Sandy Piderit explains the organizational change effects of individuals and the work environment through studies executed in the office during the organizational change and research from other great writers on the topic. Sandy talks about the attitudes toward change, either the employees values throughout the process, effectiveness, and who steps up to take lead through out the organizational change process. She also has discovered some studies that were completed in the office setting during a change in their environment. Sandy has came up with five key implications that will help the changing process either. A big part in the efficiency and success of an organizational change are the employee’s attitudes about it.
Sandy discussed that a …show more content…
Also she stated, “Responses to a change initiative that are neither consistently negative nor consistently positive, which were previously ignored but are potentially the most prevalent type of initial response, can be analyzed as cross-dimension ambivalence in employees’ responses to change. In the majority of work on resistance to change, researchers have borrowed a view from physics to metaphorically define resistance as a restraining force moving in the direction of maintaining the status quo” (cf. Lewin, 1952). Waston (1982) showed that when employees show resistance it makes the managers believe that they are being disobedient and are going against them because they are upset about the organizational change. As Jermeir et al. put it, “The most prevalent way of analyzing resistance is to see it as a reactive process where agents embedded in power relations actively oppose initiatives by other agents” (Jermeir, 1994). A lot of the time managers tend to view their employees as speed bumps during the organizational change process instead of seeing them as a helpful hand and a way to come together as a team. This is where the employees will start to feel less of a value for their company and will start to fall …show more content…
1. Loyalty- Once this is achieved the employees will feel safer to respond to the proposed change. Because, they can discuss their beliefs about the project, they will be more likely to be open to more change throughout the process and others to come. This will also keep them from cutting off from the group and work more as a team. 2. Consequences- as stated earlier, the intentional dimension, employees are afraid to show attitude about the project because of the consequences that follow. So managers can fix that by paying attention to balancing the positive consequences and the negative consequences. For example, Cohen and Staw researched institutionalized dissent and it showed that, “sometimes, organizations encourage and plan for dissent and ritualized disagreements; although it does not imply that dissent is functional, it is one reasonable explanation for the prevalence of such and organization practice, (Cohen & Staw, 1998). 3. Research- Expand the research beyond the past focus of the change. If superiors do not know how to approach the team about the change or how they will take it, then do the research. Finding the answers to how this will affect the company or how fellow employees will respond, will tremendously make the process easier. 4. Pay attention throughout the process- Sometimes the negative or positive response will set in quickly or it will take a while.
Sandy discussed that a …show more content…
Also she stated, “Responses to a change initiative that are neither consistently negative nor consistently positive, which were previously ignored but are potentially the most prevalent type of initial response, can be analyzed as cross-dimension ambivalence in employees’ responses to change. In the majority of work on resistance to change, researchers have borrowed a view from physics to metaphorically define resistance as a restraining force moving in the direction of maintaining the status quo” (cf. Lewin, 1952). Waston (1982) showed that when employees show resistance it makes the managers believe that they are being disobedient and are going against them because they are upset about the organizational change. As Jermeir et al. put it, “The most prevalent way of analyzing resistance is to see it as a reactive process where agents embedded in power relations actively oppose initiatives by other agents” (Jermeir, 1994). A lot of the time managers tend to view their employees as speed bumps during the organizational change process instead of seeing them as a helpful hand and a way to come together as a team. This is where the employees will start to feel less of a value for their company and will start to fall …show more content…
1. Loyalty- Once this is achieved the employees will feel safer to respond to the proposed change. Because, they can discuss their beliefs about the project, they will be more likely to be open to more change throughout the process and others to come. This will also keep them from cutting off from the group and work more as a team. 2. Consequences- as stated earlier, the intentional dimension, employees are afraid to show attitude about the project because of the consequences that follow. So managers can fix that by paying attention to balancing the positive consequences and the negative consequences. For example, Cohen and Staw researched institutionalized dissent and it showed that, “sometimes, organizations encourage and plan for dissent and ritualized disagreements; although it does not imply that dissent is functional, it is one reasonable explanation for the prevalence of such and organization practice, (Cohen & Staw, 1998). 3. Research- Expand the research beyond the past focus of the change. If superiors do not know how to approach the team about the change or how they will take it, then do the research. Finding the answers to how this will affect the company or how fellow employees will respond, will tremendously make the process easier. 4. Pay attention throughout the process- Sometimes the negative or positive response will set in quickly or it will take a while.