The organizational impact of information technology has been quite profound. Installation of computers, computer-aided manufacturing, automated customer service and inventory, video conferencing, and electronic mail may appear commonplace today but their impact on organizational functioning ought not to be lost. Each of these technological innovations has fundamentally altered the nature of work, forcing traditional organizational structures into novel configurations (Beyrouti, 2006) . These changes bring with them additional benefits. A cursory look at instances where new technologies have been adopted reveals how informational technology implementation increases efficiency and transforms the locus of knowledge. Nevertheless, many information system implementation projects finish in failure. The Standish group reports that up to 40% of the information system development fail (Project Smart, n.d). Given the complexity that is often associated with implementing changes, especially IT related projects, it is important to adopt effective change management strategies that increase the probability of project success. At its core is ensuring the active involvement of employees.
Change
Project management in general and IT related project management in particular, is almost impossible without taking into account change. The process of change has become natural in modern-day business and organizations (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . It is almost impossible to imagine progress without conceiving change. As the hackneyed phrase goes ‘it is insanity to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’. Change management, therefore, seeks to ensure changes are tapped into for the benefit of the organization and are not needlessly disruptive (Ćirić & Raković, 2010) . Since changes are often hard to predict and tend to take place with increasing frequency, the significance of change management has grown ov er time. Regardless of the implementation design of information systems, human factors always have to be put into consideration since they lay a significant role in changes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Information Technology changes in an organization originate from numerous directions. However, two are especially important; change emanating from client evaluation and change attributable to existing information systems. The former speaks to needs identified by the client. These needs were most likely not clear at the start of the project, technologies have evolved, or market requirements have shifted. The latter refers to changes attributable to system development or project upgrades and are often thought of as developmental changes (Thach & Woodman, 1994) . Developmental changes are often known well in advance and, therefore, their implementation is easily controllable.
Change Management
Various change management strategies have been identified. Cascio & Montealegre linked change management processes to developing and managing objectives so that they are in line with the vision and purpose of change; planning to the finer details and gathering the requisite resources; ensuring continuous monitoring, and creating room for adjustments based on the assessed needs during supervision in order to ensure attainment of objectives (2016). However, before the adoption of these strategies, it is only logical that the need for a new information system in an organization is determined. This has enormous value not just at cost justification level but also in bringing on board stakeholders like employees. Beyrouti (2006), observed that investing in recent information systems is crucial for business survival, improving efficiency (often this entails building systems that will offer high-quality information necessary for decision making, and maintaining competitive advantage) through the creation of user solutions and prototypes, and as a contingency measure to avoid unpleasant surprises.
The key ingredient of any organization is people. It is, therefore, important that information system changes are approached not just as system modeling but with close attention to the behavior and needs of affected people (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . This is partly important since changes in computer-based systems constitute a form of organizational change in which the roles and functioning of organizational members are considerably altered (Ćirić & Raković, 2010) . The impact extends not just to performed duties but also to interpersonal relationships and could have far-reaching effects on employee attitude towards work. Underestimating the potential negative perceptions and attitudes evoked by such organizational change may be a recipe for failed information system changes. This is especially the case with information management systems.
Involvement of employees is one of the best strategies employed by change agents to ensure that information technology changes are well received. Employees have a greater likelihood of participating and helping in implementation processes if they are aware of the reasons behind the changes and how they are likely to impact their own lives at work (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . From a historical perspective, manager s involve employees to avoid unsuccessful outcomes. There are, however, other reasons beyond managerial effectiveness for involving employees. Managerial ethics make employee participation an imperative. Work organizations most operate within the context of their societies. In many democracies, participation is not confined to political life but also work life. The basic rationale is that if a measure is likely to impact peoples’ lives, then it is only proper that they are involved in its formulation and implementation (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . In other words, there is the intrinsic and consequential value in promoting employee participation.
