CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Indication
Nowadays, competition in the business environment is very challenging (Kotter, 2007). This is due to the increasing globalization, technological innovation, changing government laws and regulations, political events and workforce characteristics (Pfeffer, 1994; Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman & Boonstra, 2003). In this complicated business environment timely change is necessary for every company; it does not matter whether the organization is small, large, local or international (Yang, 2014). Organizational (or strategic) changes engage in various forms, such as mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, layoffs, top management replacement or new strategies implementation (Ellis, 1992; Colenso, 2000). These changes are crucial for a company to stay profitable and retain competitive advantages (Shonubi & Akintaro, 2016). The ability of firms to change affects the achievement of competitive advantages and the longevity of the organization (Gaylor, 2001). (Pfeffer, 1994) (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman, & Boonstra, 2003) (Ellis, 1992) (Colenso, 2000)
However, previous research reveal one half to two-third of all major organization change efforts ended unsuccessfully (Maurer, 1996). One of the reasons why organizational changes fail is the lack of internal communication (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Anvari, Pourezzat, Dastjerdi & Kalali, 2011; Quirk, 2008; Wernham, 1984). The importance of internal communication for successful implementing and executing changes within the organization is often described in literature (Argenti & Forman, 2002; Tourish & Hargie, 2004). To be able to implement changes it is essential to invest time, effort and resources into the communication of the strategy (Alexander, 1991). This research aims to find an effective communication channel to minimize resistance to strategic change at Woonboulevard Poortvliet. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) (Anvari, Pourezzat, Dastjerdi, & Kalali, 2011) (Quirk, 2008) (Wernham, 1984)
Communication between employees and management is seen as internal communication (Cornelissen, 2011). Welch & Jackson (2007) describe this as communication between strategic managers and internal stakeholders designed to promote commitment and a sense of belonging to the firm, to develop awareness of its changing environment, and understanding of its evolving aims. Internal communication enables organizations to share information and knowledge (Tourish & Hargie, 2004b). This includes activities of sending and receiving messages between management and employees, using various ways of communications (Shonubi & Akintaro, 2016). Communication elements include: newsletters, meetings, face-to-face interactions, email, internet, telephone calls, videoconferences, memos, notice boards and reports (Argenti, 1998; Asif & Sargeant, 2000; Goodman & Truss, 2004; Hunt & Ebeling, 1983; Yates, 2006). (Argenti, 1998) (Asif & Sargeant, 2000) (Goodman & Truss, 2004) (Hunt & Ebeling, 1983) (Yates, 2006). (Argenti & Forman, The Power of Corporate Communication: Crafiting the Voice and Image of your Business, 2002)
Appropriate communication is one of the key success factors for organizational changes because this decreases the resistance to change at employees (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman, & Boonstra, 2003). Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993) confirm that employee resistance is an important reason why organizational changes fail. Dent & Goldberg (1999) describe organizational resistance: “as the behavior which is intended to protect an employee from the negative effects of change” (p. 34). Lines (2004) concludes that employees who are negatively affected by the organizational changes, are actively resisting because of securing their own goals, needs and values. Changes often involve going from what is known to the unknown. These unknown situations are subconsciously linked with unpleasant consequences and therefore cause resistance behavior, which is seen as a normal and natural response. To conclude, resistance is seen as a negative component that influences the change process. Therefore, it is crucial that top management teams take this into account.
Various studies have been conducted regarding the reasons of resistance. Resistance to change can be separated in four main reasons: lack of employee participation, lack of information and knowledge, inadequate communication process, and lack of trust in management (Argyris, 1970; Lewin, 1947; Coch & French, 1948). This research will focus on resistance caused by the communication processes. Resistance caused by communication processes may either be sparked by the lack of communication or an ineffective way of communication (Kotter, 2007). In conclusion, timely and adequate provision of information by the most suitable communication tool will reduce the level of resistance (Miller, et al., 1994). (Zander, 1950) (Lines, 2004) (Argyris, 1970) (Lewin, 1947) (Coch & French, 1948) (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993)
There are different ways for employees to oppose changes. Based on the theory of Hultman (1998) and Bovey & Hede (2001) it can be concluded that resistance can manifest itself in two possible ways: active and passive. Active resistance includes opposing or obstructing the change with deliberate sabotage. In passive mode employees maintain a wait-and-see attitude in which they observe and refrain. This research paper will focus on the ways how employees may resist strategic change.
