Coping With Organizational Change and Resistance Factors
This paper examines why individuals resist change in personal and organizational contexts, analyzing both internal psychological factors—such as emotional responses and perception—and external factors including lack of trust in management and poor communication. A personal case study involving a university audio-visual department illustrates how sudden, unexplained organizational change generates employee resistance. The paper then applies Kotter's eight-step change management model as a framework for overcoming this resistance, emphasizing urgency, coalition-building, shared vision, and ongoing employee feedback through satisfaction surveys. The discussion offers practical insights for managers seeking to implement change effectively and minimize workplace disruption.
- Introduction: Change as a Universal Challenge: Change is complex; resistance requires analysis
- External Factors That Drive Resistance to Change: Trust and communication gaps fuel resistance
- Internal and Psychological Factors Behind Resistance: Emotions and perception drive internal resistance
- A Case Study: Sudden Change in a University Workplace: Unexplained workplace overhaul sparks employee resistance
- Applying Kotter's Eight-Step Model to Overcome Resistance: Kotter's model prescribes structured steps for change
- Conclusion: Measuring Success and Employee Input: Surveys gauge change success and employee satisfaction
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Balances theoretical framework with a concrete, illustrative case study drawn from lived experience, making abstract concepts accessible and relatable.
- Clearly distinguishes between internal (psychological) and external (environmental/managerial) sources of resistance, demonstrating analytical precision.
- Applies Kotter's well-established eight-step change model directly to the case study, showing the student can bridge theory and practice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the application of a named academic framework (Kotter's 8-step model) to a specific, real-world scenario. Rather than describing the model in isolation, the writer maps each relevant step onto the case study situation, showing how theory translates into actionable recommendations. This theory-to-practice technique is a hallmark of applied organizational behavior writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a broad claim about the nature of change before narrowing to identify external and internal resistance factors supported by cited sources. The central section develops a detailed case study — a university audio-visual department — that exemplifies externally driven resistance caused by lack of communication. The final section prescribes remedies using Kotter's model, concluding with a recommendation for follow-up employee surveys to evaluate effectiveness. The structure moves logically from diagnosis to prescription.
Introduction: Change as a Universal Challenge
In many cases, change is a daunting prospect. Although the world effectively exists in a continuous state of change, alterations to people's daily lives — particularly as related to their families or to their workplace environments — can frequently generate resistance from the individuals most affected. Still, there are other times in which change is desired and readily embraced. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze a host of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors that are responsible for producing resistance to change in people, in order to better understand this phenomenon and to ultimately cope with it.
External Factors That Drive Resistance to Change
External resistance to change stems from a number of factors, particularly in an organization or workplace environment. One of the most readily identifiable of these is lack of trust in management (Pasubathy, 2010). Quite simply, there are numerous situations in which people are not consulted about change, and it is suddenly imposed upon them. When these people do not trust the underlying reasons that management has effected such a change, they tend to be more resistant to it. Another external factor relates to communication regarding change. If such communication is not sufficient — if people do not receive adequate notice, or if the reasons for change and their impact upon employees are not relayed clearly — individuals are more likely to resist it.
Internal and Psychological Factors Behind Resistance
Internal factors for resistance to change largely involve psychological reasons. These reasons include emotional factors such as aggression and frustration — whether directly related to the workplace, its change, or not — (Bolognese, 2002). Employee perception of the reasons for change is also considered an internal factor that can engender resistance. Any sense of ambiguity related to change in the workplace, in which there are aspects of it that are not perfectly clear to employees, can produce resistance. Additionally, if change involves personal aspects of an employee's life, it is likely to generate an internal reason for resistance.
A Case Study: Sudden Change in a University Workplace
There is an example from the past that helps to provide a case study regarding resistance to change as it explicitly relates to a lack of understanding. Very early in his undergraduate career, a college student obtained a job at the audio-visual department of the school of the arts at his university. The term "cushy" did not begin to describe this job. So long as the various audio-visual technicians attended to the classrooms and events where they had to set up equipment, and came to collect it promptly before any theft could occur, the employees had almost total autonomy. They could relax in the audio-visual department, do homework, watch movies, surf the internet, or do anything else they saw fit. In many instances they could go out to eat or engage in other activities, so long as at least a couple of people remained to answer phones and offer customer service. Oftentimes, setups would simply involve flipping a switch or turning a knob or two on the audio-visual equipment already located in classrooms. Moreover, underscoring the laid-back environment, the department was supervised by an immigrant musician who wore very stylish clothing, which she insisted was standard professional attire in her native Spain.
One day after spring break, the student returned to work and found that everything had changed. All of the equipment had been recently inventoried and repositioned. His supervisor was now wearing standard American professional attire and was dressed like the business-school "suits" who populated the nearby campus buildings. His schedule had changed, and the very hours available for scheduling had been restructured as well. The entire environment and company culture — which had previously been relaxed and carefree — had become staid, conservative, and formal. It is not surprising that the undergraduate students working in the department were resistant to this change.
His resistance to this drastic change was entirely rooted in an external factor: a complete absence of understanding about why the change had taken place. As he described it, everything had been functioning well beforehand, and there appeared to be no real need for a culture shift in the audio-visual department. His resistance was further fueled by the fact that the changes in scheduling, in policy (television watching and internet use were no longer permitted), in the physical arrangement of equipment, and in his supervisor's demeanor all occurred without any prior notice. Since he did not know these changes were coming, he certainly could not understand why they had occurred.
To her credit, his supervisor explained that her own supervisor had requested some of the changes in equipment and in the department's overall image. Still, she never explained why. Nor did she explain why she had not informed anyone of these significant organizational changes beforehand. The resistance the student offered was quiet — he accepted the new environment and its rules without openly objecting. Yet he demonstrated his resistance through his behavior: he avoided all contact with his supervisor and even with his fellow employees. This kind of passive resistance is well documented in organizational behavior literature as a common response to unexplained top-down change.
Conclusion: Measuring Success and Employee Input
Finally, after implementing these steps, it would be extremely valuable to administer another employee satisfaction survey — both relatively soon after the changes and again several months later — benchmarked against the results of the original survey. Doing so will enable management to gauge the success of their plan and give employees a greater degree of input in policy making. Resistance to change is neither inevitable nor insurmountable; with proper communication, inclusive leadership, and structured follow-through, organizations can guide employees through transitions in ways that preserve morale and sustain productivity.
References
Bolognese, A. F. (2014). Employee resistance to organizational change. www.newfoundations.com. Retrieved from
Pasubathy, G. (2010). Factors influencing resistance to change among employees. Universiti Utara Malaysia. Retrieved from http://etd.uum.edu.my/2673/
Wember, T. (2013). Kotter's 8-step change model. www.leadershipthoughts.com. Retrieved from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.