Category: 管理论文代写

It has been stated that a business derives value from knowledge, know-how, intellectual assets and competencies rather than ‘things’ and that these capabilities are vested within people (Hamel, 2005). Consequently, in order to create an enduring competitive advantage, a company must therefore focus on the retention and development of its organisational expertise (skills set, tacit and explicit knowledge, capabilities and core competences) and how to engage staff in the process (Porter, 2004; French, Rayner, Rees & Rumbles, 2008).

Two contrasting learning philosophies appear to exist within organisations – a basic, predominantly instructional approach focussed on remedial action to correct errors or omissions; and a more comprehensive lifelong learning recognising the fundamental importance of employees to business therefore adopting a more developmental approach (viewing people as assets) (Beardwell & Thompson, 2014).

Training is a planned and systematic way of improving an individual’s knowledge, skills and attitudes so that they can perform their current role more competently, whereas development is the process of preparing a person to take on more onerous responsibilities or equip them to face higher level, future challenges within the organisation (Malone, 2003: 76). Learning is the process that brings about a persistent change in behaviour through the acquisition of increased competence to deal successfully with the operating environment through the acquisition of knowledge, skills and required attitudes (French et al, 2008: 123).

Whilst learning is focussed on the acquisition of the required skills and competences to perform effectively, this has to be linked to performance i.e. combining this essential learning with the motivation to engage in a manner that applies it in a way that delivers improved or enhanced results (Bratton & Gold, 2007). This learning (and its application) can take place at various levels within a company – such as on an individual or team/group basis – but the focus of this paper will be on organisational learning aspects (French et al, 2008).

Key Definitions and Concepts

Organisational learning can be viewed as the process by which a company can build a collective or shared knowledge base and the development of mechanisms to retrieve and disseminate this knowledge (Hora & Hunter, 2014). This is built upon the premise that as an organisation grows and adapts, it is able to generate/create a store of institutional knowledge that delivers a collective business benefit exceeding that which could be expected to be provided by employees operating individually (Hagen, 2010). As a company develops over time, the collective learning that takes place generates organisational knowledge – the shared intelligence specific to that company accumulated through both formal systems and the shared experiences of people in the organisation (Cole & Kelly, 2011; Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011).

Organisational learning therefore requires an entity capable of continual regeneration through the application of knowledge, experience and skills by creating a culture that encourages challenge and review (Johnson et al, 2011). The traditional, rigid, hierarchical structures that ensure the command and control of individuals are no longer conducive to competing in more dynamic environments or for generating organisational learning (Henry, 2011). Organisational learning consequently refers to the capacity of a company to learn how to do what it does, where what it learns is possessed not by individual members but by the collective – when the group acquires the know-how associated with its ability to carry out its collective activities then organisational learning has taken place (Cohen & Sproull, 1996).

Organisational learning provides a mechanism to address the essential nature of knowledge (Thompson & McHugh, 2009), in that there are fundamental differences in terms of explicit knowledge (which can be expressed formally and communicated through language) and tacit knowledge (which is difficult to formalise or communicate as it is embodied, personal and rooted in action/context) (Nonaka, 1994). A company requires the effective application of tacit knowledge developed from a more intimate appreciation of their operations and environment, in order to build a sustainable competitive advantage (Henry, 2011; Porter, 2004). This tacit knowledge can be perceived as corporate wisdom and despite the challenges associated with its transmission and dissemination, organisational learning approaches can be used to capture it effectively to create, innovate and maintain the competitive advantage required (Mullins & Christie, 2013).

In terms of individual employee capabilities, a company requires skill in the person (rooted within the individual and can be developed through education, training and experience), skill in the job (meeting role requirements) and skill in the setting (an understanding and appreciation of the shared/collective interests of the company and the organisational culture) (Johnson et al, 2011). Effective organisational learning approaches should therefore seek to maximise the collective return from the application and sharing of tacit knowledge, and the skills that can be acquired and developed through the working environment and culture (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006), as these possess real business utility as they cannot be easily replicated by competitors (Barney, 1986).

