ORGANISATIE, TECHNOLOGIE EN VERANDERING
SAMENVATTING
CHOOSING STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE – KOTTER, SCHLESINGER (2008)
Few organizational change efforts tend to be complete failures, but few tend to be entirely successful either.
Organizational change efforts often run into some form of human resistance. To predict what form resistance might
take, managers need to be aware of the four most common reasons people resist change:
1. A desire not to lose something of value
Because people focus on their own best interests and not on those of the total organization, resistance often
results in “politics/political behaviour”. It sometimes takes the form of two or more armed camps publicly
fighting things out, but it is usually more subtle. It then occurs completely under the surface of public
dialogue. Those who resist are the ones that view their potential loss from change as an unfair violation of
their implicit, or psychological, contract with the organization.
2. A misunderstanding of the change and its implications
People perceive that it might cost them much more than they will gain. This occurs when trust is lacking
between the person initiating the change and the employees.
3. A belief that the change does not make sense for the organization
They see more costs than benefits resulting from the change. The difference in information that groups work
with often leads to differences in analyses, which can lead to resistance. If the analysis made by those not
initiating the change is more accurate than that derived by the initiators, resistance is obviously "good" for
the organization. But this likelihood is not obvious to some managers who assume that resistance is always
bad.
4. A low tolerance for change
People can fear they will not be able to develop the new skills and behaviour that will be required of them.
Organizational change can require people to change too much, too quickly. People sometimes also resist to
save face. If they go along with the chance it might be an admission that some of their previous decisions or
beliefs were wrong. they might also resist because of peer group pressure or because of a supervisor’s
attitude.
Methods of positively influencing people during a change:
1. Education and communication
Communication of ideas helps people see the need for and the logic of a change. The process can involve
one-on-one discussions, presentations to groups, or memos and reports. It is ideal when resistance is based
on inadequate or inaccurate information and analysis, especially if the initiators need the resisters’ help in
implementing the change. It requires a good relationship between initiators and resisters and the resisters
must be able to believe what they hear from the initiators. It also requires time and effort.
2. Participation and involvement
If the initiators involve the potential resisters in some aspect of the design and implementation of the
change, they can often forestall resistance. The initiators listen to the people the change involves and use
their advice. Participation is known to lead to commitment, not merely compliance. This may be needed for
the change to be a success. It can however lead to a poor solution if the process is not carefully managed and
it can be time consuming. It may take too long to involve people if change is urgent.
3. Facilitation and support
This might include providing training in new skills, or giving employees time off after a demanding period, or
listening and providing emotional support. It is most helpful when fear and anxiety lie at the heart of
resistance. A drawback is that it can be time consuming and expensive and still fail.
4. Negotiation and agreement
1
, To offer incentives to active or potential resisters. It is appropriate when it is clear that someone is going to
lose out as a result of a change and yet his or her power to resist is significant. It can be an easy way to avoid
major resistance but it may be expensive. It might also lead to blackmail.
5. Manipulation and co-optation
It involves the selective use of information and the conscious structuring of events. Co-opting usually involves
giving an individual a desirable role in the design or implementation of the change. initiators only want their
endorsement, not their advice. It can be inexpensive and an easy way to gain individual’s/group’s support.
But if people feel they are being tricked into not resisting, are not being treated equally, or are being lied to,
they may respond negatively. The co-opted may also use their ability to influence the design and
implementation of changes in ways that aren’t in the best interests of the organization. A manipulator
reputation can also undermine one’s ability to use needed approaches. having no other alternative, and not
enough time to educate, involve or support, and without the power or resources to negotiate, coerce or co-
opt, managers can resort to manipulating in order to scare people into thinking there’s a crisis coming that
they can avoid only by changing.
6. Explicit and implicit coercion
Managers force people to accept a change by explicitly or implicitly threatening them or by actually firing or
transferring them. It is a risky process but if speed is essential and changes will not be popular, coercion
might be the only option.
Successful/unsuccessful efforts are characterized by:
- Managers employ the approaches with a sensitivity to their strengths and limitations and appraise
the situation realistically.
- A common mistake is to use only one approach or a limited set regardless of the situation. Also, to
approach change in a disjointed and incremental way that is not a part of a clearly considered
strategy is a common mistake.