According to Oreg (2006), personal differences may influence the extent to which an employee is open to change. Literature describes that the level of resistance to change differs between genders: women in general evaluate the context of change more positively than man (Depres, Broeck, Cools, & Bouckenooghe, 2012). Hofstede (1998) underlines males and females in general have different characteristics which may influence resistance to change. Previous research shows that males have a higher frequency of resisting when benefits and payoffs cannot be seen (Vally, 2005). Hofstede (1998) suggests that males will resist change more than females if changes take more time and energy. Therefore, this research also will focus on possible differences between male and female employees. (Oreg, 2006)
1.2 Methodology
To explore the influence of communication an in-depth case study will be conducted for Woonboulevard Poortvliet during the months of April – June 2018. In such a research strategy information will be collected about a specific object, event or activity and is conducted for a particular business or organization (Sekeran & Bougie, 2015). The desired approach for this study is a theory supported inductive research method, since this type of research is characterized by starting with a specific problem and trying to solve it with the support of theory. It involves the search for a specific pattern and the development of explanations (Sekeran & Bougie, 2015).
Two types of information will be required. First of all, this thesis contains a literature review about different communication channels and the resistance to change by employees. Next to the literature review, data will be collected from Woonboulevard Poortvliet to investigate the practical business problem.
To answer the problem statement a qualitative approach will be used, therefore semi-structured interviews will be conducted. The respondents will get the opportunity to provide detailed information about their views regarding the specific problem (Sekeran & Bougie, 2015). To pick up non-verbal communication of the interviewee, the interviews will be face-to- face. The responses will be recorded in order to be able to analyze all details afterwards.
Ten employees, 5 male and 5 female, will be interviewed. The distinction between male and female is chosen because psychology literature concludes the level of resistance to change differs between genders. Women in general evaluate the context of change more positively than man (Depres et al, 2012; Hofstede, 1998). By dividing the respondents into a male group and a female group, it is possible to detect possible differences between genders. Employees will be selected from different departments to indicate all relevant factors of internal communication and resistance to change throughout the company.
After finishing the interviews, they will be transcribed and the transcripts will be analyzed to highlight essential information. This results in the possibility of comparing similarities and differences of the collected data. The goal is to create better insight in the relationship between communication channels and resistance to change. The results may be beneficial for Woonboulevard Poortvliet as they will get a clear picture of how they need to communicate with their employees to reduce the level of resistance to change.
CHAPTER 2: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION
A considerable amount of literature has been published on internal and external communication. This paper will focus on internal communication as it is part of the problem statement. Communication within a firm is necessary for exchanging information and opinions, creating plans, reaching agreements and making decisions (Shonubi & Akintaro, 2016). In this chapter the definitions, directions and channels and its richness regarding internal communication will be described and commented.
2.1 Definitions of Internal Communication
Over the past years, a number of researchers have tried to define the term internal communication. Scholes (1997) defines internal communication as “the professional management of interactions between all those with an interest or a stake in a particular organization” (p. xviii). This definition is valuable because of the strategic approach and the focus on stakeholders (Welch & Jackson, 2007). However, this definition does not separate different types of stakeholders.
Within a company there are several stakeholder groups at different levels. Cheney & Christensen (2001) distinguish five levels: all employees, top management team, line managers, department teams and project teams. Dolphin (2005) suggests that employees are the main stakeholders of an organization. In addition, Cornelissen (2011) focuses more on the channels and formulates the definition as “all methods (e.g. internal newsletters, intranet) used by a firm to communicate with its employees” (p. 189). Internal communication focuses specifically on information that can motivate, influence and changes the behaviors of employees within the boundaries of an organization (Bjorkman, 2009). Additionally, alignment, inclusiveness and involvement of all employees are important (Verghese, 2012). Kalla (2005) defines internal communication as “all formal and informal communication taking place internally at all levels of an organization” (p. 304). (Cheney & Christensen, 2001)
Welch & Jackson (2007) formulates internal communication as “communication between strategic managers and internal stakeholders designed to promote commitment and a sense of belonging to the organization, to develop awareness of its changing environment, and understanding of its evolving aims” (p. 186). Communication involves organizational issues such as objectives, new developments and activities.