Organisational Learning Approaches

Senge (1990) argued that an effective organisational approach to learning required the application of five key disciplines:

• Personal mastery – understanding individual aspirations and creating clear linkages to organisational goals;
• Mental models – creating a culture of reflection and inquiry to develop a wider awareness of the organisations needs so that individual thinking begins to anticipate those needs;
• Shared vision – creating a collective commitment to a common purpose with activities and targets clearly linked to that purpose;
• Team learning – group development interactions (rather than individual skills programmes) to ensure that training reflects requirements generated by shared goals;
• Systems thinking – taking a holistic view to understand and appreciate key interdependencies, using feedback to develop, refine (and ultimately simplify) often complex systems.

(Senge, 1990)

For such an integrated thinking approach to be effective, the leader(s) must be able to develop a shared vision of where the organisation wants to be, developing a creative tension by also clearly articulating the current position of the company (Henry, 2011). The organisation uses clear mission and vision statements, underpinned by shared goals and targets to create a collective framework, which in turn shape learning interventions (often utilising individual or group performance development agreements) (Schein, 2004; Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis, 2011). In order to create collective commitment, flexibility and creativity from employees, learning opportunities/interventions must be relatively frequent, as this then creates an enduring capability for change and innovation (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013).

Whilst this approach is reflected in many large organisations and has the capacity to foster a culture that could maximise the return from tacit knowledge held within the organisation (Knights & Willmott, 2012), the structural emphasis outlined has been criticised. Unless the articulated mission and vision are regularly reviewed to consider the wider business environment and the demands of competitive advantage (Porter, 2004), thinking and learning can become constrained. Consequently, challenge is not encouraged and process/activity is seen as a worthwhile end in itself – ultimately the focus on measureable achievement/innovation can be lost and a blame culture can develop (Seddon, 2008).

Using organisational learning to manage the development and sharing of knowledge (as articulated by Senge, 1990) has the potential to maintain the competitive advantage required (Newell, Robertson, Scarborough & Swan, 2009). However, to maximise the potential return, “know-why” (such as design rationale and reasoning – the capturing of best practice) must be combined with “know-who” (the mapping of relevant expertise and skills) as well as “know-how” (promoting a learning and development environment in a manner that encourages innovation) (Mullins & Christie, 2013). Efforts to capture the critical aspect of “know-how” has led to the creation of Communities of Practice as an organisational model of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1998).

Cross-functional communities of practice seek to utilise the informal, social interaction of the group (rather than rely on structured, mechanistic knowledge transfer mechanisms) to create an engaged learning approach focussed on what needs to be known by the group (Lave & Wenger, 1998). Such groups often have the ability to capture and share vital tacit knowledge which more formal information management systems are often unable to do (Newell et al, 2009). A community of practice recognises that in order to learn and innovate, it is necessary to participate on a more personal level and to create engaged participation, it is necessary for people to feel included in the decision-process, thus allowing a sense of ownership to develop (Easterby-Smith, Burgoyne & Araujo, 1999). In sharing a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, the group/community are proactive in developing their knowledge and expertise, interacting on a regular basis (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002).

The perceived “added-value” of effective communities of practice has led to organisations attempting to manage the process by creating groups that cut across organisational boundaries in order to innovate, share knowledge and solve problems (Davenport and Hall, 2002).. However, the mere existence of a structure that brings people together does not ensure that this approach will be effective (Linstead, Fulop & Lilley 2009). Attempting to overly manage or even directly control any Community of Practice could introduce the very constraints that these informal peer-to-peer groups originally sought to work against/around and thus minimise their effectiveness (Eraut, 2002).