Successful change efforts seem to be those where strategic choices are internally consistent and fit some key
situational variables. The strategic options available are like a continuum. Where a change effort should be
strategically positioned on the continuum depends on situational factors:
2
SAMENVATTING
CHOOSING STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE – KOTTER, SCHLESINGER (2008)
Few organizational change efforts tend to be complete failures, but few tend to be entirely successful either.
Organizational change efforts often run into some form of human resistance. To predict what form resistance might
take, managers need to be aware of the four most common reasons people resist change:
1. A desire not to lose something of value
Because people focus on their own best interests and not on those of the total organization, resistance often
results in “politics/political behaviour”. It sometimes takes the form of two or more armed camps publicly
fighting things out, but it is usually more subtle. It then occurs completely under the surface of public
dialogue. Those who resist are the ones that view their potential loss from change as an unfair violation of
their implicit, or psychological, contract with the organization.
2. A misunderstanding of the change and its implications
People perceive that it might cost them much more than they will gain. This occurs when trust is lacking
between the person initiating the change and the employees.
3. A belief that the change does not make sense for the organization
They see more costs than benefits resulting from the change. The difference in information that groups work
with often leads to differences in analyses, which can lead to resistance. If the analysis made by those not
initiating the change is more accurate than that derived by the initiators, resistance is obviously "good" for
the organization. But this likelihood is not obvious to some managers who assume that resistance is always
bad.
4. A low tolerance for change
People can fear they will not be able to develop the new skills and behaviour that will be required of them.
Organizational change can require people to change too much, too quickly. People sometimes also resist to
save face. If they go along with the chance it might be an admission that some of their previous decisions or
beliefs were wrong. they might also resist because of peer group pressure or because of a supervisor’s
attitude.
Methods of positively influencing people during a change:
1. Education and communication
Communication of ideas helps people see the need for and the logic of a change. The process can involve
one-on-one discussions, presentations to groups, or memos and reports. It is ideal when resistance is based
on inadequate or inaccurate information and analysis, especially if the initiators need the resisters’ help in
implementing the change. It requires a good relationship between initiators and resisters and the resisters
must be able to believe what they hear from the initiators. It also requires time and effort.
2. Participation and involvement
If the initiators involve the potential resisters in some aspect of the design and implementation of the
change, they can often forestall resistance. The initiators listen to the people the change involves and use
their advice. Participation is known to lead to commitment, not merely compliance. This may be needed for
the change to be a success. It can however lead to a poor solution if the process is not carefully managed and
it can be time consuming. It may take too long to involve people if change is urgent.
3. Facilitation and support
This might include providing training in new skills, or giving employees time off after a demanding period, or
listening and providing emotional support. It is most helpful when fear and anxiety lie at the heart of
resistance. A drawback is that it can be time consuming and expensive and still fail.
4. Negotiation and agreement
1
, To offer incentives to active or potential resisters. It is appropriate when it is clear that someone is going to
lose out as a result of a change and yet his or her power to resist is significant. It can be an easy way to avoid
major resistance but it may be expensive. It might also lead to blackmail.
5. Manipulation and co-optation
It involves the selective use of information and the conscious structuring of events. Co-opting usually involves
giving an individual a desirable role in the design or implementation of the change. initiators only want their
endorsement, not their advice. It can be inexpensive and an easy way to gain individual’s/group’s support.
But if people feel they are being tricked into not resisting, are not being treated equally, or are being lied to,
they may respond negatively. The co-opted may also use their ability to influence the design and
implementation of changes in ways that aren’t in the best interests of the organization. A manipulator
reputation can also undermine one’s ability to use needed approaches. having no other alternative, and not
enough time to educate, involve or support, and without the power or resources to negotiate, coerce or co-
opt, managers can resort to manipulating in order to scare people into thinking there’s a crisis coming that
they can avoid only by changing.
6. Explicit and implicit coercion
Managers force people to accept a change by explicitly or implicitly threatening them or by actually firing or
transferring them. It is a risky process but if speed is essential and changes will not be popular, coercion
might be the only option.
Successful/unsuccessful efforts are characterized by:
- Managers employ the approaches with a sensitivity to their strengths and limitations and appraise
the situation realistically.
- A common mistake is to use only one approach or a limited set regardless of the situation. Also, to
approach change in a disjointed and incremental way that is not a part of a clearly considered
strategy is a common mistake.
Successful change efforts seem to be those where strategic choices are internally consistent and fit some key
situational variables. The strategic options available are like a continuum. Where a change effort should be
strategically positioned on the continuum depends on situational factors:
2