To conclude, communication within an organization is seen as internal communication. Effective communication is crucial to motivate, influence and changes behaviors of employees. Therefore, it is the success factor of organizational changes. (Scholes, 1997) (Kalla, 2005) (Dolphin, 2005)
2.2 Directions of Internal Communication
Communication within companies may either be formal or informal (Johnson, Donohue, Atkin & Johnson, 1994; Kalla, 2005). Formal communication provides basic information about the organization or information related to employees’ jobs. Communication procedures are derived from the organizational structure and will follow the chain of command. This results in a communication pattern which describes who communicates with whom (Greenberg & Baron, 2008; Kandlousi, Ali & Adbollahi, 2010; Bratton, Callinan, Forshaw & Sawchuck, 2007). Informal communication arises spontaneously and takes place among employees which includes talks, discussions and spontaneous meetings (Wood, 1999). Due to informal communication employees can talk about their feelings, create relationships and discuss issues (Johnson, Donohue, Atkin, & Johnson, 1994). Although, informal communication has disadvantages, particularly it may increase rumors and wrong information about the company (Argenti, 1998). (Kandlousi, Ali, & Abdollahi, 2010)
The direction of above mentioned communication types can flow vertically and horizontally between management and employees. Vertical communication has different perceptions: downward and upward communication. Downward communication, also called top-down communication, flows from a higher level to a lower level in an organization (Simpson, 1958; Tubbs & Moss, 2008). Information in this direction regards mainly to the strategy of the firm (Bartels, Peters, Jong, Pruyn, & Molen, 2010). This direction is especially used in order to assign goals, provide instructions, inform employees about the procedures and policies, highlight problems that need attention and offer feedback on employees’ performance (Greenberg & Baron, 2008; Robbins, Judge & Campbell, 2010).
With upward communication the information flows from lower placed employees to top management (Larkin & Larkin, 2005). This direction is used to keep the management informed about their work and how they are thinking about subjects within the organization. This is useful because managers need this information for making decisions, implement improvements and getting new ideas, thanks to be informed about the current status of projects and about new problems (Wang, 2011; Robbins, Judge & Campbell., 2010). Previous research showed that acceptance of upward communication results in higher levels of commitment employees have to the organization (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Still, compared to downward communication, upward communication happens less frequently (Greenberg & Baron, 2008).
(Bratton, Callinan, Forshaw, & Sawchuk, 2007)
The final direction is horizontal communication which means that information flows among employees at the same level (Wang, 2011). This direction of communication may result in efficient and accurate information transfer and facilitate coordination (Robbins, Judge, & Campbell, 2010).
Goldhaber (1993) examined that there are four important functions of horizontal communication: it may improve the processes of coordination between departments, problem solving, information sharing and conflict solving between employees (Tubbs & Moss, 2008). This direction of communication characterizes itself as easier because less social barriers exist between employees (Greenberg & Baron, 2008).
