What is the dominant reaction to past changes at your organisation: Ambivalence (Piderit, 2000), cynicism (Fleming & Spicer, 2003), enactment (Orton, 2000), or silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000)? What is the likely reaction to the change you want to champion? How can you influence this reaction?
The dominant reaction to organizational past changes in our organization is that of silence. This is because the employees have been welcoming the changes without opposition due to the belief that the management always makes the changes with the rights of employees at heart. Moreover, some of the employees fear that they may receive criticism from other employees if they contribute their ideas on a particular change and they opt to be silent. According to Morrison and Milliken (2000), organizational silence may be caused by manager’s fear of negative feedback or manager’s implicit belief. I want to increase the products that our company offers in the private equity investments in order to increase our market share. The likely reaction of employees to this change is ambivalence. The employees will welcome this change with positive cognitive attitude since they will have a belief that the profitability of our company will improve. They will also welcome this change with emotional attitude since they will have hope on their job security (Piderit, 2000). In order to influence this reaction, I will advice the employees to give their contributions on how to improve our products.
Silence is a problematic reaction to change (as raised by Morrison & Milliken, 2000) as it can quickly become resistance to change. How did silence contribute to the crisis-laden results raised by Ezzamel, Willmott, and Worthington (2001)?
Ezzamel, Willmott and Worthington (2001) argued that organization silence contributed to crisis-laden results in several ways. They argued that silence in an organization would cause an organization to have lack of variance in information input, rigid analysis of alternatives and ideas and employees feeling that organization does not value them. Furthermore, they claimed that organization silence made employees to feel that they were not involved in management control. Due to this, it is likely that the employees may develop stress, have low internal motivation, resist organization changes and feel dissatisfied with their jobs (Ezzamel, Willmott and Worthington, 2001). In addition to this, the organization may make wrong decisions since it may not receive consultations from other employees. The employees may opt to seek employment in other organizations.
Limited time Offer
How can you use Vince and Broussine (1996) and Orton (2000) to help foster positive communication during the change you are working on.
Vince and Brousinne (1996) argued that paradox, defense and attachment were the main factors that caused employees to have emotional resistance to organizational changes. However, they suggested that it was necessary for the management of an organization to use interpersonal communication to understand the emotional, political and cultural complexity of their employees. They claimed when the senior managers allowed the junior managers to communicate their opinions, they carried their activities without fear and thus they could eliminate their paradox (Vince and Broussine, 1996). Using interpersonal communication, I may foster positive communication by telling all the employees to conduct meetings where they raise their contribution and this will eliminate their paradox and fears. Orton (2000) suggested that organization should replace its casual laws with sensemaking. This process helps people and organizations to make judgments about their relationships. Through the interaction of different employees with different believes about casualties, an organization is able to reorganize appropriately. This will assist positive communication on my change since it will help to bring different employees with different ideas.
Given that Piderit (2000) argues that ambivalence is widespread during organisational change, how can you help uncover and explore ambivalent attitudes when implementing your change? How can you ensure that employees at your organisation do not meet your attempt with cynicism (Fleming & Spicer, 2003)?
I may uncover and explore ambivalent attitudes when implementing my change in several ways. Using ambivalence, I will be able to anticipate and predict voice, neglect, exit and loyalty that may develop in employees when I am implementing this change. This is because ambivalence helps to prove that employees find it difficult to express negative emotions compared to negative beliefs (Orton, 2000). Furthermore, I will be able to predict the mode that employees will use to communicate to their change agents. I may ensure that employees do not meet my attempts with cynicism through several ways. First, I will find out the factors that may cause the employees oppose management due to its rigid cultural programs. Furthermore, I would ensure that the employees have positive attitude towards subjectivity and power (Fleming and Spicer, 2003).
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Explore how the sense-making process (Orton, 2000) is influential in uncovering how potential crisis can arise from a change (Ezzamel, Willmott, & Worthington, 2001).
According to Orton (2000), sensemaking is the gradual development of loose agreement among organization members about how to link a stream of events with a set of reorganizing initiatives. It helped to move from the concept of casual laws governing an organization. It is influential in uncovering how potential crisis can arise from change since organization members create individual-level cause maps that help in identifying crisis. Furthermore, it filters casual assertions from an individual into an organizational reality.
Related Management essays