Resistance to change and its types. Resistance to organizational change

The bearers of resistance, as well as the bearers of change, are people. Moreover, as a rule, people are afraid not of the changes themselves, but of being changed. They are afraid to find themselves in a new situation that is not entirely clear to them, i.e. they are afraid of uncertainty. People are also afraid that change will entail personal losses. They are afraid that change is not necessary or desirable for their organization, that it will not reduce the number of problems but will only change them or, even worse, increase their number, or they are afraid that the benefits of the change will be appropriated by someone else. to others.

The concept helps to reveal the reasons why resistance to change occurs. homeostasis.

Homeostasis means the relative dynamic constancy of the composition and properties of the internal environment and the stability of the main functions of the system.

That is, people get used to a certain combination of external and internal conditions, even if this combination is not entirely comfortable for them. Therefore, they initially reject any changes that even pose a potential threat to homeostasis. One of the most important reasons for resistance to change is corporate culture. This is due to the fact that it, to one degree or another, performs a protective function for the organization, but at the same time, it hinders the implementation of changes.

The concept of homeostasis was originally used in biology. Currently, it is widely used in cybernetics, sociology, and organization theory.

Resistance to change can be caused by the ways in which change is implemented. For example, a rigid, authoritarian style of implementing changes, lack of information, etc., i.e. such methods of carrying out changes that practically do not involve the participation of ordinary employees in the process of their implementation. Of course, not all changes encounter resistance; some of them are initially perceived as positive, bringing improvements.

At the same time, as J. W. Newstrom notes, changes and the feeling of threat emanating from them can trigger a chain reaction effect, i.e. such a situation when a change directly related to an individual or a small group of people leads to direct or indirect reactions of many individuals due to the fact that they are all interested in one or another development of events. There are a lot here important role plays a role in the state of corporate culture.

Types of resistance to change

Under resistance to change refers to any actions of employees aimed at discrediting or opposing the implementation of changes in the organization. There are three main forms of resistance to change (Table 14.4).

Table 14.4. Forms of employee resistance to change

Forms of resistance	Factors of resistance
Logical, rational objections	Time required for adaptation. The possibility of creating undesirable conditions, such as downgrading. Economic costs of change. The technical feasibility of the changes is questionable
Psychological, emotional attitudes	Fear of the unknown. Inability to adapt to change. Antipathy towards management or other change agents.
Sociological factors, group interests	Political coalitions. Supporting group values. Local limited interests.

However, in addition to the above classification of forms of resistance according to their nature, there are other types of classifications. For example, individual resistance, group resistance, system resistance. Group resistance is most often manifested. One of the serious sources of resistance to change in an organization can be “small” groups.

The reason for possible resistance to change lies not so much in the organizational changes themselves, but in the consequences that, according to the members of the “small” group, can disrupt or destroy the group’s environment. Therefore, when carrying out organizational changes, it is necessary to analyze the interests and possible positions of representatives of “small” groups and, in connection with the results of such analysis, build a strategy and tactics for carrying out organizational changes.

Methods for overcoming resistance to change

Methods for overcoming resistance to change have a great influence on the extent to which management manages to eliminate resistance to change. The range of these methods is very wide - from soft (indirect influence on employees) to hard (forced), and they must be used taking into account the analysis of the current situation in a given organization, including taking into account the goals, objectives, timing and nature of changes, as well as taking into account the existing balance of power.

Changes must result in the establishment of the status quo in the organization. Therefore, it is very important not only to eliminate resistance to change, but also to ensure that the new state of affairs is not just formally established, but is accepted by members of the organization and becomes a reality.

Obviously, the more profound and radical changes are made, the higher the likelihood of resistance to them. In any organization there are always driving and restraining forces (Fig. 14.6).

Rice. 14.6. Resistance to change (K. Lewin's model "Analysis of the field of forces")

Kurt Lewin suggested that when there is resistance to change or innovation, it is necessary to analyze the factors working for and against that change. After making a list of all the factors that could promote cooperation, as well as all the factors that could cause resistance to change. The next step, according to K. Levin, is an analysis of the comparative strength of these factors. He established two ways to achieve acceptance of change. The first is to increase the pressure “for” change. No doubt you can think of many cases in which the pressure far outweighed the resistance. You can imagine the pressure of the positive aspects growing to the point where the negative attributes are eventually overcome. The only danger is that resistance factors are not completely eliminated. This creates enough pressure to deflect an impact - much like a compressed spring. Indeed, K. Levin called this dramatic outbreak of resistance, after the opposition was clearly suppressed, “the effect of a compressed spring.”

The second - in the presence of resistance is characterized by the following actions. You can back down if the majority of managers disagree. Resistance can be overcome, which can result in negative actions. Or you can decrease the resistance, which usually requires less effort.

K. Lewin's model is a theoretical abstraction and cannot be used in practice in its pure form.

It is important not only to analyze the field of forces, but to identify and classify individual employees of the organization in relation to the changes being carried out, whether they are their supporters or opponents. Analysis of potential forces of resistance allows us to identify individual members of the organization or those groups in the organization that will resist change and understand their motives. Attitude towards change can be viewed as a combination of two factors:

• acceptance or non-acceptance of the change;
• open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change.

The life cycle of a typical organizational transformation project. Most attempts to achieve organizational change end in failure. In the early 1990s. The results of two independent studies conducted by Arthur D. Little and McKinsey & Co. were published, which found that of the hundreds of total quality management (TQM) programs undertaken at various corporations, approximately two-thirds “ended up in failure because of no or expected results.” . One of the most recognized experts in the field of organizational change, John P. Kotter, reviewed hundreds of “company transformation” plans initiated by their management and found that more than half of the programs were already being phased out. silt initial stages. According to him, only a few events turn out to be very successful and about the same number end in complete failure. The rest are located “somewhere in the middle between these poles, but the center of gravity of the distribution clearly gravitates towards the pole of failure.” Reform programs are clearly not having much success in business. However, government, medical and educational organizations in this respect no better.

To understand the cause of failure, we need to learn to think like biologists, says Peter M . Senge [Senge, Kleiner, Roberts et al., 2003]. To begin with, it is worth recognizing that most programs for transforming organizations go through the same life cycle (Fig. 2.2).

Rice. 2.2. Life cycle diagram of most transformation processes

Source: [Senge, Kleiner, Roberts et al., 2003, p. 7].

Initially, a change program, be it total quality management, reengineering, learning organization development, or any other program, has some success, but then the reforms begin to stall. Perhaps everyone gives up at the same time, or the initial success is the fruit of the special diligence of a small group of true supporters of change. In any case, the upside potential remains unrealized - everything ends with a small surge 3 . Many new initiatives fizzle out simply because they initially prove fruitless. But what about those transformation programs of large corporations that demonstrate considerable productivity from the very beginning, but nevertheless fail? The ascending dotted line in Fig. 2.2 shows the potential for development of transformations. However, why does the energy of transformation fade?

Any biologist would immediately recognize this curve, since exactly the same curve describes the growth and “dying” of all living things, even those that mature and die “prematurely” 4 . The S-shaped growth curve is so characteristic of living organisms that it has received its own name: the sigmoid growth curve. The development of all living organisms, be it an elephant, a person or a beetle, follows the same pattern: at first it accelerates, then growth slows down, and when the organism matures, growth stops. The dynamics of development of any population are the same: accelerated growth, followed by a gradual slowdown. This pattern is repeated again and again, because it is controlled by the universal mechanism of development of living things. What lessons can be learned from understanding the biological mechanisms of growth for understanding the premature death of organizational reform programs?

3 For examples of organizational changes that were successful only after a long time, but initially ended in complete failure, see:.

4 Compare with the life cycle model of an organization by I. Adizes (see topic 1).

First of all, it can be assumed that most development strategies are doomed to failure from the outset. Leaders who encourage change in their organizations are like a gardener who stands over the sprouts and prays to them: “Come on, grow them!” Try your best! You should succeed!” But no gardener behaves so stupidly: if the seeds have no growth potential, then no amount of persuasion will help.

In addition, it follows that it is of particular importance for managers to understand the processes that slow down or stop change. A gardener must first be aware of what may be hindering plant growth and remove those hindrances. This is the same situation faced by leaders seeking to ensure the sustainability of large-scale change. Encouragements to “work more persistently, with passion and greater dedication” help little. Biology teaches us that to manage growth, we need to understand the processes that not only enhance and accelerate development, but also can inhibit change.

