Resistance to change can be classified along three dimensions into three: technical resistance, political resistance, and cultural resistance. Technical resistance results from the habit of following established procedures and focusing actions on maintaining the status quo. Political resistance is friction that arises in the form of fight back when change threatens major stakeholders, such as top executives. Cultural resistance take the form of systems and procedures that reinforce the status quo, promoting conformity to existing values, norms, and assumptions about how things should operate (Cummings and Worley, 2009).
More often than not, resistance to change arises when employees get comfortable with the status quo and when they do not understand the reasons behind a change. Resistance to change is further apparent when a change process is imposed by force; there is lack of clarity regarding the change; several changes happen simultaneously; and the fear of the future state. There are empirical evidences which partly held the view that resistance to change is one of the reasons for failure of change initiatives (Maurer, 2006; Waddell and Sohal, 1998; Anderson and Anderson, 2010). The causes of resistance to change should be identified and eliminated in order to make a change process effective. Kotter and Schlensinger (2008) emphasized that there are six steps that must be put in place to achieve this direction. These six steps include: education and communication; participation and involvement; facilitation and support; negotiation and agreement; co-optation and manipulation; and implicit and explicit coercion.
Ansoff (1990) identified two types of resistance to change namely, behavioral resistance and systemic resistance. The two types of resistance occur concurrently during a strategic change process and they produce similar effects which include delays, unanticipated costs, and chronic mal-performance of new strategies.
However, the basic causes are different. Behavioral resistance comes as a result of active opposition to strategic change by employees, while on the other hand; systemic resistance is normally due to passive incompetence of the organization. Ansoff (1990) defines resistance as a multifaceted phenomenon, which introduces unanticipated delays, costs and instabilities into the process of strategic change. Behavioral resistance is a natural reaction by groups and individuals to strategic change which threatens their cultural and position of power. Resistance to change is proportional to the size of the discontinuities introduced into the culture and power and inversely proportional to the speed of introduction. In managing resistance, a useful approach is to start by building a launching platform. This involves a strategic diagnosis, a behavioral diagnosis, eliminating unnecessary resistance, forming pro-change power base, and designing resistance reducing features into the plan for the strategic change. Once the change is launched, the residual resistance should be anticipated and necessary power applied to overcome it. Whenever the strategic change in strategy is completed before the changes in capability, capability building should be continued until the strategic change is institutionalized.
According to Kotter (2007) reorganization is usually feared, because it is a disturbance to the status quo, a threat to the people’s vested interests in their jobs and an upset to the normal way of doing things. Therefore, strategic change is often characterized by delays and cost overruns resulting in loss in efficiency and effectiveness. Employees may be worried about the consequences of change, such as how the new conditions will take away their power and status. Some are concerned about the process of change itself, such as the effort required to break old habits and learn new skills (Kotter, 2007). Pringle et al (2006) observes that although each company’s circumstances account for some of the problems, widespread problems have one common root; the managers and subordinates view strategic change differently. Both groups know that vision and leadership drive successful strategic change, but few leaders recognize ways in which individuals commit to change to bring it about.
From the top management, change is an opportunity to strengthen business by aligning operations to strategy, new professional challenges and risks and advance career. On the other hand, employees including middle management view change as unwelcome, disruptive, and intrusive. The top management often underestimates this gap on relationship with the employees and the effort required winning support for strategic change. In order to close the gap, the top managers need to see strategic change from the perspective of the employees. Unless the top managers define new terms and persuade employees to accept them, it is unrealistic for such managers to expect employees to fully buy into changes that disturb status quo. Problems set in when managers and subordinates fail to understand how strategic change is essential to turning the company around would require them to take a fundamentally different view of their obligations. The employees who for so long are used to a certain culture will favour maintaining the status quo, and therefore resistance to strategic change would be embedded in the culture (Pringle et al, 2006).