Internal communication may take place in three distinct directions: downward, upward and horizontal (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). These directions may take place through different communication channels which are explained in the next section. (Tubbs & Moss, 2008) (Simpson, 1958)
2.3 Internal Communication Channels
Companies can communicate with employees using several channels (Friedl & Vercic, 2011). The used channel may influence how accurately the message will be received (Anonymous, Organizational Behavior, 2017). There are different approaches regarding internal communication channels. Al-Ghamdi, Roy & Ahmed (2007) made the distinction between traditional and technology channels. Friedl & Vercic (2011) continued on this and categorized it in: traditional and social media channels. Other researchers separate it in interpersonal and mediated channels (Dewhirst, 1971; Fidler & Johnson, 1984). The distinction used in this research is derived from Klein (1996). He named three categories of communication channels: verbal, written and electronic (Klein, 1996). The three channels will be explained below more in detail. (Dewhirst, 1971) (Fidler & Johnson, 1984) (Al-Ghamdi, Roy, & Ahmed, 2007)
Verbal Communication
Verbal communication, also called face-to-face communication, refers to communication where messages are transmitted verbally through meetings, which means that the medium of the message is oral (Klein, 1996). Recent research indicates this type of communication is still the most effective way to communicate within organizations for several reasons (Smith & Mounter, 2008). First of all, face-to-face communication is a quick way to communicate because there is no time lag between the transmission of the message and its reception (Adler & Elmhorst, 1996). The receiver of the message can directly react. Secondly, the sender has more control over the message compared to the other channels. This means it is clear that the message has been conveyed to someone. Finally, this channel establishes a two-way communication which creates higher commitment and the opportunity for essential feedback (Adler & Elmhorst, 1996). However, it also has some disadvantages. This type of communication is difficult to control because it is unclear what employees will say or ask and there is possibility for filtering information. It is also challenging to get all employees present at important meetings. Nevertheless, depending on the kind of information not all messages should be communicate by face-to-face communication, sometimes it should be done preferably through written communication (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2005).
Written Communication
Written communication provides information expressed in written form which can be distributed via paper or electronically (Farrant, 2003). Examples of written communication are: memos and newsletters, summaries and annual reports, internal publications, flyers, noticeboards (Smith & Mounter, 2008; Farrant, 2003). The goal of these channels is to keep employees aware of the organization’s business goals and objectives, provide information that enables effectively performance, and finally informing employees about achievements and successes (Smith & Mounter, 2008). In contrast to verbal communication, the advantage of written communication is that the receiver can read the message at any preferable time (Goodman & Truss, 2004). In addition, this type can be effective to transfer routine information or to reach a large amount of employees quickly at the same time with fewer resources. This channel is also useful when employees receive the message not for the first time. A drawback is that it does not stimulate two-way communication. Therefore, it is hard to create empathy by employees. Written communication can be time consuming and sometimes the messages will be distributed too late to be effective (Beatty, 2015). Finally, the lack of two-way communication may endanger the fact that employees filter the message through their own biases. In conclusion, this means it is not ensured that the message is received as it was intended. To avoid this, written communication should be followed by face-to-face communication to reach the total level of efficiency (Klein, 1996).
Electronic Communication
The way of communicating with employees has changed over the years. Technological developments increasingly results in communicating via electronic mediums (Argenti P. , Corporate Communication Fifth (5th) Edition, 2009). Electronic communication enables employees to interact with each other via a computer or telephone network. Several types of electronic communication can be separated: intranet, e-mail, videoconferences, website and telephone conversations (Smith & Mounter, 2008). An advantage of electronic mediums is that organizations can send messages to everyone quickly. Also, employees have easily access to information of the organization which leads to better informed employees (Goodman & Truss, 2004). Nevertheless, electronic communication endangers face-to-face communication between employees. This may result in unsatisfied employees who are feeling that they are not part of the company (Beatty, 2015). Automatically this will lead to unhappy employees who easily may leave the organization.
2.4 Media Richness Theory
Balogun & Hope-Hailey (2003) conclude that the choice of channel should fit the significance and complexity of the message. Lengel & Daft (1988) developed the Media Richness Theory (MRT). The MRT starts from the principle that different channels of communication have different levels of richness. The hierarchy of richness can be explained by the following factors: the possibility of feedback, the communication channels used, the source of the information and the communication language used.
It is largely accepted verbal communication is the most effective communication channel in organizational changes (Cutlip et al, 2005; Beatty, 2015, Smith & Mounter, 2008; Farrant, 2003). This rich communication channel helps to better understand other persons because of nonverbal cues such as body language, facial expression and voice tone. In addition, this channel makes it possible to give immediate feedback whereby insights and ideas can be checked and interpretations can be adjusted. Furthermore, Lengel & Daft (1988) claim electronic communication such as telephone contains less richness compared to face-to-face communication. In this medium there is possibility to give feedback quickly, however visual communication is in general not possible. A poorer way of communication than the telephone is written communication, because the feedback is very slow. With written communication, the visual instructions are limited to what is stated on paper. The possibility exists that the message will be received different than it was intended.