Issues and Caveats

Whilst it is possible to gain greater business utility and an enduring competitive advantage from organisational learning approaches, the following aspects need to be considered:

• Superstitious learning. Where organisations learn the wrong things due to the connections between outcomes and actions being incorrectly specified e.g. rapidly or constantly adapting targets will be close to current performance levels (making being above or below the target an almost chance event) creating a misleading belief that organisational performance has improved.
• Ambiguity of success. Where the indicators of success are constantly modified or targets continually change, it is difficult to measure what has actually been learned by the organisation even if meeting a goal is seen as a major achievement.
• Competency Traps. Improving procedures or practices that do not deliver any real competitive advantage can create an illusion of organisational progress. In reality, they expose the company to competitors able to focus on improvements that deliver practical business benefits that meet customer requirements.

(Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Cohen & Sproull, 1996).

Essentially, organisational learning relies on knowledge management to capture and convert individual tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge that can be more easily shared with others in the company (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013). In considering such knowledge management and intellectual capital capture processes in relation to a learning organisation, a number of issues can emerge:

• Learning organisation ‘positives:
• A rich, multi-dimensional concept affecting many aspects of organisational behaviour.
• An innovative approach to learning, knowledge management and investment in intellectual capital.
• Challenging concepts, focussed on the acquisition of individual and corporate knowledge.
• An innovative approach to organisation, management and staff development.
• Innovative application of technology to manage organisational knowledge (e.g. databases, internet and intranets).

Learning organisation negatives:

• A complex/diffuse set of practices which can be difficult to implement systematically.
• Attempts to use dated concepts (from change management and learning theory) re-packaged as management consultancy projects.
• New approaches to encourage employee compliance with strict directives applied in the guise of ‘self-development’.
• New/innovative approaches to strengthening management control over staff behaviours.
• A technology-dependent approach which does not consider how people actually develop and use knowledge in the organisation.

(Adapted from Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013: 179).

Summary

A learning organisation is defined as an entity that encourages and facilitates the learning and development of people at all levels of the company, values that learning and which simultaneously transforms itself to maintain an enduring competitive advantage (Cole & Kelly, 2011: 487). The best learning organisations are skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge whilst also being able to modify their behaviour(s) to reflect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993: 80). To do so effectively, requires skills in terms of systematic problem solving, experimentation with new approaches, learning from experience and past history, learning from the experiences and best practices of others and the ability to transfer knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organisation (Cole & Kelly, 2011). Unless the methods outlined (above) are able to create a collaborative environment where employees feel empowered to reflect on present practices and to provide improvement suggestions, then they will not provide any real added-value when compared to more traditional/individual learning interventions (Fineman, Gabriel & Sims, 2010).

对工作环境的变化，人们总是持有保留态度，因为我们害怕进入未知领域。人类喜欢一直活在舒适区，没有人喜欢改变，特别是在短时间之内。但是，对于机构来说，想要适应不断变化的生存环境，并取得成功，改革则是必不可免的。甚至可以说，机构必须学会热爱改革，以保持竞争优势。

Organisations are highly specialized systems and people working within the organisations are generally cynical to change in the work environment as they don’t want to get into uncharted territory. It is the natural tendency of human beings to live in their comfort zone and no one likes to be comfortable being uncomfortable even for a short duration (during the change process).

But, for organisations to survive and succeed in the current environment change is no longer optional. Organisations have to learn to love change to stay ahead of competition.

• An overview of change management

Definition – Change management is about moving from one state to another, specifically, from the problem state to the solved state (Jung, 2001).

But, the organisational terminology for change management can be varied and ‘change’ may be used under different terms. E.g. when a company talks about re-engineering, restructuring, promoting cultural transformation, or keeping pace with the industry, then it is talking about change. Lewin (1951) conceptualized that change can occur at three levels.

