lc_u7.1rpl

Respond to at least two of your peers with any questions you have about their experience of witnessing resistance to change in organizational change efforts and compare their answers to your own understanding of problems of resistance in organizational change efforts.

PEER ONE:

I recently had to navigate a series of significant organizational changes as a leader of a large team working as an independent contractor (brand partner) for a company. 

This last year saw significant changes in my company's industry as a whole as federal laws tightened and companies scrambled to comply. Our company responded by hiring a new CEO who had been a well-known and highly sought-after corporate lawyer for many years. This new CEO brought fast, sweeping changes to the structure and process of enrolling and selling, the entire website, the compensation plan, and even the verbiage of our company. It was a lot to take in, especially given that all of these changes occurred during the pandemic.

1. Why did employees resist the change?

Brand partners resisted the change because it was fast, unexpected, and poorly communicated. Furthermore, it was seen as unnecessary by most.  

    2. What were the problematic issues that were not being effectively addressed, from the employees' point of view?

The changes initially resulted in increased stress with a new and unstable website, an immediate decreased ability to grow, and decreased commission for brand partners. There were so many problems initially that the company spent most of its time trying to convince stakeholders that the problems would be resolved and that they would produce greater success in the long-run. However, many of the problematic outcomes continued on for many months and some are still an issue today. 

    3. Were the underlying concerns legitimate?

Yes, the underlying concerns were legitimate. Instead of communicating the changes in advance to achieve buy-in before implementing them, the company announced the changes almost as soon as they were happening and before they were even fully ready to be implemented. This resulted in a lot of fear, mistrust, instability, and poor problem shooting as each new problem arose with the new policies and system. 

    4. What could the leader have done to address the situation or prevent the concern from arising?

The company could have mobilized the top brand partners who were at the top ranks of the company. These brand partners could have been the communicators of the changes coming, act as a go-between for the brand partners and the company, become knowledgeable trouble-shooters after the changes were made, and inspiring leaders who modeled the way in learning to use the changes to grow. Ultimately, the new CEO needed to create a sense of urgency for the need to bring the changes and then work through their most successful brand partners to achieve buy-in and sustain continued growth through the change process.

    5. How would this have changed the outcomes of the change effort?

I believe that this would have changed the outcomes of the change effort in the way that it would have prepared brand partners for the changes and also would have helped them to see that those leaders that inspire them are on-board with the changes. All of this would have made the stagnation and massive website issues more bearable as brand partners would have known that those things were coming and would be temporary. 

PEER TWO:

Once again for this week’s discussion, I will be reflecting on the change effort implemented while I worked for PetSmart.

1. Why did employees resist the change?

The main reason for employee resistance to the change was the lack of communication from upper levels. As we previously discussed, a lack of communication often results in resistance when employees are not given the reasoning for the change effort (Cohen, 2005). The department staff resisted the change because they did not feel it was necessary. This was especially true of some of the long-time employees in the department who felt the change was unnecessary because the old procedures worked well in their eyes.

2. What were the problematic issues that were not being effectively addressed, from the employees’ point of view?

There were two issues that were not addressed effectively, one being a change to employees’ schedules and the other being that there were not any associates scheduled for the department after 5pm almost every day. These issues upset employees who were used to their regular schedules and set number of hours when the change disrupted their daily routines in and out of work and placed extra stress on closing managers who took over running the department in addition to managerial duties. These concerns seemed to be ignored by upper management, perpetuating the resistance towards the change.

3. Were the underlying concerns legitimate?

Both concerns were legitimate. Some employees had set schedules due to family or other obligations and when hours changed, it caused stress for them as some lost hours or had to reschedule family obligations to match the new schedule. The concerns about having no department staff at night, usually from 5pm to closing at 9pm were legitimate because it created the potential for negative customer experiences and a stressful work environment. Closing managers became responsible for running the store, completing closing duties, and assisting customers in the department with purchasing pets or finding products. There were many moments when I myself was the only manager on duty and was needed somewhere in the store but could not respond because I was helping a family purchase a pet.

4. What could the leader have done to address the situation or prevent the concern from arising?

Upper management could have engaged in more open communication from the beginning of the change to make sure every member of the department knew why PetSmart felt the change was needed. Additionally, at store level, the store manager could have held team meetings where employees could voice their concerns and get answers to their questions. The store leader should also have given employees advanced notice of schedule changes instead of publishing schedules with alterations employees were not expecting, giving workers the chance to make arrangements if needed. Finally, the concern about a lack of a closing associate could have been prevented by ensuring there was an employee scheduled for the closing shift. The store leader could have considered hiring an associate for that shift to help avoid further schedule changes for existing staff.

5. How would this have changed the outcomes of the change effort?

Had management implemented the strategies to address or prevent employee concerns, the change effort would have been implemented faster and with less stress placed on store managers and department employees. Better communication efforts would have supported an understanding of the change and faster adoption of the new procedures (Cohen, 2005). The change process would have been met with less resistance, making implementation more efficient.

 

Cohen, D. (2005). The Heart of Change Field Guide. Deloitte Development LLC.