In conclusion, information which is urgent and vital for the company should be provided and presented by the top management in person because that is the most effective way (Smith & Mounter, 2008). Verbal methods are preferred by employees because they allow for face-to-face exchange of views. It allows managers to listen and respond to concerns of employees (Smith & Mounter, 2008). However, it is crucial top management teams use a combination of above mentioned channels because the repetition of messages over a variety of channels will increase the employees’ memory of the message which results in effective communication (Tourish & Hargie, 2004b). (Balogun & Hope-Hailey, 2003) (Lengel & Daft, 1988)
2.5 Conclusion
In the process of communication the sender provides information to the receiver. There are different approaches of communication: internal and external communication. As mentioned before, this study takes only internal corporate communication into consideration. Welch & Jackson (2007) formulate this as communication between top management teams and employees in order to promote commitment, develop awareness of changing environments of the organizations and understanding of evolving aims.
Internal corporate communication can be both formal and informal. Previous research agreed that most of the time formal communication is used (Kalla, 2005). It can be concluded there has to be a right balance between both types of communication to announce and realize organizational changes. Formal communication reduces rumor and wrong information and informal communication improves the interaction between employees and the top management team.
Communicating organizational changes can be done by using several channels and may influence the accuracy of the message (Friedl & Vercic, 2011). It is crucial top management teams should choose channels that fit the significance and complexity of the message. Previous research underlines the importance of using combination of different channels because repetition of messages over a variety of channels will increase the employees’ memory of the message (Tourish & Hargie, 2004b).
CHAPTER 3: RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
A growing body of literature has been studied concerning resistance to change. It has usually been recognized as a significant factor that may influence organizational changes (Chiung-Hui & Ing-Chung, 2009). Therefore, it is crucial managers recognize resistance to change in order to minimize it. In this chapter the definition of resistance to change will be considered. Additionally, the causes and different forms of resistance will be described. Finally, there will be an explanation about the difference in gender regarding the way employees resist.
3.1 Definition of Resistance to Change
Successful change starts with enthusiastic employees. However, employees do not always respond enthusiastically to an announced change because the change is imposed by the top management, the change is not clear to them or due to previous change failures (Metselaar & Kolk, 1998). The first author who wrote about this type of resistance was Kurt Lewin. He stated that employee behavior in a company is a success of actions to counteract changes. Lewin (1951) called the development by employees of counter forces for major changes as resistance to change.
Lewin (1951) was the founder of this type of resistance, hereafter several studies on resistance to change were conducted, and this resulted in various definitions. Lippitt, Watson & Westley (1958) followed the idea of Lewin (1951) and described resistance to change as every force that obstructs the change process. Zaltman & Duncan (1977) in Bradley (2000, p. 76) used a variation of this definition. They describe resistance as: “any conduct that serves to maintain the status quo, despite pressure from others to change this situation”. For clarification, change involves going from what is known to the unknown. This process is accompanied by negative emotions, such as fear (do not dare to change); doubt (do not want to change); sadness (say goodbye to the old); anger (not accepting changes) and paralysis (cannot change) (Metselaar & Kolk, 1998). Employees become frustrated and stressed about the unknown future situation which consequently leads to resistance. Furthermore, Coghlan (1993) believes resistance is a normal and natural response of people. Dent & Goldberg (1999) formulate resistance as “the behavior which is intended to protect an employee from the negative effects of change” (p. 26). (Lippitt, Watson, & Westley, 1958)
To conclude, all definitions combined, it can be stated resistance to change is a natural response and often done to prevent converting into an unknown situation. These unknown situations will consequently be connected with unpleasant situations and cause resistance behavior (Bemmels & Reshef, 1991). (Zaltman & Duncan, 1977) (Coghlan, 1993)
3.2 Causes of Resistance to Change
Employees often feel threatened when organizational changes are communicated. Greenberg & Baron (2002) separated causes in two categories: individual and organizational. In the first category employees are resisting changes due to individual fears of the unknown. These individual barriers are:
1) Economic Insecurity: Changes on the job may potentially endanger the livelihood of the employees by for instance loss of job.