Serious initiatives to reform organizations are likely to encounter obstacles created by the existing management system. Managers, for example, support change programs only as long as they do not affect their positions. In addition, there are “non-discussable” issues that people prefer not to talk about; there is a deeply ingrained habit of focusing on symptoms and ignoring the deeper, systemic causes of problems. However, the real problem with organizational change programs is resistance to change, that the people who are supposed to be “changed” stubbornly refuse to do what the change initiators want them to do. As James O'Toole notes, "it seems that everyone is resisting change, especially those people who were supposed to carry out most of the changes." And what is most surprising is that people resist not only bad or harmful changes, but also those that are clearly correspond to their own selfish interests.This seemingly irrational resistance happens all the time.

Such resistance to change is so common and so destructive to attempts to change that the need to understand its cause has formed the basis of most researchers' approaches to change management. Almost every expert in this field has a number of considerations that explain this behavior of people. Let's look at the most common reasons for resistance to change.

Reasons for resistance to change. According to Markovsky, there are four main lessons to learn about resistance to change [Markovsky, 2001]:

1. Resistance to change is inevitable. Since any major change affects people's expectations about their own future, resistance arises both in the case of a negative perception of the idea of ​​change and a positive one.

2. Forms of resistance to change differ significantly from each other and depend on negative or positive perception.

3. Resistance can take an overt or hidden form. Hidden resistance is more dangerous because... it cannot be detected.

4. What people say often does not reflect what they really think. Company employees rarely feel comfortable openly expressing their emotions about management's ideas for upcoming changes.

Conflict-free implementation of changes in conditions of cooperation of the entire team is the exception rather than the rule. Changes are assessed too differently by the company's top management (for them these are new chances) and by its employees (for them changes are fraught with danger). Resistance to change can vary in strength and intensity. It manifests itself both in the form of passive, more or less hidden rejection of change, expressed in the form of absenteeism, decreased productivity or a desire to move to another job, and in the form of active, open opposition to perestroika (for example, in the form of a strike, a clear evasion of innovation). The reason for resistance may lie in personal and structural barriers.

TOpersonal barriers include, for example:

♦ fear of the unknown, preference is given to the familiar;

♦ the need for guarantees, especially when there is a threat of losing one’s own job;

♦ denial of the need for change and fear of obvious losses (for example, maintaining the same wages while increasing labor costs);

♦ threat to social relations established at the old workplace;

♦ lack of involvement in the transformation of those affected by the changes;

♦ lack of resources and time due to operational work.

As barriers at the organizational level speakers:

♦ inertia of complex organizational structures, difficulty in reorienting thinking due to existing social norms;

♦ interdependence of subsystems, leading to the fact that one “unsynchronized” change slows down the implementation of the entire project;

♦ resistance to the transfer of privileges to certain groups and possible changes in the existing “balance of power”;

♦ past negative experiences associated with change projects;

♦ resistance to transformation processes imposed by consultants from outside.

This list shows that already at the conceptual development stage, personnel reactions to changes can be taken into account in a planned manner. At the same time, approaches to reorganization based on the participation of the team, although preferable, are fraught with too much loss of time before the measures taken produce results. Therefore, if rapid and radical changes are necessary, strict measures must be taken.

Heller believes that there are three main reasons for negative attitudes towards change and various methods for overcoming this negativity (Figure 2.3).

Types of Negative Attitudes	Ways to overcome
RATIONAL Lack of understanding of the details of the plan, belief that changes are not necessary, lack of faith in the planned effectiveness of changes, waiting negative consequences	Explain the plan more clearly and in detail; Describe what would have happened if the change program had not been initiated; Involve everyone in quality improvement teams to demonstrate the effectiveness of change; Create a bottom-up program to reengineer systems and processes
LPERSONAL Fear of losing a job, anxiety about the future, resentment of criticism received during changes, fear of interference from management	Focus on measurably improving future job prospects for everyone; Present plans that people are likely to find positive and inspiring; Accept responsibility for past failures; Present a scenario of expected benefits as a result of major changes
EMOTIONAL General tendency towards active or passive resistance to any changes, lack of involvement, apathy towards initiatives, shock, distrust of the motives that caused the changes	Show with examples why the old ways no longer work; Organize a series of meetings to communicate details of the change plan; Demonstrate that the new policy is not just the flavor of the month; Explain the reasons for the changes and promise to be involved in their process; Be completely sincere and answer all questions

Rice. 2.3. Types of negative attitudes towards change and ways to overcome them

An instructive example of how powerful resistance to change can be is the failure of companies to reengineer.

After the publication in 1993 of the book by M. Hammer and J. Champi “Reengineering the Corporation. Manifesto of a revolution in business" thousands of companies in different countries tried to put into practice the approach recommended by the authors. The experience of implementing reengineering caused a wave of disappointment and criticism. According to the majority of authors who analyzed the practice of reengineering, in the vast majority of cases such attempts led to negative results. Jeffrey Bennett of Booz Allen & Hamilton, analyzing the reasons for the failure of reengineering, believes that the fundamental reason for failure is the utopian philosophy underlying reengineering. This utopian philosophy assumes that every individual is motivated by a concern for the public good, and that the task of dedicated leaders is to teach the masses the rules of behavior that will achieve the greater public good. From Bennett's point of view, the utopian philosophy of reengineering can be seen in his following statements:

♦ the process of change is seen as ideal, which everyone should want to follow, and not as the result of a choice from several alternatives;

♦ reengineering ignores what is and concentrates on what should be;

♦ the cost of the transition process is often ignored or rejected (you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs);

♦ there is a tendency towards radical and dramatic changes (reengineering is not about making incremental improvements, but about achieving a quantum leap in performance);

♦ existing structures and traditions are not seen as valuable sources of input (radical re-design means ignoring all existing structures and procedures and inventing entirely new ways of doing work);

♦ there is a belief that a group of experts, many of whom have no prior knowledge of specific processes, play a key role in developing a detailed plan that is reasonable enough to cover all possible situations that the process may conflict with;

♦ pay systems, if mentioned at all, were seen as a way of inspiring people to join the new process, rather than as a general part of the design or the original cause of previous unconstructive behavior;

♦ The way to overcome resistance is through communication and education. Resistance is seen either as a consequence of misunderstanding or as a consequence of insufficient conviction.

An interesting method of resisting reengineering is what Bennett calls “cheating the process.” People follow the new process on paper, but continue to use old methods to deal with all the exceptions and complications that were not explicitly mentioned in the new plan. On the other hand, especially in organizations that do not require strong standardization, some departments may already be using a process that is as good as (and potentially better than) the process being implemented. Both of these forms of "deception" represent a conscious and rational rejection of the new plan, rather than simple ignorance.

Let’s summarize the approaches of different experts in the field of change management into a general list of the most common reasons for resistance to change.

The first reason for resistance: predictable negative result. There is often a fear that change will have a negative impact on the person or group affected by it, or at least these people or groups believe that the change will have a negative impact on them.

In his book Life and Death in the Executive Fast Lane, Manfred F.R. Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries explains that “change... unleashes many fears: the fear of the unknown, the fear of losing freedom, the fear of losing power and authority, and, finally, the fear of losing comfortable working conditions and money.”

Second reason for resistance: fear that there will be more work. Employees of companies believe that the result of the change will be an increase in work volumes, and the opportunities for receiving rewards will be narrowed.

Paul Strible, director of the Change Program for international managers at the International Institute of Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, argues that people resist change primarily because large transformations change the terms of personal agreements governing employee relations with the organization. Strible identifies three common aspects of such agreements: formal, psychological and social.

Formalth aspect “covers the employee’s primary task and the basic requirements for performing his work, as defined by company documents such as job schedules, employment contracts and employment agreements.” The formal aspect provides answers to the following questions of the employee:

♦ What are my expected responsibilities?

♦ How will I get help doing this work?

♦ How and when will my work be presented and what form will the reaction to it take?

♦ What will the salary be and how will it depend on the evaluation of my work?

Psychological The aspect of personal agreements concerns those aspects of the employment relationship that for the most part remain implicit. This aspect provides answers to the following employee questions:

♦ How hard will the work actually be?

♦ What recognition, financial reward, or other personal satisfaction will I receive for my efforts?

♦ Will my work be adequately rewarded?

Finally, “employees evaluate an organization’s culture through social aspect of their personal agreements." People pay attention not only to what company leaders say about corporate values ​​and company objectives, but also to what they do to support their words. The social aspect of personal agreements provides answers to the following questions:

♦ Are my values ​​similar to those of others in the organization?

♦ What are the real rules that determine who gets paid and how much in the company?

Large-scale organizational change can and often does have an impact on some or all of these aspects of personal agreements. To the extent that employees perceive the change's negative impact on personal agreements, Strible says, the extent to which they will resist the change.