• Change in the individuals who work in the organisation – that is their skills, values, attributes, and eventually behaviour. Leaders have to make sure that such individual behavioural change is always regarded as instrumental to organisational change.
• Change in the organisational structures and systems – reward systems, reporting relationships, work design and so on.
• A direct change in the organisation climate or interpersonal style – dealing with people relationships, conflict management and the process of decision making. (Leonard et al., 2003, cited in Mabey & Mayon-White (ed))

Change can be further classified as planned and emergent. When change is deliberate and is a product of conscious reasoning and actions is supposed to be planned. Emergent change is a direct contract to this and unfolds in an apparently spontaneous and unplanned way.

• Drivers of change

Change is mostly driven by circumstances and always takes place with a particular goal in mind. Some of the common drivers of change are, to keep pace with the changing environment, to beat competition, technological changes to improve process efficiency etc.

No matter what the driver for change is, the goal of the whole process is to lead the organisation into a future state which is different from the current state under which the organisation operates. (Nicols, 2006) The scope and scale of change can vary. E.g. Change can be limited a particular department (operations, marketing etc.) or it might affect the whole organisation, it might relate to only a group of people or might affect every employee in the organisation.

• Initiators of change

Irrespective of its nature, change has to be initiated, driven and implemented by someone. This is where leadership fits into the change management process. It has been found that organisations that have been successful in coping with change have strong leadership that guides the team through a series of initial steps that set the stage for success (Nadler, 2001). Leaders are responsible for bringing about change in a staged and planned manner.

Dirks (2000) points out that change has to be instigated and it is the leader who instigates the change by his vision and persuasion. Nadler, Thies and Nadler (2001) suggest that, for effective change to occur, and in particular cultural change, there is no substitute for the active engagement of the leadership and executive team.

Top leaders must assume the role of chief architect of the change process. Cartwright and Cooper (1993) take this one step further by suggesting that it is important that employees at all levels become involved in the change process. Jung (2001) also views managers as playing key roles in developing, transforming and institutionalizing organisational culture during the change process.

For managing an organisation wide change, the leadership has to possess an unusually broad and finely honed set of skills. It needs to have a clear sense of mission and delegate task effectively to build a whole team of ‘change agents’. The structure of the organisation needs to change to one with less internal bureaucracy.

Hatch (2000) suggests that the implementation of any change process often flounders because it is improperly framed by top management. The key to choosing the right approach to change is thus to keep in mind how organisations function. As social systems comprising work, people, formal and informal systems, organisations are inherently resistant to change and designed to neutralize the impact of attempts at change (Chemers, 2001). Leaders play a critical role in selecting and planning appropriate change

• Reluctance to organisational change

Gofee and Jones (2001) point out that the reluctance to organisational change from employees and other staff is primarily due to the way change is implemented and the abilities of the leader in bringing about the change rather than the nature of change itself. Bridges (1991) believes that it isn’t the actual change that individuals resist, but rather the transition that must be made to accommodate the change.

Organisational change entails change in the work process, culture and the nature of an employee’s working conditions. Psychologists believe that resistance to change is because of people being afraid of the unknown. During times of change, it is important that the leaders of the organisation create an atmosphere of psychological safety for all individuals to engage in the new behaviours and test the waters of the new culture after the change has been implemented.

• Approaches to change

Change can be classified in a number of ways. The categorization depends on the extent of the change and whether it is seen as organic (often characterized as bottom-up) or driven (top-down). Ackerman’s change classification segregates change into

Developmental change – may be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or incremental. It is change that enhances or corrects existing aspects of an organisation, often focusing on the improvement of a skill or process. (Ackermann, 1997)

Transitional change – seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the existing one. It is episodic, planned and second order, or radical. Transformational change is radical or second order in nature. It requires a shift in assumptions made by the organisation and its members. Transformation can result in an organisation that differs significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and strategy. It may, therefore, result in the creation of an organisation that operates in developmental mode – one that continuously learns, adapts and improves. (Mabey & Mayon-White (ed), 2003)

• Implementing change

It is widely believed that the way an organisation adapts to change is fundamental to its success. In an ever increasing competitive environment, change is ubiquitous and the way employees respond to change (resistance/acceptance) has been identified to play a vital role in the change management process. Managing organisational change requires more than reengineering and restructuring systems and processes. It requires managing the human responses that accompany any organisational change (Darwin et al., 2002).