2) Fear of the Unknown: Employees prefer a sense of security by doing things the same way. At the time when these structured and pleasant patterns are offended this type of individual resistance appears.
3) Threats to Social Relationships: Usually, over time strong relationships between employees arise. Organizational changes may negatively influence these relationships for example when job responsibilities will be reassigned.
4) Habit: Usual tasks that belong to specific jobs are well learned and easy to perform. New or changed jobs require employees to develop new skills.
5) Failure to Recognize Need for Change: Employees may appreciate the need for change. However, any vested interest they may have in keeping things the same shall overpower their willingness to accept the change (Vos, 2006).
The second category contains organizational barriers which do not derive from the employees themselves (Vos, 2006). Examples of these barriers are when companies do not provide sufficient staff, information or material to implement changes. Greenberg & Baron (2002) separated organizational barriers in four groups:
1) Structural Inertia: Employees are selected and trained to perform certain jobs and rewarded to execute them well. This results in structural inertia.
2) Work Group Inertia: Possible pressures to perform tasks may arise due to development of strong social norms within groups. When changes are introduced, established normative expectations may be destroyed what consequently can lead to resistance.
3) Threats to Existing Balance of Power: When changes are made regarding to employees in charge, it is likely that this entails a shift in the balance of power between individuals and organizational sub-units. As a result, resistance derives from the individuals or units that fear losing their beneficial position as a result of the change.
4) Previously Unsuccessful Change Efforts: When employees have experienced failed previous organizational changes they are reluctant to endure other changes.
These causes of resistance can manifest themselves in two ways. This will be explained in the next subparagraph.
3.3 Ways of Resistance to Change
Lines (2004) concludes that employees who are negatively affected by organizational changes, are resisting because of their own goals, needs and values. This multifaceted phenomenon may negatively influence the change. It may results in unanticipated delay costs which result in targets that are not reached in time. Therefore, it is useful for managers to know in which ways employees may resist (Hultman, 1998).
Hultman (1998) created a model about people’s reactions towards change. This author separated two ways to resist, in general employees may resist actively or passively to changes. Bovey & Hede (2001) build further on this and formulate active resistance as an originating action and passive resistance as not acting or inertia. Greenberg & Baron (2002) agreed with above mentioned authors. Employees who actively resist are outspoken objectors to organizational changes and undertake all kinds of actions in order to oppose those changes. Active resistance is the most negative reaction to a proposed change attempt (Anonymous, Principles of Management, n.d.). In contrast, passive resistance can generally be recognized in situations where employees behave as if they accept change, but never fulfill their responsibilities related to changes. Additionally, employees who resist passively may dislike the organizational change, but do not bring their concerns to the attention of the top management team (Kebapci & Erkal, 2009).
Active Resistance
When employees show active resistance, they express their opposing perspectives and attitudes more visibly with deliberate sabotage actions in order to slow down the change (Coetsee, 1999). Sabotage is a succession of unproductive behavior that counteracts the execution of earlier decisions in an open manner (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002). There are several techniques that can be used to sabotage changes. In addition, the influence on changes differs per technique. Examples of techniques that have in general the least impact on changes are: making jokes about managers and poor and delayed communication. The technique that has greater influence on changes is being absent at meetings (Bovey & Hede, 2001). Furthermore, strikes and protest letters are other examples of active resistance to undermine, dismantle and stall the change in general heavily (Metselaar & Kolk, 1998). Finally, employees may leave the organization when they cannot find themselves in the strategic changes (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002).