Third reason for resistance: the need to break habits. Changes require workers to abandon established habits. John Kotter, in his book Leading Change, tells the story of Frank, a manager of a large corporation with 100 people under his command. Frank had been told a hundred times that the company was striving to be more innovative and that his order-and-enforce management style was not only old-fashioned, but also “killed initiative and creativity as quickly as carbon dioxide puts out a fire.” Change zealots demonize Frank. To them, he is one of those amazing, annoying, disheartening, completely change-blocking obstructionists who gets in the way of all the good that change agents are trying to do.

Kotter is very sympathetic to Frank and argues that Frank is not really that bad: “He is, like the rest of us, a product of his past... If Frank's problem were related to just one identifiable element , change would happen much easier. But the problem is different. This person has many interrelated habits that complement his management style. If Frank changes even one aspect of his behavior, then the remaining elements of his overall behavior will begin to put pressure on him to restore the status quo. Frank is expected to change the totality of his habits, but this can be as difficult as trying to quit smoking, drinking and eating fat at the same time."

Is it any wonder that Frank is resistant to change?

Fourth reason for resistance: lack of information. The organization does not effectively communicate what, why and how to change and does not clearly articulate expectations for future performance.

Kotter reminds us that before most people can understand and accept a proposed change, they want answers to many questions:

♦ What will this mean for me and my friends?

♦ What will this mean for the organization?

♦ Are there better options than what is offered?

♦ If I intend to act differently, can I do it?

♦ Do I really believe in the need for change?

♦ Do I really believe what I hear about the path leading to the future?

♦ Should we follow this course?

♦ Are others playing some kind of game - perhaps to improve their situation at my expense?

According to Kotter, when answering these questions, most companies are 100%, 1000%, or even 10000% missing the information they need. Senior leaders rarely give speeches explaining proposed changes; Top managers send out few memorandums, and corporate newspapers publish few inspiring stories. And so it is in everything. Hired employees are given complete freedom to ask: when, where, how, and most importantly, why something needs to be changed and to find hypothetical answers to these questions themselves.

Fifth reason for resistance: failure to gain support for the organization as a whole. Changemakers are unable to gain the support of the organizational structure, business systems, technology, key executives, skilled workforce, culture (values, norms, beliefs and assumptions) and integrate all of this into their activities.

William Pasmore describes two change efforts in which he was involved early in his career. The first of them was undertaken in connection with the failure of one product on the market, which necessitated the need to start producing another product, introduce new technologies and a new organizational model, and all three changes had to be carried out simultaneously. Pasmore notes that “in the beginning we had to beg for absolutely everything, with the exception of the available labor resources.”

The second attempt did not involve the introduction of new technologies and products, and the organization remained practically the same. “The attempt to effect change consisted of a study of the psychology of workers, after which each group discussed opportunities for improvement.” In both cases, the employees were represented by the same union, the management was the same, and the demographics of the workforce were very similar. However, the results of the first and second attempts at change were quite different.

In the first case, labor productivity jumped by 30% and quality improved. Both management and the union felt that worker satisfaction, commitment to the enterprise, and cooperation between workers and management had increased. In the second case, the attitude towards work improved, but labor productivity, quality and costs remained the same.

What was the difference? Pasmore explains: “In the first case, there was agreement about the need to learn new ways of working. The hired workers were given vocational training that allowed them to perform a wide range of technical tasks; teams were created that were responsible for managing interdependent production processes, rather than just individual pieces of equipment. Control over the activities of the unit, the existing wage system and even the technical plan of the unit were structured in such a way as to strengthen the team style of work and self-orientation. In the second case, staff positions, remuneration systems, control and technology remained the same. People talked about improving the efficiency of the unit, but did nothing about it. Control over the process as a whole was retained by lower-level managers. People wanted to do better, but ultimately found that they could change little within the existing organizational framework."

In short, traditional methods, processes, procedures, reward systems, structures, technologies and other factors that were not the targets of change remained untouched and made change impossible.

Sixth at h in A resistance: workers' rebellion. People resist change because they perceive it as something forced on them.

Daryl Conner, founder and president of Organizational Development Resources and author of Managing at the Speed ​​of Change, writes that “we resist not so much the intrusion of something new into our lives as the loss of control which is a consequence of innovation. Term resistance to change may be considered inaccurate or misleading. People resist change not so much as its hidden consequences - the ambiguity that arises when the familiar loses its meaning." In other words, people resist not so much change as the fact that they themselves have to change. William Pasmore suggests that “our current approach to change typically combines learning with coercion. That's why the programs don't work. Programs are associated with changes imposed from the outside, embodying other people's ideas about how the transformation should be carried out and how it should be perceived. Often these outsiders are not even members of the organization. This is the author of a book or consultant who knows nothing about the lives and experiences of the people who become the objects of his activities. Nevertheless, company employees are asked to blindly and fanatically follow the recommendations of such experts. They are required to simply follow the instructions and not ask questions.” This is a situation where people are cheated on and as a result of the changes they lose control over their own livesYu. Is it any wonder that people resist?

Concept, levels and characteristics social change

In the social sphere there are no unchanging objects and subjects. Cultural complexes, the composition of groups, and relationships between people change. This, in turn, influences changes in society, its policies, and people’s lifestyles. If you compare the lifestyle of people who lived in ancient times and those living today, say, in Switzerland, it becomes clear that the progress that society has achieved is associated with constantly occurring changes in literally all areas social life.

Social change- this is a violation of the identity of a social phenomenon or process with itself or with a similar social phenomenon or process. Any phenomenon or process at some point is identical to itself or a similar phenomenon or process, but after some time this identity is broken, which indicates that changes have occurred in this phenomenon.

Social changes may include population growth, an increase in educational level, a decrease in awareness, a change in an individual's environment when moving from a village to a city, a change in the relationship between workers and management when a reorganization occurs at an enterprise, etc. and so on.

Concept social change highly multifaceted, it embraces transformations social structures, practices, the emergence of new or ensuring the functioning of previous groups, forms of interaction and behavior. IN social environment(at its different levels - micro-, meso-, macro-level) environmental, demographic, technological, economic, political, sociocultural, socio-psychological (etc.) changes of varying speed, scale, complexity, direction occur.

All these types of changes are caused by various reasons (factors, sources), the hierarchy of which is quite difficult to reconstruct, since there are many of them and there are bizarre relationships between them. Structural (interests and values ​​of social groups), normative (systems of norms and customs) and behavioral (individual preferences) factors represent a significant, although, of course, far from complete set of sources of social change. Social changes take on various configurations. According to sociologist W. Moore, ten models of social change can be distinguished, differing in their focus:

gradual and continuous growth;

staged stepwise evolution;

uneven development, which is based on the principle of disproportionate rates of evolution;

cyclical growth;

branched, multilinear dynamics;

cyclic vectorless dynamics;

logistics growth;

decline in accordance with the logistic curve;

exponential growth;

10) decline in a descending exponential manner.

Typology of social change

Sociological studies examine violent and voluntary, reversible and irreversible changes. Changes can be planned or unforeseen, conscious or unconscious. It is advisable to distinguish organized changes from spontaneous changes that arose under the influence of self-organization processes. When constructing global theories, sociologists try to identify one or two leading (main) causes of social change. However, building realistic models of social processes requires, as a rule, a multi-casual approach and taking into account a network of interrelated causes.

The main types of causes of social change.

1. Natural causes - depletion of resources, pollution of the environment, disasters.

2. Demographic reasons - population fluctuations, overpopulation, migration, the process of generational change.

3. Changes in the sphere of culture, economics, scientific and technological progress.

4. Socio-political reasons - conflicts, wars, revolutions, reforms.

5. Social and psychological reasons - addiction, satiation, thirst for novelty, increased aggressiveness, etc.

The listed reasons for social changes can be both internal and external in relation to a given social system.

P. Sorokin believed that the main reasons for social changes are precisely internal, immanent reasons. The principle of immanent changes formulated by him states: “After the emergence of a sociocultural system, its natural, “normal” development, forms and phases life path determined mainly by the system itself."

Types of Social Change

Opening is a shared perception by many people of an aspect of reality previously unknown. A person discovers the principle of leverage, blood circulation or a conditioned reflex. The discovery adds a new feature to the stock of knowledge tested by people and accepted by them. It always adds something new to the culture because although the aspect being discovered has always existed, it only becomes part of the culture once it is discovered.

A discovery becomes a factor of social change only when it can be used, when it has become part of society or human relations. Thus, the discovery of physiologists and psychologists that men and women have the same intellectual abilities did not force the majority of men to change their attitudes towards the status of women, but made it possible to abandon the patriarchal relations of the 19th century. and reduced the degree of male determination in society.