For its smooth implementation, the change management process has to be carefully planned and the onus is on the leader to ensure a hassle free implementation through effective and sensible planning, confident and effective decision-making, and regular, complete and timely communication with the employees (Simon & Newell, 2006). Factors such as organisation culture, structure of the organisation, bureaucracy, employee attitudes, business model etc. also play their part in implementing change.

• Skills needed for effective change implementation

Authors like Nadler and Thies (2001) have stressed on the importance of problem solving within the change management process and argue that change can only be effectively implemented by good problem solvers. Managing change is seen as a matter of moving from one state to another, specifically, from the problem state to the solved state therefore diagnosis of problems at each stage and coming out with a solution to those problems plays a big part in the change management process (Champy, 2005).

• Implementation difficulties

Bringing about major change in a large and complex organisation is a difficult task. Policies, procedures and structures need to be altered. Individuals and groups have to be motivated to continue perform in the face of major turbulence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the process of effectively implementing organisational change has long been a topic that both managers and researchers have pondered (Nadler, cited in Mabey and Mayon-White, 2003).

Beer et al. (2003) believe that most change programs don’t work because they are guided by a theory of change that is fundamentally flawed. The problem with most company-wide change programs is that they address only one or two the crucial factors (coordination, teamwork, commitment, structure of the organisation, organisation culture)

• Change Management Strategy

As a part of the strategy, a feasibility analysis needs to be done to assess whether the change the organisation is looking to bring about is feasible considering the present state of the organisation (Huy, 2002). Organisational configurations need to be assessed before deciding on the proper change management strategy.

Change management is a three pronged strategy: transform, reduce and apply. Before the change process is drafted, it is the responsibility of the change initiator / leader for assessing the difference between the current state of affairs and the state accomplished after the change process which Haslam & Platow (2001) terms as the transform state. This is an assessment stage which requires the leaders to assess the goals. After goal assessment, the strategy should be to try to determine ways to narrow the gap through the change process (reduce stage) and subsequently delegate responsibility to play operators (like divisional heads and other departmental leaders) to actually effect the elimination of these differences.

During the change implementation process, the leader should play a key role, firstly, in the identification of the changes necessary to produce the required outcomes and then to put an implementation process in place to bring about those changes.

Champy (2005) believes that the leader is the one responsible for the how, what and why of the change process. It is the leader who should be responsible for identifying how the changes can be effectively implemented with least resistance from employees by taking into consideration the organisation structure and culture. Communication should also form a part of the change management strategy. The change initiator and implementer have to play the role of an effective communicator to inform the employees of the reasons behind the changes.

It has to be remembered that organisations change is always brought about by team work and the change process requires frequent communication with all the members of the organisation. Leadership approach should be to address resistance through increased and sustained communications and education. As a part of the strategy, employees should be encouraged to express their ideas and concerns with regards to the change.

Change management should start with the change manager mobilizing commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problems. A shared vision of how to organize and manage competitiveness needs to be developed. Consensus has to be fostered for the new vision. Once there is a consensus, leaders and change agents should have the competence to enact it and the cohesion to move it along. The change management process and the strategy have to revitalize all departments without pushing change from the top. As a part of the implementation strategy, the leader should monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process.

Also, all too often change agents try to completely change the culture of the organisations within the change management process. The strategy should be to try to control the culture rather than influence it. Leaders don’t have to drive the change but supervise it. Change has to be implemented and driven by the people who get affected by the change. Mumford et al. (2002) point out that the reluctance to organisational change from employees and other staff is primarily due to the way change is implemented and the abilities of the leader in bringing about the change rather than the nature of change itself. Changing the culture of an organisation should be a gradual transformation process.

