While accepting the premise that change is inevitable, the realization that change in organizations is predictably met with resistance is important for organizational development practitioners and managers as they seek to implement it. A look at Hill country hospital which seeks to implement change in a bid to regain profitability while faced by obviously predictable resistance to change succinctly serves to bring to fore theories of change resistance and models that can be applied to deal with the situation. This paper thus seeks to assess theories of change resistance and models of change applicable to the hill country hospital scenario. These theories of change resistance include the theories of cognitive dissonance and the depth of intervention. Change models on the other hand that can be applied to the case include the action research model and the famed Lewin’s three-stage model.
To fully grasp the theories of change and their applicability, in this case, it is paramount to first identify sources of resistance to change. In Hill Country Hospital resistance to the termination of all staff physician contracts is by the community and employees. For the employees, resistance comes from a position of threatened power, they realize that just like the physicians they too can be replaced. Employees further show group inertia whereby in solidarity with their physician colleagues they feel obliged to reject changes that will see them let go (Jain et al., 2018). Ignorance of the prevailing financial situation compounded with a mistrust of the hospital administration might also be a source of change resistance. On the part of the community fears of the unknown, anxiety and a probable change in resource allocation appear to fuel resistance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cognitive dissonance theory presupposes that peoples prefer a stable equilibrium between their attitudes and behavior (Burnes, 2015). Such that a threat to this consistency in values, attitudes, and behaviors as posed by change brings about conflict. To react to this conflict, therefore, the individual is forced to choose a side to avoid the stresses brought by dissonance. In most instances, the familiar, which is the business as usual approach is chosen by the individual. The individual then sets out to oppose change sometimes even unwillingly (Fransen et al, 2015). In the Hill Country Case, the employee’s reaction to the administration’s plan is a testament to the theory of cognitive dissonance in play. Trying to avoid the uncertainty of new colleagues and possible procedural changes they support what does not require a change in their attitudes or behaviors thus oppose change.
Besides the theory of cognitive dissonance, the depth of intervention theory also explains the happenings in Hill country hospital. This theory explains resistance in terms of its impact on the psychological wellbeing of an individual. According to it, change that only creates a minimal effect on psychological wellbeing will face little resistance. In comparison, change efforts that impact the psychological much more deeply will face more resistance (Cox, 2017). This theory also highlights the role of participation especially in change that requires major shifts in attitudes and behaviors (Radzi and Othman, 2015). In our scenario, terminating physician contracts is a major event, and psychologically affects all the other staff deeply. The administration however appears not to have involved the stakeholders fully in the rationale for the change bringing about the resistance by Employees. The community as well values its local community physicians more and thus more involvement in decision making would have served to counter resistance to change.
Having recognized the theories of change resistance, a look at change models is prudent as they are key in countering resistance to change, and ensuring organizational success. Lewin’s three-stage model has long been proven as a successful change model in response to change resistance. The model has three core stages; the unfreezing stage, the transition stage, and the refreezing stage (Asumeng & Osae- Larbi, 2015). The unfreezing stage which is the first stage involves actively shifting away from the status quo and dealing with resistance. Information and motives for change need to be freely shared here, for this case emphasis on the financial perils of the hospital can be put forward. Motivation to support change also plays a critical role at this stage (Hussain et al, 2018). The transition stage follows next, here new protocols are weaned into the system, and stakeholders encouraged to embrace them. This would involve constant encouragement and reminders of the reason necessitating change to both employees and the community. The final stage which is the refreezing stage will involve the full integration of the Dallas physician team into the Hospital community.
The action research model is another change model that can be implemented to ease change and reduce resistance. The model has numerous steps and incorporates the use of a change agent to ensure smooth change. The steps include problem identification, consulting with an expert, data gathering, and feedback to the client, joint diagnosis of issues at hand, and finally the action phase (Asumeng & Osae- Larbi, 2015). Full involvement of the community and staff at Hill country in the action research model will show all involved the need and reason for change thus reduce change resistance.
The application of change models needs to be evaluated to see if the desired effect has been achieved. Also, the evaluation of interventions is key in critical analysis of the change model applied to prepare for future change needs (Jalagat, 2016). In Hill country Hospital evaluating the efficacy of interventions will require a look at the achievement of the intended goal which is profitability, community and employee satisfaction as well as maintenance of a high level of service delivery. In conclusion, The Hill country Hospital scenario highlights pertinent issues in organizational development. It allows a dive into theories of change resistance and models of change that can be designed to counter this resistance.
References
Asumeng, M., & Osae- Larbi, J. (2015). Organization Development Models: A Critical Review andImplications forCreating Learning Organizations . Eajournals.org. Retrieved 18 July 2020, from http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Organization-Development-Models.pdf.
Burnes, B. (2015). Understanding resistance to change–building on Coch and French. Journal of change management , 15 (2), 92-116.
Cox, J. W.. (2017, 7 Haziran). Choosing the depth of organizational intervention: from revisions to reconsiderations. Monash University. doi:10.4225/03/593794cdd8837
Fransen, M. L., Smit, E. G., & Verlegh, P. W. (2015). Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework. Frontiers in psychology , 6 , 1201.
Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018). Kurt Lewin's change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge , 3 (3), 123-127.
Jain, P., Asrani, C., & Jain, T. (2018). Iosrjournals.org. Retrieved 18 July 2020, from http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jbm/papers/Vol20-issue5/Version-7/E2005073743.pdf.
Jalagat, Revenio. (2016). The Impact of Change and Change Management in Achieving Corporate Goals and Objectives: Organizational Perspective. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 5. 1233-1239.
Radzi, N. I. M., & Othman, R. (2015). Resistance to change: The moderating effects of leader-member exchange and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol , 4 (1), 72-76.
