Lec 5+6 +7+8: Resistance and top mgmt. roles; sustaining the change
A Coggle Diagram about Conger (All changes have to be managed from the top. This is the case at SKAT - so why did it go wrong? --> if changes are purely top mgmt then they go wrong., Middle mgmt: These are the ones that are working with the things – its not the job of the CEO – not at all – Weick view. SKAT! We shouldn’t not only focus on top down, we also need the bottom, but our point of departure is the top., Essential to top-led change efforts is engagement of lower levels. Jr levels can often translate visions and corp strategies into effective operating initiatives., Huy highly against this view: says mid mgmt are very critical to changes and you have to focus/manage the emotions to succeed. Conger does not have much faith in middle mgmt. and We need to lead the changes not see what happened and that is why all strategic changes have to start and be led from the top. → opposes complexity theories ), Ford et al. (Linked to Maurer's way of looking at what causes resistance, Resistance is a resource. Many employees mention that they are still motivated for their jobs., Hypothesis: resistance is present at SKAT and it exists as a consequence of top mgmt. and politicians actions , For change agent to develop trust and repairing damaged relationships before and during change process is extremely important in order to not encounter resistance in the process. So if top mgmt and middle magt had more relationships and trust with employees they might not have developed the narrative around changes going bad. and Top mgmt contributed to resistance 2 change - through these communication breakdowns. For example you could argue that they misrepresented the changes to look good and had a bias towards optimism with the EFI system. ), Rick Maurer (I don't get it, I don't like it, I don't like you, Cycle of change, Resistance is an interaction something that is over there - it is an interaction. and ), Ramnarayan and Harpelund, Hart (Successful and lasting change needs both top mgmt. and the rest of the organization. At SKAT there was mainly focus driving change from top mgmt. and this was not the right style. Should have used a more supportive or transitive style where employees are more engaged and At SKAT it has been too much commander style - whereas Hart finds that performance is better when there is a more equal split between the involvement and role of top mgmt. and employees) and Emotional conflict is not necessarily related to the present change – it can be a function of unresolved issues from previous changes (SKAT?!).