Change management strategy should ensure that much of the task is delegated to the departments and leadership is mainly concerned in coordinating between the departments. It has to be made sure that the departments understand the importance of change through their effective, timely and regular communication. Departmental heads should be made to realize the importance of establishing a sense of urgency and enthusiasm about the change. Change should never try to be rushed.

Communication between organisational members, at all levels, from management and among peers, should be a major priority in any change process. A feeling of ‘No Consultation’ occurs among employees is they are not properly communicated; therefore ‘consultative’ leadership should be followed during the change process. Transparency and trust also form a very important part of the change management process.

As a part of the change management strategy, leaders need to select carefully the method or approach to be used to manage the change process and develop a new culture following the change. They have to establish effective channels of communication which involve individuals at all levels of the organisation to inform individuals of the stages to be followed and to outline clearly outcomes for them.

Above all, they need to lead in a positive manner, recognizing that change is an emotive process and people need to be ‘changed’ with dignity by acknowledging contributions and justifying the reasons for them personally to move on.

Word of caution – Even though, bringing about a change is important for organisations to stay competitive in the global market environment, organisations have to bear in mind that they don’t thrust change on their employees. The infrastructure for implementation of change management has to be ready before the implementation. The change process has to be correctly configured and the need for change has to be clearly communicated to the employees who will be affected by it.

Conclusions

An organisation is a complex entity and bringing about a change is an equally complex ordeal. Orchestrating a companywide change process is a delicate balance which requires able leadership. Effective leader make the change process easy for themselves and the organisation. But, playing a leadership role within the change process is far from easy.

• Not only do leaders have a responsibility to lead, but as an employee they have to deal with change themselves. Therefore, it is very important for leaders themselves to understand the benefits of the change process and how change is going to be implemented. They shouldn’t get wrapped up in bringing about the change just for the sake of changing.
• Planned implementation of the change process is utmost important. Change should not be imposed on the employees without proper planning and consideration given to the organisation culture. Planning requires coordination and leaders need to coordinate between departments to successfully plan the change.
• Organisations should not try to change too much too soon and need to take a staged approach to change. Change should be a well thought process and implemented in a planned and systematic manner.
• Everyone in the organisation should be adequately informed and listened to before embarking on the cultural change process. Finkelstein & Hambrick (1996) point out that the task of change management is to bring order to a messy situation, not pretend that it’s already well organized and disciplined and leadership is hugely responsible for bringing that semblance of order.
• Companies also need to have the right approach and mind step to deal with the change process. Successful organisations drive change rather than being driven by the change. Although, the strategic decision to change comes from the top management but the implementation should always be a bottom up process. HP’s didn’t get either of those decisions right; its decision to change came too late (when Dell had already gained ground and had the first over advantage) due to which it tried to impose the change from top down.

It is worth mentioning that change management strategy adopted is also reliant on the type of organisation. Different organisations may need to approach change differently and the type of change management approach adopted should be consistent with the objectives of the organisation and its situation. For example, an organisation whose future depended on improving customer service should, logically, adopt a change model focused on improving processes that have a direct bearing on that objective and removing obstacles that prevent its achievement. This is because; a disjunction between the objective and the mechanism would result in untoward or unwanted results.

References

Books and Journals

Ackerman, D (1997) A natural history of senses, London, Financial Times

Adler, Nancy J. (2003) (third edition). International dimensions of organisational behavior. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.

Bacal, R (2006) How to manage performance (Mighty Manager), New York, Harvard Business School Press

Bluedorn, A. C. (2000). ‘Time and organisational culture’. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. E. Wilderom and M. F. Peterson (eds), Handbook of Organisational Culture and Climate, pp. 117–129. Sage Publications, London.

Brown, M. C. 2002. Organisational Performance: The succession effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 1–16.

Chemers, M. M. (2001). ‘Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review’. In: M. A. Hogg and S. Tindale (eds), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes, pp. 376–399. Blackwell, Maulden, MA.

Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering Management: The Mandate for New Leadership. Harper Business, New York.

Child, John. (2001). Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organisations. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw, Research in organisational behavior, 3: 303-56. New York: JAI.

Conger, J. and R. Kanugo (1987). ‘Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in organisational settings,’ Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 637–647.

Dirks, K. T. 2000. Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology,85: 1004–1012.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1996. Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effect on organisations. St. Paul: West Educational Publishing.

Goffee, R. and G. Jones (2001). ‘Organisational culture: a sociological perspective’. In C. L. Cooper, S. Carwright and P. C. Earley, The International Handbook of Organisational

Culture. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.

Harrison, R.C (1972) When power conflicts trigger team spirit. European Business, Spring, 27-65

Haslam, S. A. and M. J. Platow (2001). ‘Your wish is our command: the role of shared social identity in translating a leader’s vision into followers’ action’. In: M. A. Hogg and

D. Terry (eds), Social identity processes in organisations, pp. 213–228. Psychology Press, New York.

Hatch, M. J. (2000). ‘The cultural dynamics of organizing and change’. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. E. Wilderom and M. F. Peterson (eds), Handbook of Organisational Culture and Climate, pp. 245–261. Sage Publications Inc., London.

Herscovitch, L. and J. P. Meyer (2002). ‘Commitment to organisational change: Extension of a three-component model’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 474–487.

Huy, Q. N. (2002). ‘Emotional balancing of organisational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp. 31–69.

Jones,G & Goffee, R (2001)Why should anyone be led by you, New York, Harvard Business School Press

Jung, D. (2001). ‘Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups’, Creativity Research Journal, 13, pp. 185–195.

Lewin, K (1951). Frontiers in group dynamics, Human Relations,1, 5-41

Mabey,C & Mayon-White, B (2003) Managing Change (2^nd edn.), London, PCP Publishing

Mumford, M. D., G. M. Scott, B. Gaddis and J. M. Strange (2002). ‘Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertize and relationships’, Leadership Quarterly, 13, pp. 705–750.

Nadler, D. A., P. K. Thies and M. B. Nadler (2001). ‘Culture Change in the Strategic enterprize: Lessons from the Field’. In: C. L. Cooper, S. Carwright and P. C. Earley, The International Handbook of Organisational Culture and Climate John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.

Websites

Nicols,F (2006) Change Management http://home.att.net/~OPSINC/change.pdf> Date accessed 21/03/2007

The institute of Direct Marketing (2006) Leadership, change management and corporate culture Nicols,F (2006) Change Management http://home.att.net/~OPSINC/change.pdf> Date accessed 20/05/2007

Types of change (2006) University of Luton Study http://www.effectingchange.luton.ac.uk/types_of_change/pdf/types.pdf Date accessed 20/05/2007

本文将探讨员工在现代企业环境中的角色，并将其与员工在更多历史背景下所享有的角色和地位进行比较和对比。本文将探讨英国数据保护和隐私保护的法律框架，并将从理论和实践两方面探讨这一框架如何适用于工作场所。考虑到旨在保护雇员利益的立法的作用，作者将评论立法的效力，并考虑到立法为雇员创造的具体权利和立法为雇主创造的具体责任。本文还将探讨与工作场所监督和就业权利相关问题的更广泛的社会学背景，作者将考虑技术进步和信息时代如何影响现代雇员在隐私方面的地位。

Introduction

This essay will consider and evaluate the proposition “privacy is dead- get over it” by looking at organizational communication theory and practice. The essay will look at the role of the employee in the modern corporate environment, and compare and contrast this with the role and status enjoyed by the employee in more historical settings. The essay will look at the statutory framework for Data Protection in the UK, and privacy and will examine how this applies to the workplace, both in theory and in practice. The role of legislation designed to protect the interests of employees will be considered and the writer will comment on the efficacy of the legislation as well as considering the specific rights that it creates for employees and the specific responsibilities that it creates for employers. The wider sociological context for issues connected to surveillance in the workplace and employment rights will be examined also, and the writer will consider how technological advancement and the Information Age has affected the status of the modern employee in terms of their privacy. The ultimate aim of creating this context will be to inform a holistic evaluation of the proposition “privacy is dead- get over it”.