When new knowledge is used to develop a technology, changes to the whole almost always occur. The ancient Greeks 100 years BC had an idea of ​​steam energy. A small steam engine was even built in Alexandria for entertainment, but the power of steam did not produce social change until the discovery began to be seriously used by people two thousand years later.

Invention. An invention is often defined as a new combination or new use of existing knowledge. This is how inventor George Selden invented the automobile in 1895 by combining an engine, fuel tank, belt drive and wheels. None of the things that made up the invention were new: people had been using them in everyday practice for a long time. A new feature was the combination of already known items. The idea of ​​combination allows you to create something that did not exist before.

Inventions can be divided into two types: material(such as a bow and arrow, a telephone or an airplane) and social(such as the alphabet, constitutional government, electoral democracy, etc.). In each case, a combination of well-known elements is created. Invention is a constant process, with each new invention becoming the last in a series of previous ones. Thus, invention is a process (we will talk about processes a little later).

American scientist John Gillin noted that an invention can be new in form, function and meaning. Form means the appearance of a new object or action, a new type of behavior; functioning is what is accomplished by the invention and finally, value is the long-term consequences of its use by people. The word “innovation”, which includes both discovery and invention, has become quite firmly established in everyday use.

Diffusion. Even the most inventive society can only invent the simplest forms of change. Most often, social changes in societies develop through diffusion - the spread of cultural traits and patterns from group to group and their implementation. Diffusion operates both within societies and between them. Chatushki as a type of folklore originated among the Tatars, and then penetrated into the Russian environment. Scientific management methods developed by the American school of F. Taylor were introduced in other societies.

Diffusion is possible only in those societies that come into close contact with each other. Very often, groups deliberately increase the number of contacts in order to increase diffusion (for example, in the case of training managers by sending trainees to the USA, Germany and other developed countries). But sometimes a society or group seeks to avoid diffusion and reduces the number of contacts (for example, when they want to avoid the influence of an undesirable ideology). This leads to the conclusion that diffusion is a selective action. The group accepts some cultural traits and rejects others. So, we accept a lot of European cuisine, but, nevertheless, we do not accept the Catholic religion.

Resistance to social change and its acceptance . So, not all proposed innovations are accepted by society. Some can be taken immediately, others after a long time.

One of the factors influencing resistance to change can be considered presence of specific attitudes and values, which, differing from the general attitude towards change, can interfere with the acceptance of change and even block it. For example, the government is trying to amend existing laws, but this innovation is not accepted locally, despite the fact that many realize its necessity and timeliness. This failure arises due to the fact that some of the executors or managers do not like the new law, since it infringes on their interests. Using their power, these leaders can simply not comply with the requirements of the new law under many pretexts and thus block it. Social change must always overcome the resistance of specific attitudes and values ​​for the reason that there is never such a favorable situation when everyone unanimously supports social change.

A factor influencing the speed of adoption of innovations is demonstrating their capabilities to a wide audience. Experience shows that an innovation is more readily adopted if its usefulness can be easily demonstrated. For example, American Indians quickly took up arms white man, but did not take his medicine, since its action did not give an immediate effect, i.e. this innovation could not be easily demonstrated. Many great inventions were so ineffective in the early stages of their application that their widespread use was delayed for a very long time. Thus, the first appearance of cars caused universal contempt for them, which was expressed in the slogan: “Give us back the horses!” At the same time, experience shows that imperfections in the initial stages of application of an invention can delay its implementation, but very rarely completely block its path if it is useful and workable.

Some inventions can be demonstrated very easily without requiring large expenditures. Others cannot be demonstrated without expensive large-scale testing. Most technical inventions can be tested in just a few hours or days, while many social inventions (for example, a corporation; social organization, based on roles rather than kinship; world government) cannot be tested in laboratories or on stands and therefore prove their usefulness and necessity only after a long time and with the help of the whole society. At the same time, a paradoxical situation arises - we do not dare to adapt to social innovations until we see them in action, i.e. until we are convinced of their usefulness, but at the same time we can understand the practical value of most social innovations only through adaptation to them. Therefore, almost all social changes (for example, new laws) are implemented by overcoming the mistrust and resistance of some social groups of society, through power structures and often through harsh coercion. However, having been introduced into everyday life, many workable innovations seem already familiar and necessary. They play an important role in accepting social change. compatibility with existing culture. Innovation may be incompatible with the existing culture for at least three reasons.

1. Innovation may be in conflict with existing cultural patterns. In some parts of Asia and Africa, Islam spread to a greater extent than Christianity, perhaps because Christians had negative views of polygamy (particularly polygyny) that was part of the culture of the people living in these regions; Islam allowed polygamy. Another example could be that our society still cannot institutionalize premarital sexual relations because... it is a conflict not just with our norms and feelings, but with our family structure and basic institutions that cannot accept children out of wedlock.

When a social innovation comes into conflict with an existing culture, several consequences are possible: a) the innovation is simply rejected by society or social group; b) innovation is accepted along with its conflicting features, but these features cause protest from time to time, which makes its adoption unstable; c) the innovation is accepted, and the conflicts it contains with the existing culture are hidden and difficult to recognize, which causes general tension in society that is not aimed at this innovation.

2. Innovation can introduce new cultural patterns not represented in the existing culture. Any society tries to introduce something new without abandoning the use of old, proven cultural models. When these old models are no longer suitable, society can slowly, carefully develop new models, all the time looking back at the old, familiar. So, introducing new Construction Materials, we unconsciously try to make them similar to the old ones. First concrete blocks were made in the form of processed or unprocessed stone, asphalt was given the appearance of paving stones or wooden sidewalk. Many governments in the newly emerging republics took the form of the Roman Senate or the Greek agora. Only after a certain time do people break away from old, outdated forms and completely move on to new ones.

3. Some innovations can only replace and displace cultural patterns in an existing culture, rather than simply join them, which significantly slows down the adoption of these innovations. For example, we perfectly accept English football or American jazz, which simply joined our culture without replacing anything. However, it is much more difficult to perceive changes related to gender equality, democracy, and modern civilized business, since these social relations must replace and eliminate old, outdated, but familiar to us, cultural patterns. In these cases, sociologists talk about the costs of social change and try to determine them. For example, it is well known that the introduction of private property relations is associated with serious material and moral costs; changes can only pay off after some time.

Social effect of innovation. There are no social changes that would take place without leaving a trace on the existing culture. Even those innovations that simply add to cultural patterns take up some of the society's time and divert their interests from other elements of the culture. However, most innovations create a much stronger effect, destroying old or creating new cultural patterns, new species social relations. Many technical innovations, such as radio, television, and the automobile, have given rise to entire cultures.

There are three main forms of social effects of innovation.

I. Variance, or multiple effects, of a single invention or discovery. This type of effect can best be illustrated by the example of the introduction of the automobile into our lives, which played a significant role in the formation of a giant industry, reduced travel time, reorganized market relations, influenced human values, created conditions for the construction of roads, brought suburbs closer to cities, changed the system leisure and had many other social consequences.

2. Subsequent, or derivative, effects of one invention or discovery. An invention or discovery produces changes, which in turn produce changes, and so on. Thus, the invention of the automobile gave birth to the automobile industry, which changed the nature of human activity; this in turn gave rise to problems of employment, leisure time, etc. Each effect produced by the invention of the automobile in different areas of social life causes many subsequent effects.

3. Convergence, or the combination of several influences of different inventions, can be illustrated with many examples. Nuclear reactor, rocket with liquid engine, the electronic system caused the emergence of weapons of mass destruction. The automobile, the assembly line, the social division of labor gave rise to modern production etc.

The topic of social effects of innovation is currently becoming particularly relevant. It does not matter whether the innovation was created within a given society, or penetrated from outside as a result of diffusion. Important, that modern society, being an extremely dynamic formation, is obliged to respond to innovations, accept and master them in social, cultural and other areas of human activity. Failure to accept innovation immediately gives rise to stagnation of social life and social effects with signs of regression. A non-dynamic, ossified society lags behind other societies striving for innovation, and cannot claim well-being in social life.

Social changes in society occur as a result of the purposeful activities of people, which consists of individual social actions and interactions. Typically, isolated actions can rarely lead to significant social and cultural change. Even if one person has made a great discovery, many people must use it and implement it in their practice. Thus, significant social changes occur in the process of joint actions of people who are not isolated, but, on the contrary, unidirectional and mutually interconnected. Moreover, this connection can often be unconscious due to the presence of motives and orientations in people.

