there are 6 assignments i need all by saturday i am willing to pay 45 total the papers are not too long

Volume 14, Issue 4, October 2013 Review of International Comparative Management 512

The Role of Employees in a Process of Change –

A Case Study for the Romanian Organizations

Marian NĂSTASE1

Mariana PREDIŞCAN

Roxana Nadina ROIBAN

Keywords: change, employees, leaders, resistance to change, forces of change.

JEL classification: M10, M12

Introduction

Change is becoming more and more significant and inevitable in any

organization's day to day activities forcing managers to struggle for maintaining

their position in a highly competitive market.

The environment where most of the organizations are operating today is

turbulent so the need for change has become a must. In order to assure the success

of their organizations managers have to be aware of the opportunities and threats

created by the environment and to prepare for change.

This article aims to study how the employees are involved in a process of

change and which are the main reasons for them to act in a certain way when a

process of change is implemented inside the organization.

Considering that any process of change takes time and needs the support of

the whole organization, we have tried to identify which is the perception of both

1 Marian NĂSTASE, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania

E-mail: [email protected]

Mariana PREDIŞCAN, The West University of Timişoara, Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration, Romania, E-mail: [email protected]

Roxana Nadina ROIBAN, The West University of Timişoara, Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration, Romania, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Change is inevitable and in order to successfully manage a process of change,

business leaders have to acknowledge and understand the forces that drive it.

This study aims to analyse the role that employees may have in a process of

change, as an internal force of change within the organization, along with other

drivers of change such as managers or the organizational particularities.

A secondary outcome is to understand why in many cases employees have a

negative attitude toward change, being a source of resistance to change rather than

being supportive and enhancing it.

Based on the analysis of more than 200 completed questionnaires, this article

presents the conclusions regarding the contribution that employees from different

Romanian organization have in a process of change and the reasons why they do so.

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 4, October 2013 513

Romanian managers and employees regarding this subject. Moreover, we also tried

to see how are managers motivating and rewarding their employee's initiative and

creative ideas and how do employees feel about the changes that take place inside

the organization.

1. The main roles played in a change process

Change is the most frequent phenomenon of today's reality and can be

found everywhere, so a good knowledge of how this process can be managed is

very important, no matter if we refer to organizations or to people. The pace of

change is accelerating continuously, and there is no perspective for it to slow down

very soon.

Managers can no longer focus on business as they usually did because the

pressure of the environment force organizations to adjust in order to survive and

prosper, and the main challenge is to manage change efficiently (Westover, 2010).

Even if change can be found everywhere, managers still have a delay on

responding properly and this behavior generate low results for their organizations

(Barbu, Năstase, 2010).

A vision for change is essential in order to deal with the environment's

complexity, but not all changes should be reactive and done only when the current

situation of the organization is as bad as that changes become inevitable. Leaders

are the ones that should play the main role inside the organization not only because

of their long term vision and disposition for change, but also because they can

reduce the resistance to change by involving as many people as possible in this

process.

A strategic leader has a global vision of the organization as a whole, long

term thinking despite the numberless uncertainties of the environment and

encourages people to come with new ideas in order to make change possible inside

the organization (Năstase, 2010).

Every change takes time, effort and needs the support of the whole

organization. The role that employees have in a process of change is crucial, and

one of the main things that should be done in order to avoid crisis and resistance is

to make sure that every member of the organization is involved in the process

(Stanleigh, 2008; Smith, 2010).

John Kotter emphasized the importance of a good vision, a sense for

urgency and a strong team as the key factors of success in a change process,

arguing that most of the transformation efforts fail because managers are not aware

that a change process goes through a series of phases that require a considerable

length of time (Kotter, 1995).

In the classical organizations, the supposition that managers have much

more knowledge compared to their subordinates make them feel entitled to make

decisions without consulting or involving employees (Bibu et al., 2011). This

perception is also valid when we refer to change, so instead of being a force that

drives it, employees are rather a force of resistance to change.

Volume 14, Issue 4, October 2013 Review of International Comparative Management 514

Resistance to change is something inevitable, in any process and it can be

seen as an emotional reaction or a behavioral one that has to do with the feeling of

losing control and uncertainty (Foster, 2010). Employees are the most powerful

source of resistance because they don't feel involved and consulted when a change

occurs, so they try to reject the change as much as possible.

In most cases, the main perception is that resistance is something

destructive for the organization, affecting the success of any change effort and

making the change process even harder than it already is (Sweers, Desouza, 2010;

Smollan, 2011; Agboola, Salawu, 2011).

