participate as a means to quell resistance. This approach does not recogiJ.ize r~sistarice as an ·import~t .
source of innovation that could be harnessed. Resistance should be perceived as a balancing instrument
between the forces for change and agitation for consistency and stability: . .

In mapping out actions to overcome resistance, Galpin (1996) classified the sources of resistance as
coming from the people "not knowing, not able, and not willing." For .the "not knowing," he recommends
that communication should address what, why, how, who, when, etc. For the "not able," he recommends
education, training, acquisition of new skills, management techniques, etc. For the "not willing," he
recommends establishing goals, measurements, coaching, reward and recognition systems, and
solicitation of feedback . He posits that the success in overcoming the resistance to change depends on
changing behaviour.

According to Morgan (1998), "quantum change can be achieved through a series of highly leveraged
15% initiatives that create new contexts in which radical new things can happen." Morgan states that
when Chrysler Corporation was near bankruptcy and needed turnaround, Iacoca had to implement highly
leveraged incremental changes which resulted in a quantum change. First he trimmed the workforce; he
convinced the remaining workers that he would return the company to profitability and save their jobs.
However, in order to do that, the workers would take a cut in pay. He convinced the federal government
to advance a $400 million loan, he changed the designing of Chrysler, he worked on improving quality
and the public perceptions about Chrysler products, and he waged an aggressive marketing campaign.
The lesson learned is to always identify, analyze, and understand the problems. By breaking the big
problem into smaller units, it would be easier to solve the big problem.

A successful change initiative requires th~ backing of senior management. With senior management
act~g as change agents, it is easier to recruit other managers and leaders as change agents. The goal is to
get everyone in the organization to sign on. Therefore, open and honest communication is very important
The benefits of the change initiative should be communicated to all the stakeholders. The aim is to get
everyone to·see the initiative as the only viable alternative, with significant benefits to all stakeholders.

The principles of strategic-focused organizations stress the importance of alignment and focus as the two
most important elements for creating breakthrough performance. The ability to pull together all the
resources-business units, executive teams, human resources, information technology, and budgets and
capital investments- to bear on the strategy is capable of taking the organization to new heights.
Feedback and learning in a strategy-focused organization not only comes from comparing actual
performance to the target~but should also include brainstorming on strategic issues that would enable the
organization to meet and exceed targeted goals. The benefit of this is that it would be easier to identify
where things went wrong and to recommend solutions that would get things back on track. These are
essential ingredients to a successful change process.

To create an intelligent organization requires overcoming many bureaucratic barriers. Management tends
to be myopic when issues that would question their decisions come up. They are deeply entrenched in
top-down commrmication: single-loop learning. An enabling environment in which change can thrive
?.
~-C?:.'
9-: ~- 5
~-
~i oe that encourages emergent or . . .
o
.
t pe O
? ) /f5,
h • . garu.zat10n · one · hi h .
811d be aviors can emerge, tncluding tho . th '
.
. .
m w c different possibilities a1ternauves,
se at can question the nonn. . =~,--~-=- ' _,------,.-

e keY fo~_ is to recognize that the ev _ . .

j/aiands~atweoecome more proactive in . ~r changmg and turbulent environment of our t11ne
• " the saying goes, input from those w'h recogruzmg and_~dapting to the changes in the environment.
r- 5 o are where th
intelligence. Information and decisions should
bb · · · · s
· . e ru er meets th~ road should serve as busines
up. Managers should learn not to . not only flow fr.om the top down but also, from the bott?~
rather, they should view it as . View a double-loop system as eroding or questioning ·their authonty,
an unportant source of infonnation. · . •

A
thrfocus
gh on.diff • · n a11•fi
the dynamics of culture wouId enable managers to ·examine and understand orgaruzat10_ 1
e
ou
. a · erent set ot le d · · ·
nses an prepare managers how to respond to organizational problems in an
envrronment
. of cultural .amb"tgu1ty
· . .It provides
· · ·which to study organization ·from the
a medium 'through
perspective of an outsider, an anthropologist. Through this process, it is possible to identify and
understand those subtle things that evade nonnal awareness. The challenge for management is to
understand.and a~preciate culture as a dynamic process of reality construction. How organizations choose
to manage meamng has both opportunities and drawbacks. A statement of an appropriate scheme of
shared realities and its acceptance by the stakeholders gives a chance for success. HP, 3M, and IBM ~e
good examples of what happens when an appropriate system of shared meaning is mixed with a cohesive
workforce. These organizations have, over the years, met and exceeded their goals.

In many of the S_!.Ccessfully p l ~ g e initiatives,.the following_gm be found: discontent with the

status quo; an obvious mandate; a feeling oTcoiruiiunal ownership; patience for change to happen;
consistency of purpose and vision; availability of adequate and appropriate capital; open and honest
communications; a well defined course of action; the willingness to connect; the willingness to execute;
adequate preparation (training); frequent communication about the vision; celebration of small successes;
a general understanding of the reason why change is needed and how actions are b~g undertaken;
addressing the fears present in every c~ange; an incorporated and communal leadership; the right
infomiation atthe right time in the change process; foreseeing points of resistance and being ready with
solutions; acquaintance with the multiple cultures; adequate reward systems and linking change strategy
to mission.

Conclusion

Overcoming resistance to change is about winning.- the heart of the employees. Management should work
on bringing individual and team goals in alignment with the organizational goals. Planned change is set in
•motion by top management, involving very few people initially, and then move to include middle level
management, and finally everyone in the organization. The process starts with one individual, then a few,
and then is disseminated to the rest of the organization (Galpin, 1996). All hands must be on deck.
Change is a continuous process. It takes some time to change behavior, beliefs, and values. While there
may not b~ ~y quic~ fixes, methodo~ogi~s, or strategies that guarantee a desired organizational change
outcome, m_s1~ts gamed from orgaruzatwns who have achieved success in organizational change are
worth exam1mng.