Literature

1. Plotinsky Yu.M. Models of social processes: A textbook for higher educational institutions. - Ed. 2nd, revised and additional -- M.: Logos, 2001

2. Sorokin P. Social and cultural dynamics: Study of changes in large systems of art, truth, ethics, law and public relations. - St. Petersburg, RKhGI , 2000

3. Frolov S.S. Sociology. Textbook. For higher educational institutions. M.: Nauka, 1994

4. Sztompka P. Sociology of social changes -- M., Aspect Press, 1996

Currently, it is quite difficult to find an organization that is not going through a period of change and innovation. New strategies, processes, systems and structures cannot arise from scratch and must inevitably be achieved by changing the current existing parameters activities of the organization.

Implementing strategic change in an organization is an extremely difficult task. And, as research by specialists shows, serious changes in Russian organizations begin while completely ignoring the question of the degree of readiness for change. There is a natural misunderstanding and dissatisfaction on the part of the organization’s employees. Moreover, people react to the prospects of strategic changes in different ways: some become active supporters and implementers of the new strategy, others become active opponents or passive observers. Middle managers, who are among the main drivers of change, find themselves largely excluded from the process of preparing organizational change and view it with almost the same distrust as their subordinates.

The purpose of this topic is to identify the main reasons for resistance to change and consider the main approaches to overcome them. To do this we will do the following:

• ? Let us reveal the essence of the term “organizational resistance”;
• ? we will determine the main reasons for resistance to organizational changes;
• ? consider leadership styles that help eliminate organizational resistance;
• ? set the level of resistance to strategic changes;
• ? Let's analyze approaches that help overcome factors of resistance to change.

Any, even minor, change carried out in an organization meets resistance, and the degree of its influence is very large. However, it is unclear whether it is possible to foresee what resistance will arise and take steps in advance to prevent it. It is also not known whether it is possible, using some approaches and methods, to effectively manage resistance.

First, let's find out what is meant by resistance. There are various definitions of this term.

As A.N. noted in his work. Lyukshinov, “resistance is a natural reaction of groups and individuals to changes that threaten their culture and influence, and is caused by a violation of the continuity of culture and power; its strength depends on the speed of change."

“A sustainable way of conducting operations cannot be changed at once and causes resistance to change, called organizational resistance,” said N. Alekseev.

I. Ansoff did not stop at formulating just one definition. He examined resistance from different points of view and gave the following interpretations.

• 1. “A multifaceted phenomenon that leads to unexpected delays, unforeseen costs, and introduces instability into the process of strategic change.”
• 2. “From the point of view of strategy analysis, resistance is an expression of the “irrationality” of the organization, refusal to recognize new dimensions of reality, ignoring logical arguments.”
• 3. “From the position of behavioral theory, resistance is a natural manifestation of various concepts of reason, according to which groups and individuals interact with each other” 3.

Ansoff's definitions reveal the essence of the term, but, in our opinion, they do not sufficiently reflect the human factor. And the carriers of resistance, as well as the carriers of change, are people. Therefore, under resistance we will understand the problems that arise when implementing changes as a consequence ill-considered actions managers in relation to members of the workforce.

Perhaps resistance to change is inevitable. According to a number of experts, any change in established work methods creates resistance among all employees affected by the changes: both managers and subordinates. In this regard, it is necessary to establish what reasons make people resist change.

According to the authors of the popular textbook “Fundamentals of Management” M.Kh. Meskona, M. Alberta and F. Khedouri, people resist change for three main reasons: uncertainty, a sense of loss, and the belief that change will not bring anything good.

The first reason: a person may overreact to changes because he does not know what the consequences will be.

The second reason for resistance is the feeling that change will lead to personal losses, i.e. lesser degree of satisfaction of any need. Innovations can reduce decision-making power, formal or informal power, access to information and other resources, autonomy, and attractiveness of the job assigned to a person.

The third reason for resistance is the belief that change is not necessary or desirable for the organization. People may think that planned changes will not solve problems, but will only multiply their number.

• ? the changes are radical and decisive;
• ? changes are sudden and unexpected;
• ? changes are having adverse effect on the people involved, who in this case consider themselves victims;
• ? anything (strategy, corporate mission, organization, etc.) is given strong support, which reduces the value of change;
• ? the reasons for changes are not clearly formulated, this causes concern;
• ? previous changes did not bring the desired results.

American scientists John Kotter and Leonard Schlesinger systematized the main, in their opinion, reasons for resistance, allowing them to determine which groups of people will primarily resist change and for what reasons. The main reasons for resistance to change are listed in Table. 4.2.1.

Table 4.2.1

Reasons for resistance to change

Reasons for resistance	Result	Expected reaction
Selfish interest	Anticipation of personal losses as a result of changes	"Political" behavior
Misunderstanding of strategy goals	Low degree of trust in managers proposing a change plan
Different assessments of the consequences of implementing the strategy	Inadequate perception of plans; possibility of existence of other sources of information	Open disagreement
Low tolerance for change	People's fear that they do not have the necessary skills or knowledge	Behavior aimed at maintaining one's own prestige

Let us dwell on those given in the table. 4.2.1 reasons for resistance.

Main reason selfish interest is people's resistance to change at the organizational level. This is due to one or another measure of selfishness inherent in every person: employees put their own interests above the interests of the organization. This behavior, due to its universality and naturalness, is not very dangerous, but it can lead to the emergence of informal groups that will try to prevent changes from happening.

Misunderstanding of the goals of the strategy. It usually arises because people are unable to evaluate the consequences of implementing a strategy (mainly due to the lack of sufficient information regarding the goals and ways of implementing the strategy). This situation is typical for organizations where the degree of trust in the actions of managers is low.

Different assessments of the consequences of implementing the strategy. This assessment is associated with different perceptions of strategic goals and plans. Managers and employees may have different perceptions of the meaning of strategy for the organization and for intraorganizational groups. At the same time, “strategists” often unjustifiably assume that employees see the benefits of implementing the strategy in the same way as they do, and that everyone has the relevant information to be convinced of the benefits of the strategy for both the organization and for each employee.

Low level of tolerance for change. Many people believe that they will not be able to learn new skills or a new job. Such resistance most often manifests itself when introducing new technologies, sales methods, reporting forms, etc.

From the above we can conclude that the main reasons for resistance to change are:

• ? low awareness of team members about upcoming changes;
• ? concerns about lack of knowledge and skills to perform new job;
• ? fear of “personal” losses (reduction of influence, deprivation of position, authority, etc.).

As for Russia, the following reasons can be added to the listed reasons:

• ? conservative views of older people;
• ? lack of education;
• ? fear of loss of wages;
• ? fear of being fired.

Professor O.S. Vikhansky believes that the process of eliminating resistance to change is significantly influenced by the style of change.

When resolving conflicts that arise during change, senior managers can use following styles manuals:

competitive style - the emphasis is on strength, perseverance, assertion of one’s rights, since conflict resolution presupposes the presence of a winner and a vanquished;

withdrawal style - management demonstrates weak persistence and at the same time does not strive to find ways to cooperate with dissenting members of the organization;

compromise style - management moderately insists on applying its approaches to resolving the conflict and is not too keen on cooperation with those who resist;

fixture style - management wants to cooperate in resolving the conflict and at the same time does not particularly insist on accepting the decisions it has developed;

collaboration style - Management strives both to implement its approaches to change and to establish cooperative relationships with dissenting members of the organization.

When choosing a leadership style, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the conflict. Conflicts can be constructive and destructive, therefore, depending on the problems that have arisen and the forces of resistance, the leader must choose the most appropriate style of change for resolving conflicts in a given situation.

Easily recognizable resistance to the application of a strategy is not very common. More often, there is a need to deal with potential conflicts and impasses at all levels as each group tries to defend its interests through the process of change itself. In this case, opposition to a specific change is possible. And more often than not, change causes constant and inevitable tension in the relationships between individual employees, groups and departments. The problems encountered and the underlying conflicts that the manager must resolve may have little to do with the particular change being proposed. People's interest and enthusiasm for a proposed strategy may have more to do with the personal benefits they would like to achieve than with the organizational benefits that the change would bring. A.T. thinks so. Zub and M.V. Loktionov.

A manager, faced with resistance, must understand all the details of this phenomenon. Understanding at what level resistance occurs and how it is characterized allows the manager to direct efforts in the right direction.

Resistance is distributed across three levels: individual, group and organizational (systemic).

Individual level. Individual resistance is caused primarily by the employee’s psychological unpreparedness to realize the objectivity of external changes and accept proposed organizational innovations that require revision previous experience developing successful management decisions. Another, but more rational basis for resistance is the psychology of many people’s perception of innovation as a threat to their current position. This happens primarily due to a lack of competence to work in a new capacity. This is the opinion of N. Alekseev.