Passive Resistance
Passive resistance is a milder form that is used to resist changes because it manifests less visibly. Employees who passively resist are searching for ways not to complete their tasks because they think the change is useless (Bovey & Hede, 2001). They also want to negatively influence the work atmosphere by spreading gossips. In addition, passive resistance regards to restrained expressions such as not willing to learn new things, a passive attitude towards changes, slowness in executing tasks and ignoring or withdrawing change (Greenberg & Baron, 2002; Bovey & Hede, 2001). Another example is making intentional mistakes in their tasks. In passive attitude employees maintain a wait-and-see attitude in which they observe and refrain (Bovey & Hede, 2001). This all intended to slow down the change process. It can be concluded that passive resistance will be harder to manage because it is difficult to identify (Atkinson, 2005). Figure 1 shows the different forms of resistance to change with the corresponding actions.
Figure 1: Two forms of Resistance to Change (Greenberg & Baron, 2002; Bovey & Hede, 2001).
In conclusion, employees who exhibit resistance may influence the organizational change negatively. Based on previous research employees may resist in two different ways: actively or passively. It can be concluded that active resistance is easier to identify by top management teams compared to passive resistance. This is partly due to the sabotage actions that are carried out visibly in order to obstruct the change process (Hultman, 1998; Bovey & Hede, 2001; Greenberg & Baron, 2002).
3.4 Gender and Resistance to Change
In the previous subparagraph different ways of resistance to change were described. It was not explained why some employees react differently than others. Previous research states personal factors like age, gender, personality trait and educational level may influence how someone reacts to changes in their environment (Holt, Armenakis, & Feild, 2007). According to Oreg (2003), these personal data may influence the extent to which an employee is open to change. This research paper will pay attention to the possible difference between gender and the way employees react to changes.
Hofstede (1998) concluded males and females in general have different characteristics which may influence resistance to change. This is because men and women perceive the world in a different way (Pragt, 2017). Males are mainly concerned with obtaining results, achieving goals, power and status. In contrast to males: females are more often focused on communication and cooperation. Men attach more value to money and material things, whilst women find relationships important. Agrawal (2000) concludes that women often have more informal relations within an organization. More specifically, the working atmosphere and nice colleagues are much more important to them (Pragt, 2017). In general, men believe they live in order to work, while women believe they work in order to live (Hofstede, 1998). Males have a higher frequency of resisting when benefits and payoffs cannot be seen clearly (Vally, 2005). Hofstede (1998) suggests males will resist change more than females if changes take more time and energy (Agrawal, 2000).
In this research paper it is assumed there is a substantial difference between the way males and females resist. In general, it is considered men are more likely to show resistance compared to women. There is an expectation that generally males show resistance more in an active way because they communicate directly and only use a few words. They will clearly express their opinion according to organizational changes (Pragt, 2017). It is also known males generally like to solve their own problems and stand up for themselves. Females, in general, want to be able to talk about their worries and problems in order to share feelings. Females will also try to understand changes because they can better deal with long-term visions (Pragt, 2017). Furthermore, they attach more value to good relationships and will try to ensure that the work atmosphere is not openly disturbed. It is assumed females will resist more passively during to organizational changes.
3.5 Conclusion
Resistance to change is a natural response of employees to protect themselves against an unknown situation (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). These unknown situations are consequently connected with unpleasant situations and therefore trigger resistance behavior (Bemmels & Reshef, 1991).
Previous researches disagree about the fact in which categories resistance to change can be separated. In this research, the line of thought of Greenberg & Baron (2002) is used. They separate causes in two categories: individual and organizational. The first category includes individual fears of the unknown. The second category contains organizational barriers. For example, companies do not provide sufficient staff, information or material to implement the change (Vos, 2006).
The consequence of resistance may be unanticipated delays costs which results in targets whose deadlines have not been met. Therefore, it is crucial that top managers recognize resistance in an early stage to be able to respond effectively before it getting worse.
Based on Hultman (1998) resistance can be separated into active and passive. In this study it is assumed that the way males and females resist differs. It is expected males generally show resistance more in an active way because they communicate directly. They will clearly express their opinion according to organizational changes (Pragt, 2017). Compared to males, it is assumed females in general resist more passively because they attach more value to good relationships.