Even if in some situations resistance can have positive effects upon a

process of change, if that change is not appropriate for the organization, there is

still need to reduce this phenomenon in order to achieve the goals in a more

efficient way (Predişcan, Braduşanu, Roiban, 2013).

The roles played in a process of change are different, and managers,

leaders and employees should all be involved in the process of identifying the need

for change as being opportune in order to increase support for change and obtain

the desired results after the process is finished.

2. The role of Romanian employees in a process of change

There are many differences between organizations and the role that

employees may have regarding change depends first of all of the view that

managers have related to this subject and second of the existing management style

inside that particular organization.

In order to see what is the contribution of the Romanian employees in a

process of change we have tried first to establish appropriate research

methodologies, then we have identified the sample and in the end after gathering

and analyzing the data, we have made the interpretation.

2.1 Research methodology

The objective of this article is to show the results of the analysis regarding

the role that employees have in the process of change identification and

implementation, therefore, we considered appropriate to use a quantitative research

method for gathering the information, more specifically a questionnaire-based

survey, as well as a qualitative method by using a semi structured interview.

The process of data gathering was performed in June - July 2013,

exclusively online on various Romanian organizations from different industries

such as services, trading, manufacturing and public services, and it was addressed

to both managers and employees, in order to see which are the main views

regarding the topic.

In order to see which are the main initiators of change and what are the

reasons for them to implement change, we have formulated two different

hypotheses as follows:

H1: Most changes come from managers and owners;

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 4, October 2013 515

H2: Without a motivation system inside an organization, employees are not a

significant source of change.

The two hypotheses mentioned above are based on the premise that

employees’ involvement in a process of change is minor, due to the fact that

managers are not aware of the advantages that can be provided by new creative

ideas and solutions of change generated by their staff.

2.2 Data analysis and interpretation

The information collected from the questionnaires, and the interviews was processed using SPSS 17.

Of the 257 questionnaires distributed, 218 were validated and the

respondents were mainly managers from different levels (72% from a total of 218).

The percentage of the employees that were included in the study was 28%.

For a better understanding of how the employees are involved in a process

of change, we will present the results for each hypothesis.

H1: Most changes come from managers and owners

For the validation of this hypothesis, we have tried to identify how

frequent the proposals of improvement coming from employees, managers and

owners are leading to changes inside the organization. The results were: in 37.60%

of cases rarely the employees proposals lead to change, in 46.80% of cases the

proposals coming from owners are often a source of change while 55% of the

respondents consider that change ideas coming from managers are always

materialized. Thereby the hypothesis is valid.

The main reason why managers are the initiators of change comes from

their responsibility inside the organization which is to make sure that goals are

reached efficiently according to the strategy, yet this is not a reason strong enough

for them to be the only ones identifying the need for change.

Owners have the power to participate and decide on the changes that will

be made, as a result of their investment to the organization capital so the fact that

their opinion regarding change is important, shouldn't be a surprise.

The minimum involvement of the employees for most of the Romanian

organizations can be explained by the fact that in our country, the power is still

very centralized, especially in small and medium sized companies, and the process

of delegation is not fully and accurately implemented. Most managers don't seem

to understand the importance of encouraging employee participation not only for

their ideas of change that can be very effective but also for the fact that any change

needs the support of as many people as possible in order to reduce the inevitable

resistance that comes with it.

Volume 14, Issue 4, October 2013 Review of International Comparative Management 516

H2: Without a motivation system inside an organization, employees are not a

significant source of change.

In order to test this hypothesis we considered four assumptions regarding

the relationship between employees and change:

- how many of the ideas coming from employees are a potential source of change;

- how are employees motivated to make change proposals;

- how are employees involved in a change process;

- how are employees rewarded for their ideas and proposals regarding change.

As we can see in the following figure, the employees are the last source of

change, in only 9.17% of cases their ideas being actually considered by managers.

Figure 1. The main sources of change within organizations

The reason why employees have such a low percentage when we refer to

the main sources of change is due to the fact that managers have the wrong

impression that their staff is not capable to find new ways of improving the existing

processes inside the organization. Employees are often discouraged because their

efforts seem to be in vain due to many barriers raised by the organizational

structure or by the manager's attitude towards his subordinates.

Regarding the second assumption, employees are not motivated to make

change proposals, in 46.80% of cases the respondents considering that employee

motivation for change is insignificant.

The situations in which managers refuse right from the start any idea

coming from their subordinates are not few, or even if their answer is not a

negative one right from the beginning, they address too many questions regarding

that idea, confusing the employees and making them stop trying to come with

something new.