To help an employee acquire a new understanding of what is happening and reconsider his attitude towards changes, A.T. Zub and M.V. Loktionov, most often required individual work with him to explain the benefits and advantages that he personally will receive as a result of implementing the strategy. Such work should lead to a change in employee behavior. A properly organized clarification procedure requires a clear understanding by the manager of what exactly he is trying to change in the views of a particular employee and why this is necessary. Attempts to force someone to change something about themselves that is fundamentally contrary to both their character and the properties of their personality are doomed to failure.

Group level. Employees with similar views on problems existing in the organization are usually united in groups that are internally homogeneous in organizational cultural orientations. Such groups defend collective value systems and more actively try to influence the organization's strategy. Conservative groups are sources of group resistance.

We will present the opinions of Zub, Loktionov, Alekseev on other issues.

Widespread communication of the strategic intent and consultation before implementing a strategy (ideally at the planning stage) can help reduce resistance from groups and identify what people really care about about a proposed strategy. This may require the following: transfer (by way of feedback) of the results of organizational diagnostics to those divisions and groups of the organization that are directly affected by strategic changes; holding seminars and discussions in which the group would participate; organizing a new information network so that everyone can know what is happening and have the opportunity to express their doubts.

Organizational (system) level. At this level, resistance arises due to the lack of capacity in organizations to analyze external changes and develop an adequate response. Thus, if the solution of strategic problems as an additional burden is entrusted to the units responsible for operational activities, current problems push into the background the work on introducing organizational and technical innovations. A similar situation occurs when managers specially appointed for this work turn out to be insufficiently competent.

One way to reduce resistance is a systematic approach to change. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that to understand the behavior of an organization as a system, it is necessary to take into account the behavior of all interconnected subsystems, such as finance, production, sales and supply, and human resources. The systems approach, therefore, involves considering the organization as a whole, identifying relationships between parts of the system by, for example, changing the hierarchical order of decision-making or ensuring a certain balance between social and technical parts systems. This will allow the strategy to be successfully implemented in the future.

The levels of resistance to strategic changes in the organization are shown in Fig. 4.2.1.

Rice. 4.2.1.

• 1 - individual level; 2 - group level;
• 3 - level of organization

Naturally, there are no universal ways to overcome resistance, but there are some proven methods that can significantly reduce and even completely eliminate resistance.

E. Hughes identifies eight factors for overcoming resistance to change, which we will consider in more detail.

• 1. Taking into account the reasons for individual behavior in an organization. The behavior of an individual in an organization is a consequence of the interaction of the individual’s financial situation and his social role. Any change must take into account the needs, inclinations and hopes of those affected by the change, as well as the impact of the organization. Before taking part in the change process, the employee must see a certain personal gain that he will receive as a result of these changes.
• 2. The importance of a leader's authority. The higher the leader's authority, the greater the influence he can have on the change process. As a rule, the manager has greater authority than the members of the work team, so the manager’s instructions are usually a more powerful incentive for starting and maintaining the process of change than the wishes of one or another of his subordinates.
• 3. Providing information to the group. Change activities can be stimulated by providing the group with the necessary information about itself and its working style. There may be a conscious desire for change in a group if information is provided about how the group is operating, especially if the data is objective and provides new information that complements what is already known. Information related to any one organization or group has more influence than general information about the activities of individual people. The more information is centralized, meaningful and related to the problem, the greater the opportunity for successful implementation changes.
• 4. Achieving a common understanding. A strong desire for change can be generated by the achievement of a common understanding among all group members of the need for change, while the initiative aimed at stimulating change will come from the group itself. The facts produced by individuals or groups, or the participation of these individuals or groups in planning, as well as in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, have a significant impact on the change process. Information received by one member of the group is more understandable, acceptable, and more likely to be used than that provided by an “external expert.”
• 5. Feeling of belonging to a group. The power of resistance to change is reduced when those employees who are about to experience the change and those trying to influence the change experience themselves as belonging to the same group. Change that comes from within appears much less threatening and causes less opposition than that imposed from without.
• 6. The authority of the group for its members. The more authoritative a group is to its members, the more influence it can have on them. A group is attractive to its members to the extent that it satisfies their needs. This entails the willingness of each group member to accept influence from other members and increased incentives for group cohesion if this is important to the group. Group cohesion can either reduce or increase resistance to change, depending on whether the group views it as beneficial or harmful.
• 7. Group leader support for change. A group that retains psychological significance for its individual members has more influence than a group whose membership is short-lived. Many management training programs mistakenly teach on-the-job training, ignoring the fact that the manager continues to be a member of at least two groups: a) consisting of his subordinates; b) including managers of the same level, responsible to the same superior manager. Thus, a change process in which individual managers participate in temporary groups away from their main work is less effective in the case of long-term changes than a process in which managers participate without separation from a specific work environment.
• 8. Awareness of group members. Information relating to the need for change, plans for change and its consequences must be communicated to all affected team members.

The combination of these factors is illustrated in Fig. 4.2.2, from which it follows that the factors are not hierarchized, since their significance is determined by the specifics of changes, time and place.

The famous management guru, the founder of strategic management, I. Ansoff, offers four approaches to overcome resistance to change.

1. Forced change management - introducing change in which resistance is overcome through the power of top management.

Rice. 4.2.2. Factors for overcoming resistance to strategic change

Violent change is costly and has the potential for major social disruption, but it has the advantage of rapid strategic response. Therefore, this approach should be used in cases where management is pressed for time.

For forced changes to be more effective, it is necessary:

• ? conduct behavioral diagnostics of employees and work groups to identify potential sources of resistance;
• ? concentrate in your hands sufficient power that will allow you to carry out the necessary changes;
• ? monitor the appearance of the slightest signs of resistance;
• ? after changing the strategy, monitor its implementation until the new strategy acquires the necessary capabilities and the changes take root in the organization.
• 2. Adaptive changes - implementing discontinuous strategic changes through incremental innovations spread over time.

If changes take a long period time, at any given moment, resistance to them will be small, but not zero, because even minor deviations from the “historical order of things” lead to disruption of the organization’s work and internal conflicts. However, the degree of positive impact required will be lower. Proponents of gradual transformations are usually managers at the middle and lower management levels of the organization. Conflicts are resolved by finding a compromise or making deals.

Adaptive changes occur slowly, but have the effect of reducing the level of resistance at any given time and do not require close attention from management. Adaptive change makes it possible to bring about change in an environment where changemakers have limited power. This approach is most effective when all threats, trends and opportunities are predicted in advance, which allows you to increase the time allocated for transformation.

3. Crisis management. IN Lately There is an ever-increasing likelihood that organizations may fail to keep up with new, rapidly evolving changes in the external environment. In these cases, a threat to the survival of the organization appears, it is forced to act within strict time limits, and a crisis situation arises.

In the event of a crisis, the behavioral resistance of the organization's employees is replaced by support for reforms. However, in this situation, the likelihood of making wrong decisions increases, since the organization’s management lacks time. Therefore, the first task of top management is to prevent panic and quickly implement effective changes.

But as soon as the organization emerges from the crisis, management is faced with a rapid resurgence of resistance, which manifests itself already in the early stages of the organization’s “recovery”.

If key managers lack the power to take radical action and a crisis is about to occur, organizational leaders are left with the following options:

• ? try to convince employees of the inevitability of a crisis and act without waiting for it to begin;
• ? accept the inevitability of the crisis and prepare to play the role of “saviors”;
• ? simulate an artificial crisis, usually consisting of a fight against an “external enemy” that “threatens” the organization. This method is usually used by key political figures in the organization.

The first two options are less risky. With the third, a high degree of responsibility is placed on the organization's leaders, and in addition, serious ethical difficulties arise, since an artificial crisis can lead to unpredictable consequences. But it also has its advantages - the threat of a crisis sharply reduces the resistance of workers, ensures the team's support for decisions made by management, and increases the chances of a happy outcome.

4. The “accordion” method, or controlled resistance, - an approach that is acceptable in conditions of moderate urgency, when the organization has enough time at its disposal not to resort to coercion, but it is not enough to implement an adaptive approach, but gives a positive effect over a certain period of time, the value of which is determined by external conditions.