Privacy and surveillance in the workplace

In the modern workplace there are various tensions that exist between the privacy of employees and the level of surveillance that employers may employ in order to ensure that the organization functions optimally (Sprenger, P. (1999); Treacy, B. (2009); Wilkes, A. (2011)). Social networking sites are becoming more and more popular, and the internet is being used more and more to facilitate communication within organizations: “According to the Office for National Statistics’ 2010 data, 30.1 million adults in the UK (60% of the population) access the internet every day or almost everyday. This is nearly double the 2006 estimate of 16.5 million. Social networking was a popular internet activity in 2010, with 43% of internet users posting messages to social networking sites or chat sites, blogs etc. While social networking activities prove to be most popular amongst 16–24 year olds, 31% of internet users aged 45–54 have used the internet to post messages on social network sites, while 28% uploaded content. Many of the adults that use social networks do so not only for social networking purposes but also for business networking purposes. Of the individuals listed in LinkedIn this year, there are over 52,000 people, predominantly in the US, Canada, India, Italy, UK and the Netherlands (in that order) with ‘privacy’ mentioned in their profile. Within LinkedIn there are also a considerable number of privacy related LinkedIn groups which have substantial memberships. Many of the readers of this article will no doubt be in those groups for social as well as business purposes…(Bond, R. (2010) pp. 1)”, and this intensifies the debate as to how far employees’ privacy can be lawfully infringed by employers.

As organizational communication takes place more and more via email and other forms of electronic communication the problem of privacy is further heightened as more extensive records of personal communication are created and retained (Johnson, D. and Turner, C. (2003) p. 43-47; Jordan, T. (1999) p. 17-19; Kitt, G. (1996) p. 14-18). What to do with data like this poses a complex problem relating to the privacy of the employee and the right of the employer to infringe privacy in order to ensure the integrity of their organization.

The statutory framework

In the UK the privacy of an employee’s data, and an employer’s lawful access to such information is defined through a number of routes (Lunney, M. and Oliphant, K. (2003); Mc Kendrick, E. (2003)). Firstly, there is an important statutory framework that employers must respect. This is created by the Data Protection Act 1998, and also by the ECHR which requires that an individual’s private and family life be respected (Article 8 of the ECHR). These rights are enforceable by an individual in a civil court in the UK, but also by public agencies in the UK like the Office of the Information Commissioner (Sprenger, P. (1999); Treacy, B. (2009); Wilkes, A. (2011)).

The Data Protection Act 1998 has created a number of principles of data protection, which must be respected. These are that information (i) must be fairly and lawfully processed; (ii) information may only be obtained for specified lawful purposes, (ii) may not be processed in any manner incompatible with such purposes; (iii) data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purposes for which it is collected; (iv) information must be accurate and where necessary kept up to date, (v) information must not be kept longer than necessary, (vi) information must be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects, (vii) security measures must be taken against unauthorized and unlawful processing of information against accidental destruction, or unauthorized or unlawful destruction, and (viii) information must not be transferred outside the European Economic Area within the consent of the data subject. In cases where these principles are not adhered to by employers, an employee may institute civil actions for breach of privacy, and or complaints to the ICO who may pursue criminal prosecutions against any party who has breached the Data Protection Principles (Kuschewsky, M. (2009); Hansson, S. and Palm, E. (2005) p. 57). As such the Data Protection Act 1998 creates a range of rights in terms of privacy and security of personal information and these may be enforced directly by an individual or by a public body such as The Information Commissioner on behalf of an individual. