DIT 8214 Week 5 Discussion: Change Management Resistance

DIT 8214 Week 5 Discussion: Change Management Resistance Student Name University Prof Date Implementation of organizational change initiatives can be met with resistance that can greatly affect the success of the implementation. The dynamic aspect of resistance is a crucial aspect to be considered during change management (Sverdlik and Oreg, 2022). The resistance to change scale was developed by Oreg (2003), who found that the scale measures the individual personality traits, as some individuals tend to resist change more or less in any situation. The dispositional inclination involves four dependable factors, and they include routine seeking, emotional response to change imposed, cognitive rigidity, and short-term orientation. For instance, some employees within healthcare organizations are always reluctant to adopt new electronic health records or revised procedures when it is clear that the changes would be beneficial to the patients. Oreg (2003) established that those with high resistance to change were less prone to voluntary changes being made and took a long time to adopt new products, which illustrates how dispositional resistance is manifested in different situations. The difference between the task-oriented and socio-political conflicts is important to manage change effectively. Meissonier and Houzé (2010) developed the theory of IT Conflict-Resistance, which showed that task-based conflicts that are manifested in relation to IT implementation can mask socio-political-oriented conflicts. This action research in Netia Corporation showed that the employees of the computer department initially raised technical issues regarding the design of the ERP system, and further investigation showed that employees had fears regarding the loss of autonomy and redistribution of power. In their study, Val and Fuentes (2003) discovered that sources of resistance vary according to the degree of change, where strategic changes produce more essential opposition as compared to evolutionary changes. The management reactions to resistance are quite important in determining implementation results. Rivard and Lapointe (2012) determined four types of implementers’ responses to user resistance research, namely, inaction, acknowledgment, rectification, and dissuasion, that have varying effects on the resistance behaviors. The 89-case survey of the case showed that responses by the implementers had a direct influence on the antecedents of resistance. Meissonier and Houzé (2010) demonstrated that conventional wisdom is actually not true since avoidance management styles can lead to positive outcomes by enabling the teams to self-resolve conflict and voice tacit causes of resistance. Another dimension that should be considered is workaround behaviors. Ferneley and Sobreperez (2006) differentiated workaround activity as a unique phenomenon whereby the users can oppose, conform, or come up with workarounds when faced with information systems. Employees in organizations often form informal ways of doing things to avoid formal systems whenever they become cumbersome. The workarounds may be a positive adaptation to signal real issues of the system or a sign of non-compliance with the objectives of the organization. Lastly, the time course of resistance during phases of implementation must be noted. Meissonier and Houzé (2010) pointed out that conflicts transformed into being aggressive and took constructive involvement as the project scope was realigned to reflect on the underlying issues. The adaptive approach shows that the patterns of resistance are dynamic and react to the management interventions and changes (Kilbourne et al., 2023). Companies that engage in comprehensive pre-implementation stakeholder consultation excel in their implementations and overall adoption rates in the long term because resistance is interpreted as diagnostic data instead of a hindrance to getting through. References for DIT 8214 Week 5 Discussion: Change Management Resistance Ferneley, E. H., & Sobreperez, P. (2006). Resist, comply, or work around? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000629 Kilbourne, A., Chinman, M., Rogal, S., & Almirall, D. (2023). Adaptive designs in implementation science and practice: Their promise and the need for greater understanding and improved communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 45(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-060222-014438 Meissonier, R., & Houzé, E. (2010). Toward an ‘IT Conflict-Resistance Theory’: Action research during IT pre-implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(5), 540-561. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.35 Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680 Rivard, S., & Lapointe, L. (2012). Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: Nature and effects. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 897-920. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703485 Sverdlik, N., & Oreg, S. (2022). Beyond the individual‐level conceptualization of dispositional resistance to change: Multilevel effects on the response to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(7), 1066–1077. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2678 Val, M. P. D., & Fuentes, C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310457597 Struggling With Your Paper? Get in Touch

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project

Write My Essay For Me

The post DIT 8214 Week 5 Discussion: Change Management Resistance appeared first on Ace My Course.