The famous words of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus that change is the only constant have gained global resonance. Change would appear to be an inescapable part of human life. Within contemporary organizations, change is not just a reality but a necessity. Economic landscape, globalization, and technology are some of the key propellers of change within organizations. Such change has significantly undermined the utility of received wisdom especially in determining what underpins business success. Adoption of new techniques based on a contextual reading has become more relevant in drawing the line between success and failure in this new millennium. Change may be triggered by a multitude of factors from within or from outside the organization. While we might have control over change in limited instances, more often than not, change is too potent a force. And yet, despite change not being an option especially within a competitive business landscape, human beings have a natural aversion to it (Andrei & Iorga, 2016) .
Resistance to change can be witnessed in multiple domains such as at home and in school let alone the workplace. If not properly administered, change processes may, as opposed to being desirable, bring about delays, obstruction of other key organization processes and even lead to extra costs. To this extent, change may be a force for good or harm to the business. Since change initiatives are products of evaluations of performance and review of corporate structure, business strategy, human resource policies and operational processes, it is to be expected that such transformations are geared towards organizational efficiency and effective making their proper implementation to be of paramount importance (Andrei & Iorga, 2016) . Organizational research and theory have thus sought to address the causes of employee resistance to change. These reasons are today relatively well known though it must be underscored that each situation presents its own set of unique circumstances (Justin, Mario, & James, 2013) . In other words, there is no universal antidote to employee resistance to change. To the extent that employe es are the people that execute the job, possess the tools, skills, knowledge, and experiences required in task accomplishment, they cannot be circumvented in the change process.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Change requires alteration of professional and personal habits. Habitual changes require a degree of effort and above all getting out of one’s comfort zone. Habits are wired in the brain-the basal ganglia of the brain- where connections between experiences, on the one hand, and insights and functions, on the other hand, are efficiently and effectively made without consumption of much energy. Given this entrenchment of habits, they can be a significant obstruction to new modes of doing things.
Communication is of the essence in trying to garner the support and commitment of individuals involved in the change processes. Ineffective or even nonexistent communication could be a major cause of resistance to change. How, where and when change is communicated are important in stimulating appropriate responses. A leader who communicates intended change processes without tact or in a domineering attitude is unlikely to engender the support of others. Even when the need or urgency of the change is quite evident, communication strategy may inadvertently produce negative reception to change proposals (Justin, Mario, & James, 2013) .
In many instances, changes may portend job losses. This is particularly the case for employees where changes involve the introduction of new technologies or far-reaching structural adjustments. Jobs cuts are a key feature of modern organizations as they respond to market changes. Studies show that employees who have not sought continued skill improvement are particularly vulnerable to job cuts. It thus follows that anxiety and fear grips employees thus the resistance to proposed changes. As it has been alluded to, most reengineering processes entail combining jobs that previously belonged in different categories, the introduction of new skills, extensive technical cross-training, job and need analysis (Habib, 2013) . The fear of job loss is exacerbated by the fear of the unknown. Employees are uncertain about their performance within the new framework. Fear of the unknown has been shown to grip all levels of the organization regardless of hierarchy (Justin, Mario, & James, 2013) . One of the undesirable consequences of such fear is freezing creativity and innovation thus lowering productivity as employees try to avoid undertaking tasks that require high responsibilities in a bid to reduce the likelihood of failure.
Peer pressure is also a considerable cause of resistance to change. Organizational reengineering affects virtually all members of the organization making those most affected by the changes to lobby or influence their colleagues to resistance. The social nature of human beings is such that we resist that which negatively affects us and attempt to get others to support us in that bid. Furthermore, team members may feel inclined to resist change that they think unduly targets one of their own. As Abraham Maslow noted, social bonds created by belonging to a group extend to the workplace and constitute a potent force that may be used to frustrate change efforts (Justin, Mario, & James, 2013) .
Mistrust, especially amongst employees on the intentions of such changes, will almost invariably induce resistance. This is especially the case where there is cut-throat competition within the organization thus mutual mistrust or inadequate communication on the purposes and intention of that change. Since an organization is also a political space-humans are not apolitical by nature-organizational politics such as loss of power of particular individuals who have allegiances to certain groups within the organizations may make change a protracted and even painful affair (Andrei & Iorga, 2016) .
Economic considerations are also important internal and external factors influencing resistance to change. Where change brings decreases in salaries, commissions, bonuses amongst other economic goods, it is likely to be resisted. Resistance becomes even stronger when employees are faced with harsh economic conditions such that their prospects of securing another job after leaving the organization are minimal (Andrei & Iorga, 2016) .
Case in Point
A friend working in the bank, together with other branch colleagues, received a letter from the management indicating that they were conducting a job analysis with the view of streamlining operations of the bank. They thus requested that all employees submit a performance report for evaluation. This decision was met with considerable resistance since performance reports are typically filled at the end of the year, not mid, and this had come a few weeks after the release of mid-year profit in which the bank had registered slightly lower returns. Most employees suspected the performance report was a cover to undertake retrenchment and joined together to resist the move that eventually flopped.
Conclusion
The Kotter theory of change offers invaluable insights that could have helped the bank persuade employees to go along with the proposal. First, the bank should have demonstrated the need and urgency of such a report especially given the fact that it came at the most unorthodox time. This would have demanded effective communication. In doing so, the bank should have demonstrated the short-term and the long-term benefits of the planned job analysis. They would have helped the employees feel they were contributing to a broader vision as opposed to suspecting they were being targeted for the decline in profits they thought was caused by exogenous factors. Perhaps more importantly, the organization should have entrenched a culture that makes change a common phenomenon. The bankers were unused to such reports being filled in the middle of the year. Too much predictability makes the introduction of change be met with resistance. In this regard, change ought to be anchored on corporate culture.
References
Andrei, S., & Iorga, C. (2016). Employee Resistance To Organizational Change Through Managerial Reengineering. Proceedings Of The 10th International Management Conference .
Habib, M. N. (2013). Understanding Critical Success and Failure Factors of Business Process Reengineering. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2 (1), 1-10.
Justin, B., Mario, E. C., & James, E. F. (2013). Employee Resistance To Organizational Change. International Journal of Management and Information Sytems, 17 .