Conflict of opinion relating to the implementation of information communication systems typically takes place between management and employees. While employees see changes as needlessly disruptive and putting a strain on their way of doing things, management tends to focus on the competitive advantage of the organization and thus its survivability (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . These differences of perspective are often complex and demand an understanding of change processes and how innovation diffusion takes place. Personal per ception of the relative value of technological changes invariably influences the rate of adoption (Project Smart, n.d) . Other than perception, the innovation’s compatibility with past experiences and values, its complexity and divisibility into finer tasks are important determinants of adoption rate.
Planned Change Approach
Planned Change Approach has been touted for its ability to manage organizational change and behavior. As an approach, it insists on considering the entirety of change processes- from planning and feasibility levels through installation and evaluation- as opposed to considering the ‘action stage’ as has been the case with traditional implementation (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . Important changes have to be taken as an integral part of the entire organization. Because of the high cognitive process involved in the adoption of information systems, adoption of information technology requires high employee involvement (Ćirić & Raković, 2010) . Considerable learning is required and, therefore, reluctant involvement could enervate the intended outcomes and even cause failure.
The key to transforming employee reaction is to change their perception of newness because the more radical the change appears, the greater the risk they perceive to themselves. This is particularly important since innovation is a dynamic and continuous and even discontinuous process that requires being comfortable with change. The discontinuous aspect is particularly important since innovations in technology are often quite disruptive. These disruptions often require the formation of new behavioral patterns by all members of the organization. According to Rasberry (1986), successful change requires at least three processes; freezing, changing and refreezing. The individual has to prioritize these three in order to embrace change.
Unfreezing, which is the initial phase of this process, refers to the creation of readiness and motivation to change. Within the context of information management systems, it might be a system was not adequate in addressing a specific situation. For not-for-profit organizations, there may be no apparent need for change, which necessitates the need to change perceptions. In general, for employees to develop the motivation to change, certain conditions need to be met. They must first be confronted with discomforting situations, for instance, deadlines not being met under the prevailing system that prompt them to seek better systems. Second, the manager must be adept at inducing anxiety or guilt. The manager may, in this regard, express concern that work is taking too long or is substandard. This disconfirmation will tend to induce clamor for change, especially if it represents a personal goal or ideal to the individual (Rasberry, 1986) . Even with these two conditions, the manager may need to create an extra one of psychological safety. This is because the aforementioned conditions may threaten employee’s self-worth and thus instigate defense mechanisms more averse to change. Therefore, the manager has to adopt the role of a helper willing to engage in problem-solving as opposed to appearing merely as a judge (Rasberry, 1986) . Cooperative rather than competitive interactions are more likely to lead to new ideas being adopted.
After the freezing exercise, the next stage is changing. If the technology being adopted is compatible with employees’ background, then adoption is relatively easy (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . The vice versa is true. In the absence of prior interaction with the technology among organization members, two different mechanisms of handling this changing phase may be employed. The first is to look for role models who serve as guides in the adoption process. The system specialist often plays this role. The disadvantage with this is that it limits the source of information to only a single individual. The second approach and the one often preferred is scanning the environment for concepts or information pertinent to the problem (Rasberry, 1986) . Change agents may encourage scanning by stimulating organizational members to read relevant publications, talk to specialists or even attend seminars.
The last phase of this change management exercise is refreezing. It implies the process of getting a dynamic equilibrium at this new desired state. Change is at this point embedded within different and yet related mechanisms. The first is personal freezing, which refers to the extent to which the adopted change can sit comfortably with an individual’s self-concept and, therefore, successfully integrated into one's personality. The second mechanism has to do with relation freezing, which refers to changes of the employee fitting comfortably into the expectations of others around, such as peers, subordinates or supervisors (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . It is important to underscore that in this change adoption process, there are innovators who are likely to try the new technology with greater earnest and late adopters who are less enthusiastic about adopting the new techniques. Late adopters have the opportunity to learn from the innovators and early adopters. In so doing, change is disconfirmed or reinforced.