The fear of losing their power that comes from their position inside the

organization is another reason why managers do not encourage employee initiative.

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 4, October 2013 517

Beside the fact that employee are not motivated, their involvement in a

change process is very small, 41.30% of the respondents stating that changes

performed inside the organization are not discussed with the employees before

being implemented. This is one of the main reasons why employees are a source of

resistance to change, more than a factor that supports it.

There are many ways to reduce the resistance to change, but the most

efficient behaviour is to prevent it by involving as many people as possible in a

change process. The enthusiasm and the support of the employees are a key factor

for successful change.

The last assumption focuses on how are employees rewarded when they

get involved, and come with something new. As well as in the case of the previous

assumptions, the results are not very positive because only 3.5% of the respondents

declare that, inside the organization, there is a system that rewards the ones that

make proposals of improvement.

Without winning something, especially if we consider that employees are

neither motivated nor involved in a change process, they won't feel the need to

express their opinion or to make an effort that could lead to improvements inside

the organization.

Using interviews as a tool to gather information we discovered that

managers and employees have different views of the analyzed subject. For

example, managers argue that they cannot use a participative management style

due to the lack of interest from employees, so they are forced to impose all the

decisions that have to be made. On the other hand, employees state that managers

discuss the change process only after the idea of change has already been identified

so, what should have been a discussion where everybody can express what they

feel, it's actually more a report on what will be done in the future.

There are different roles in a process of change, and real leaders have the

capacity to determine other people to act in a certain way. Starting from this, the

real leaders can inoculate to employees that the idea of change is actually their by

favoring a proper context for change.

From everything stated above, the hypothesis is valid, and employees are

not motivated, involved or rewarded when it comes to change.

Conclusions

Based on the research made we can conclude that the role that employees have in the Romanian organizations is insignificant due to the fact that managers don't seem to acknowledge the advantages and the strengths that can be identified by using a participative management style inside the organization. There is still a very stringent need for business leaders that have a vision for change, support it and make others enhance it. Creating a climate for change and an organizational culture that supports change is not an easy thing to do, and that's why so many change efforts fail even before the process is completed.

Volume 14, Issue 4, October 2013 Review of International Comparative Management 518

We all have creative potential, but without the appropriate techniques to stimulate it, no results will be shown. Managers need to understand how important is the support from their staff and should reward any behavior that leads to change, because employees need short term wins in order to be stimulated and continue to identify new ideas, products or services, or to improve the existing ones. Without motivation, involvement and a system that rewards their effort, employees will not be determined to embrace change and will resist it as much as possible. Even in managers have the final word on what to change, how to do it and when to do it, the identification of the need for change is not only their task and each member of the organization should have the right to try to come up with something new that adds value.

References

1. Agboola, A. A., Salawu, R. O., (2011) Managing Deviant Behavoir and Resistance to Change, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6, No. 11, pp. 235-242

2. Barbu, M., Năstase, M., (2010) Change Leadership and the Worldwide Crisis, Revista de Management Comparat Internaţional/Review of International Comparative Management, Bucureşti, Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 129-138

3. Bibu, N., Sala, D., Predişcan, M., Năstase, M., (2011) Characteristics of dynamic companies from Romania, International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, Issue 2, Vol. 5, pp. 298-307

4. Foster, R. D., (2010) Resistance, Justice, and Commitment to Change, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 3-39

5. Kotter, J., (2007) Why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, pp. 96-103

6. Năstase, M., (2010) Developing a Strategic Leaderhip Approach within the Organizations, Revista de Management Comparat Internaţional/Review of International Comparative Management, Bucureşti, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 454-460

7. Predişcan, M., Braduţanu, D., Roiban, R. N., (2013) Forces that enhance or reduce employee resistance to change, The Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Sciences, Tom XXII, 1st Issue, pp. 1606-1612

8. Smith, I., (2011) Organisational quality and organisational change, Library Management, Vol. 32, No. 1/2, pp. 111-128

9. Smollan, R., (2011) Engaging with Resistance to Change, University of Auckland Business Review,Vol. 13, No. 11, pp. 12-15

10. Stanleigh, M., (2008) Effecting success change management initiatives, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 34-37

11. Sweers, N., Desouza, K. C., (2010) Shh!It's vive la resistance, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 31, Iss. 6, pp. 12-21

12. Westover, J. H., (2010) Managing Organizational Change: Change Agent Strategies and Techniques to Successfully Managing the Dynamics of Stability and Change in Organizations, International Journal of Management and Innovation, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 45-50

Copyright of Review of International Comparative Management / Revista de Management Comparat International is the property of Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.