The main characteristics of this approach are:

• ? The duration of the changes is determined by the time available. If the need for transformation increases, then the approach is applied forcefully, and vice versa, when management has a reserve of time at its disposal, this approach acquires the features of an adaptive one. This property of “stretching” and “contracting” gave it the name “accordion”;
• ? the “accordion” method is based on the use of a modular approach (the planning process is divided into modules, at the end of each of which the order of implementation of new projects is determined);
• ? this approach does not adhere to the generally accepted idea of ​​the sequence of planning and implementation of projects; on the contrary, these two processes proceed in parallel;
• ? resistance is minimized at the very beginning and controlled throughout the entire period of time allotted for transformation.

The main disadvantage of the “accordion” method is its high complexity compared to any of the extreme approaches. Moreover, it requires constant attention from senior management.

The accordion method is preferable in all cases where the organization has sufficient time and is not going to resort to coercive measures. Its main advantage, according to I. Ansoff, is that the method allows you to find a compromise between reducing resistance and using power, while not forgetting about time constraints.

The advantages and disadvantages of the described approaches, taking into account Ansoff’s position, are presented in Table. 4.2.2, from which it follows that it is difficult to single out the most preferable approach due to the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

Table 4.2.2

Comparison of change implementation methods

	applications	Advantages	Flaws
Forced	Increased urgency	The speed of change	Strong resistance
Adaptive	urgency	Irrelevant resistance	Slow
Crisis	Threat to operation	Irrelevant resistance	Large time pressure, risk of failure
Accordion method	Moderate urgency, recurring changes	Minor resistance, time adjustment, comprehensive ability change	Complexity

J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger developed their own methods for overcoming resistance to change.

• 1. Education and information transfer. This method involves open discussion of ideas and activities, which will help employees become convinced of the need for change before it is implemented. It is also intended to use various methods transmission of information: individual conversations, speeches to a group, memoranda and reports.
• 2. Involving subordinates in decision making. This method allows some employees who may be resistant to freely express their feelings about these innovations, potential problems and changes.
• 3. Relief and support. These are the means by which employees fit into the new environment more easily. For example, a manager can provide emotional support, e.g. listen carefully to employees or give them some time to relax after a busy period. There may also be a need for additional vocational training to upskill employees so they can cope with new demands.
• 4. Negotiation. This method is appropriate when it is clear that someone has something to lose as a result of the change and therefore may have strong resistance. A manager, for example, may offer an employee a higher salary in exchange for a change in work assignment.
• 5. Co-optation. This method means giving the person who may be or is resisting change a leading role in making decisions about the introduction of innovations and in their implementation.
• 6. Maneuvering. This method is used to reduce resistance to change and means selective use of information or drawing up a clear schedule of activities and events to have the desired impact on subordinates.
• 7. Compulsion. This is a threat to deprive of work, promotion, promotion professional qualifications, salary increase or appointment to a new position in order to obtain consent to change.

The advantages and disadvantages of the approaches of J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger are shown in table. 4.2.3.

Methods for overcoming resistance to change

Table 4.2.3

	use	Advantages	Flaws
Education and information transfer	When resistance is based on lack of information or on inaccurate information and analysis	Helping people to agree to change once they have been persuaded	Can be time-consuming if many people are involved in the process
Involving employees in decision making	In situations in which the initiators do not have all the necessary information to develop innovations, while others have significant opportunities for resistance	Can help people recognize the need for change and their commitment to help make it happen	Can be time-consuming and lead to mistakes in implementing change
Relief and support	In cases where you are dealing with people who are resisting only because of fear of personal problems	Optimal tactics for solving personal problems	Can be time-consuming, expensive, and still not help.

Continuation

	use	Advantages	Flaws
Negotiation	In situations where one or a group clearly loses when introducing innovations and where they have greater opportunities to resist	Sometimes a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance	May be too expensive in many cases; can incite others to achieve agreement through persuasion
Co-optation	For specific situations in which other tactics would be too costly or not feasible at all	Can help you find support for change	Can create problems if people recognize co-optation
Maneuvering	In situations where other tactics would be ineffective or too expensive	May be a relatively fast-acting and inexpensive solution to resistance problems	The initiators may lose some degree of self-confidence; may lead to other problems
Coercion For situations where speed is necessary and changemakers have significant power		Can quickly overcome any type of resistance	Risky method; can create negative attitudes among people towards change initiators

The last method, as well as the forced method of I. Ansoff, force us to make a comment and disagree with their use in practice. In this regard, we recommend not to resort to them under any circumstances.

You can force it once or twice, but in the end the manager may lose authority in the eyes of employees. As management practice shows, the most ingenious change plans do not work if the human factor is ignored. It should always be remembered that the main condition for the success of changes undertaken in an organization is the willingness of staff to fully realize their potential to achieve their goals, and this can never be achieved with the help of coercive methods.

We tend to believe that organizational leaders should not use just one approach to overcome resistance when implementing change. In order for the organization's strategy to be successfully implemented, managers need to skillfully combine the discussed methods in various combinations, realistically taking into account all the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

Control questions

• 1. What is meant by organizational resistance?
• 2. List the main reasons for resistance organizational changes.
• 3. List reasons for resistance to change. What are they distinctive features each of the reasons?
• 4. What influences the process of eliminating resistance to change?
• 5. Name the leadership styles that managers can use during change.
• 6. Describe the main levels of resistance to change: individual level, group level, organizational level.
• 7. List and briefly explain the factors for overcoming resistance to strategic change.
• 8. Talk about approaches to overcoming resistance to change.
• 9. Why is the accordion method the most preferable in dealing with resistance to change? Name its main disadvantage.

Literature

• 1. Alekseev N. Managing changes in the new economy // Director's Consultant. 2003. No. 16 (196). pp. 2-7.
• 2. Ansoff I. New corporate strategy. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999.
• 3. Vikhansky O.S. Strategic management: Textbook. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Gardariki, 2002.
• 4. Duck D.D. Monster of change. Reasons for success and failure of organizational change. M.: Alpina Publisher, 2003.
• 5. Zub A.T., Loktionov M.V. Systemic strategic management: methodology and practice. M.: Genesis, 2001.
• 6. Lyukshinov A.N. Strategic management: Textbook for universities. M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001.
• 7. Mackay X. How to survive among the sharks (identify competitors in the ability to sell, manage, stimulate, make deals)/

McKay X. Business strategy: Concept, content, symbols/Trans. from English Ufa: Academy of Management; M.: Economics, 1993.

• 8. Meskon M.H., Albert M., Khedouri F. Fundamentals of management: Transl. from English M.: Delo, 2000.
• 9. Thompson A.A., Strickland A.J. Strategic management. The art of developing and implementing strategy: Textbook for universities / Trans. from English; Ed. L.G. Zaitseva, M.I. Sokolova. M.: Banks and exchanges, UNITY, 1998.

Strategic change promises a lot to some people in an organization in terms of career prospects and professional growth and threaten others who may fear losing their position in the organizational hierarchy or losing their position altogether. Therefore, people in an organization react to the prospects of strategic changes in different ways: some of them become active supporters and implementers of the strategy, others become active opponents, opposition, and others become passive observers of developments. But they all have an impact on the implementation of strategy, and their impact must be taken into account by designers and leaders of strategic change.

People in an organization (at least some of them) resist change. There is nothing surprising in such resistance, much less pathological: most people strive for stability and predictability of their existence and are afraid of revolutionary disruptions to their usual way of life, and also have their own idea of ​​​​how to implement the strategy. Groups faced with the need for change are faced with the prospect of changing informal connections, communication channels, behavioral stereotypes and norms. Consequently, they easily respond to calls for resistance to change. Resistance to change on the part of individuals and groups can often be the only but powerful force holding back the development of an organization. The threat from this force depends on various reasons, but the main ones are the structure and culture of the organization.

We will look at common approaches to overcoming resistance to strategic change and basic strategies for implementing plans.

Methods for overcoming resistance to change

How to develop a strategy to overcome resistance to change? As a rule, this question is not easy to answer. First of all, because just as no two organizations are completely identical, there are no universal rules for overcoming resistance. Many managers underestimate not only the variety with which people can respond to change in an organization, but also how positive influence these changes can impact individuals and teams. However, there are still a number of quite universal methods overcoming resistance to strategic change. Here we will consider two groups of methods proposed by E. Hughes (1975) and J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger.

Hughes identifies eight factors for overcoming resistance to change.

Factor 1: taking into account the reasons for individual behavior in the organization:

• take into account the needs, inclinations and hopes of those affected by the changes;
• demonstrate that they receive individual benefits from the implementation of the strategy.

• the presence of sufficient authority - formal or informal;
• having sufficient power and influence.

Factor 3: providing information to the group:

• relevant information that is relevant and of sufficient importance.

Factor 4: Achieving Common Understanding:

• general understanding of the need for change;
• participation in the search and interpretation of information.