Resistance to Change
It is, however, not reasonable to expect that all employees will easily buy into the change process even with the employ of the aforementioned strategies. As was earlier emphasized, communication and information technology changes have the potential to leave them in a vacuum between the old order and the new. Additionally, technological changes disrupt established habits and may engender performance anxiety, negative economic and social consequences, and inadvertent effects (Carson & Griffeth, 1990). In the face of threatened stability and uncertainties, it is reasonable to expect a degree of resistance from employees. Resistance is especially palpable if things are satisfactory and changes only serve to make things better. Longer tenure employees, having higher stakes in the organization, are likely to resist changes than shorter tenure employees more powerfully. While proposed changes may overall have benefits for the organization, they may mean reduction in their power, influence, benefits and responsibility (Carson & Griffeth, 1990). Therefore changes are often limited in their relative advantage.
Methods employed to communicate change may also influence employee response. When the potential or purpose of the change is not decidedly clear, resistance is likely to grow. Communication hindrance such as jargon may create the impression that specialists are demonstrating their superior knowledge and, therefore, power (Rasberry, 1986) . Once employees develop the feeling that they are being controlled as opposed to controlling information technology systems, conflicts owing to uncertainty and insecurity are likely to emerge (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . It is common knowledge that computer systems tend to reduce the number of workers required, significantly increasing the risk of unemployment. As such, management would need to make commitments of job security in such instances to lower chances of resistance.
Closely linked to labor displacement is the potential of information systems degrading or ‘deskilling’ work, lowering the quality of work life. Employees are likely to feel justified rejecting technologies that adversely affect their morale or are inimical to their well-being (Ćirić & Raković, 2010) . In fact , in some European countries such as Norway, employees reserve the right to be consulted in the event changes mean transformations in their work practices. System changes are also opposed since they might imply the emergence of new elites as power is diffused from its traditional center (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . Those with the knowledge and interest i n recent developments often make up the new centers of power. The problem tends to be amplified when new technology systems demand the reconstitution of departmental boundaries. Such reorganizations tear social networks, upset informal structures and reduce social need satisfaction.
The stiffest resistance, however, comes in when the positions of managers are most threatened by technological changes. For instance, supervisory tasks are significantly diminished as evaluation takes an increasingly digitized format. Managers may, therefore, attempt to alter policy change formulation and implementation in ways that preserve their position or favor them even when this contravenes genuine organizational interest (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . Change , therefore, presents uncertainties not just for middle and low-level employees but even for the top brass within organizations.
Managing Change
Implementation of information technology systems would, based on the aforementioned, be useless with proper consideration of human aspects. Information systems affect people and can only function with efficiency if their design and implementation accords with individual and organizational behavior and makes them more effective (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . Organizational behavior research has demonstrated that employee involvement in decision making is linked to increased performance and job satisfaction. Therefore, the involvement of employees in the rolling out of information technology systems contributes to the likely success of such programs. This involvement is enhanced when employees participate in defining these organizational needs and developing the systems necessary to meet them.
The typical top-down channels of communication where management in conjunction with system specialists impose new technological systems without adequate consideration of effects on employees are unlikely to engender intended results. Employee involvement after systems become operational does little to elicit the sort of reaction necessary to ensure organizational success (Ćirić & Raković, 2010) . A shared approach, by contrast, considers system specialists and employees as co-workers and, therefore, both parties are involved in every step of project implementation (Project Smart, n.d) . The result is ego and self-esteem enhancement, positive attitudes even in the face of challenge s, greater commitment to change, and development of technical capabilities amongst employees who might take over the information technology systems after the exit of specialists (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . This helps employees enhance their sense of control. Specialists are treated as consultants whose work is to manage systems before the development of more substantive capabilities. The individual, nonetheless, remains at the center of any change process since organizational achievements are the result of combined efforts (Carson & Griffeth, 1990) . It is this individual level commitment that spreads to the rest of an organization creating an entity whose focus is to enhance effectiveness through new information technology systems.
Organizational culture also remains an important consideration in the development and implementation of technology systems. Organizations with more firmly developed cultures are more likely to be in a capacity to develop tactics of surmounting resistance. Of course, there is a multiplicity of cultures and the best approach will be guided by the cultural system. Power cultures are those organizations managed by owners often with little involvement of employees. In such cases, the most important approval is that of the top management. Otherwise, employees are not going to cooperate in any change exercise. Therefore, one ought not to dismiss the crucial fact that regardless of all formalities adhered to, nothing will work with the explicit approval of top management (Ćirić & Raković, 2010). In task cultures, tasks are delegated to the lowest levels though the formal reporting and decision making networks have not been abolished. In such organizations, teams or task-based groups are extensively employed. Such organizational cultures are often the most suitable for implementation of information systems since disciplines such as supervision, planning and team-based responsibility are already in existence (Ćirić & Raković, 2010). Gathering the support and cooperation of teams often means project success is half-way achieved.
Bureaucratic cultures, on the other hand, are those that insist on formality and centralization. All employees have their roles, formal relations and job descriptions stipulated. Implementation of information technology systems here will have to adhere to these laid down structures. Informal relations, however, ought not to be disregarded since they might be the key to creating relationships and obtaining information critical to project implementation (Ćirić & Raković, 2010). Individualistic or personal organizational cultures are decentralized and informal. Building information systems in such organizations may be taxing since the involvement of everyone is vital. The absence of formal mechanisms such as specification of project plans and presentation adds to the challenges likely to be encountered (Ćirić & Raković, 2010). In brief, it is important to recognize the culture in which projects are being implemented. Such information helps reveal the likely responses of customers or reactions by staff impacted by the change.
However, successful management of change is not confined to the proper reading of the nature of organizations. System specialists as change agents must ensure credibility in the eyes of those impacted by the change. Without credibility, it becomes almost impossible for them to gain the support they require. To this extent, credentials, professional appearance, references and support by top management are essential to facilitate an atmosphere of respect and trust. In addition, they must gather all the necessary information or data required by employees in the execution of their role to respond to their needs more effectively. Furthermore, they must be conducive enough to allow employee inputs and factor them in their decision-making procedures.
Conclusion
Changes in information technology systems within organizations have become quite commonplace and are, in fact, essential for organizational survival within the context of a competitive business environment. However, despite the proven importance of such changes, more so in increasing organizational efficiency and productivity, not all information technology changes succeed. A whopping 40% of such change projects end up in failure. It has been argued in the paper that at the core of these failures is an inability to manage change. Indeed, change management goes beyond merely ensuring the right structures are in place to ensuring that users of such systems are in support and gradually develop the capabilities to manage these systems. This is especially the case with information technology systems that have a significant degree of complexity. Worker resistance to information technology changes, it has been submitted, is quite commonplace. Subsequently, the paper has proffered a number of strategies that may be employed to overcome such resistance including extensive employee involvement, issuance of guarantees by management and adequate elaboration of the need and value of such changes.
References
Beyrouti, N. (2006). The Impact of Technological Innovation on Organizations, Work Environment and Personal Lives. Technology Management for the Global Future , https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4077502.
Carson, K., & Griffeth, R. (1990). Changing a management information system: managing resistance by attending to the rights and responsibilities of employees. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3 (1), 47-58.
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 349-375.
Ćirić, Z., & Raković, L. (2010). Change Management in System Development and Implementation Projects. Management Information Systems,, 5 , 23-28.
Project Smart. (n.d). THE STANDISH GROUP REPORT. http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos-report.pdf.
Rasberry, R. W. (1986). Effective Managerial Communication. Boston: Kent Publishing.
Thach, L., & Woodman, R. (1994). Organizational Change and Information Technology: Managing on the edge of Cyber Space. Organizational Dynamics, 23 (1), 30-46.