Factor 5: Sense of Group Belonging:

• a general sense of ownership of the changes;
• sufficient degree of participation.

• agreed upon group work to reduce opposition.

Factor 7: Group Leader Support for Change:

• attracting a leader in a specific work environment (without interruption from direct work).

Factor 8: awareness of group members:

• opening communication channels;
• exchange of objective information;
• knowledge of the achieved results of the change.

Let us consider the content of these factors in more detail.

Taking into account the reasons for individual behavior in an organization. Any change must take into account the needs, inclinations and hopes of those affected by the change. Before taking part in the change process, a person must see a certain personal gain that he will receive as a result of these changes, then he is unlikely to resist the change.

The importance of a leader's authority. The higher the leader's authority, the greater the influence he can have on the change process. In most organizations, the manager has greater prestige than the members of the work team entrusted to him, so the wishes of the manager are usually a more powerful incentive for starting and maintaining the process of change than the wishes of one or another of his subordinates. Moreover, the official leader of the team and the real leader (often informal) do not necessarily have to be the same person. Often, an unofficial leader with high authority in the workforce can have a great influence on the change process. Regardless of whether there is an informal leader, the line manager has more power and influence than the “coach” from the personnel training department.

Providing information to the group. A conscious desire for change can arise in a group if it is given information about how the group will act in the process of change, what its task is, how its work will change, etc., especially if this data is objective and contains new information , complementing the existing one. Change-related information concentrated in a single organization or group has more influence than general information about the activities of individuals. The more information is centralized, accessible, relevant, and relevant to the problem, the greater the opportunity for successful change. For example, information obtained through a survey, when correct use may bring more benefits to a specific workforce than general data on intentions.

Achieving a common understanding. A strong desire for change can be generated by the achievement of a common understanding among all group members of the need for change, while the initiative aimed at stimulating change will come from the group itself. To do this, employees must know what problems the organization actually faces and what paths have been chosen to solve these problems. The facts produced by individuals or groups, or the participation of these individuals or groups in planning, as well as in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, have a significant impact on the change process. Information obtained by one member of a group of employees is more understandable, more acceptable, and more likely to be used than that provided by an “external expert.” In particular, participation in the analysis and interpretation of data can reduce or eliminate resistance that arises from moving things too slowly or too quickly. If data is to become the evidence base for driving change, it must be presented and perceived correctly. It's all about fundamental difference a situation where an independent consulting firm is invited to conduct a study and prepare a report, versus a situation where the study is carried out on its own with the assistance of independent experts.

Feeling of belonging to a group. The power of resistance to change is reduced when the employees who are about to experience the change and those who are trying to influence the change feel that they belong to the same group. Change that comes from within appears much less threatening and causes less resistance than change that is imposed from without. The degree of participation in changes may vary. The highest degree of participation (usually the most effective) is characterized by the participation of all group members. The next level of participation corresponds to the participation of individual group members. The lowest degree involves the participation of only the manager. This does not necessarily increase positive attitudes toward change, but it does significantly reduce overt resistance.

The authority of the group for its members. The more authoritative a group is to its members, the more influence it can have on them. A group is attractive to its members to the extent that it satisfies their needs. This entails each group member being willing to be influenced by other members and increasing incentives for group cohesion if this is important to the group. When it comes to change, group cohesion can either reduce or increase resistance, depending on whether the group perceives the change to be beneficial or harmful.

Group leader support for change. A group that retains psychological significance for its individual members has more influence than a group whose membership is short-lived. A change process that involves organizing individual managers into temporary teams away from their day job is less effective for long-term changes than a change process in which managers are involved in a specific work environment.

Awareness of group members. Information relating to the need for change, plans for change and its consequences must be communicated to all affected team members. This principle can be formulated as follows: the process of change requires the deliberate and deliberate opening of communication channels. Blocking these channels usually leads to mistrust and hostility. In particular, objective information about the scale and direction of changes (knowledge of the results) facilitates further changes, as people imagine what awaits them as a result of implementing the strategy. Change processes that provide concrete information about the progress made to date and provide criteria against which improvements can be measured are more successful in initiating and sustaining change than processes that do not provide such specific information and feedback.

Kotter and Schlesinger suggest the following methods for overcoming resistance to change:

• information and communication;
• participation and involvement;
• help and support;
• negotiations and agreements;
• manipulation and co-optation;
• explicit and implicit coercion.

Below we will consider the ways and conditions for the successful implementation of the methods identified by J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger, but we will first present the results of the analysis in table. 1.

Information and communication. We noted above that one of the most common ways to overcome resistance to implementing a strategy is to inform people in advance. Gaining insight into upcoming strategic changes helps to understand the need for these changes and their logic. The outreach process may include one-on-one discussions, group workshops, or reports. In practice, this is done, for example, by conducting seminars by a manager for managers lower levels. A communication or information program may be perceived as most appropriate if resistance to a strategy is based on incorrect or insufficient information, especially if “strategists” need the help of opponents of strategic change in implementing those changes. This program requires time and effort if its implementation involves the participation of a large number of people.

Participation and involvement. If strategists engage potential opponents of the strategy during the planning stage, they can often avoid resistance. In an effort to gain participation in the implementation of strategic change, change initiators listen to the opinions of employees involved in this strategy and subsequently use their advice. Researchers have found that many managers take the issue of staff participation in strategy implementation very seriously. Sometimes this is positive, sometimes negative, i.e. some managers believe that they should always be involved in the change process, while others consider it an absolute mistake. Both relationships can create a number of problems for a manager, as neither is ideal.

Help and support. Support can come in the form of opportunities to learn new skills, free time to learn, or simply a chance to be listened to and receive emotional support. Help and support are especially needed when resistance is based on fear and anxiety. Experienced harsh managers usually ignore these types of resistance, as well as the effectiveness of this method of dealing with resistance. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it requires a lot of time, is therefore expensive and yet often fails. If there is simply no time, money and patience, then there is no point in using support methods.

Negotiations and agreements. Another way to combat resistance is to provide incentives to active or potential opponents of the change. For example, a manager may offer an employee a higher salary in exchange for a change in work assignment, or he may increase an individual employee's pension in exchange for an earlier retirement date. Negotiation is especially appropriate when it is clear that someone has to lose as a result of the change, and yet they have significant power to resist. Reaching an agreement is a relatively easy way to avoid strong resistance, although, like many other methods, it can be quite expensive. Especially at the moment when the manager makes it clear that he is ready to negotiate in order to avoid strong resistance. In this case, he may become an object of blackmail.

Manipulation and co-optation. In some situations, managers try to hide their intentions from other people by using manipulation. Manipulation in this case implies the selective use of information and the conscious presentation of events in a certain order that is beneficial for the initiator of change. One of the most common forms of manipulation is co-optation. Co-optation of an individual involves giving him the desired role in planning and implementing changes. Co-opting a group involves giving one of its leaders, or someone the group respects, a key role in planning and implementing change. This is not a form of participation, because the initiators of change are not trying to get the advice of the co-opted, but only their support. Under certain circumstances, co-optation can be a relatively cheap and easy way to gain the support of an individual or group of employees (cheaper than negotiation and faster than participation). But it has a number of disadvantages. If people feel that they are simply being fooled into resisting change, that they are not being treated equally, or that they are simply being lied to, then their reaction can be extremely negative. In addition, co-optation can create additional problems if those co-opted use their ability to influence the organization and implement changes in ways that are not in the interests of the organization. Other forms of manipulation also have disadvantages that may be even more significant. Moreover, if a manager continues to have a reputation as a manipulator, he risks losing the opportunity to use necessary approaches such as education, communication, participation, and may even ruin his career.

Explicit and implicit coercion. Managers often overcome resistance through coercion. Basically, they force people to accept strategic changes through implicit or explicit threats (threats of losing jobs, benefits, promotion opportunities, etc.), or through actual layoffs, or by transferring to a lower-paying job. Like manipulation, the use of coercion is a risky process because people always resist imposed change. However, in situations where a strategy must be implemented quickly, and where it is not popular no matter how it is implemented, coercion may be the manager's only option.

The most common mistake managers make is to use only one or a limited number of approaches, regardless of the situation. This includes the harsh boss who often uses coercion, the employee-oriented manager who constantly tries to attract and support his people, the cynical boss who always manipulates his employees, and the intelligent manager who relies heavily on education. and communication, and, finally, a lawyer-type manager who always tries to negotiate.

Successful implementation of strategy in an organization is always characterized by the skillful application of a number of these approaches, often in a variety of combinations. However, successful implementation is characterized by two features: managers use these approaches taking into account their advantages and disadvantages and assess the situation realistically.

Return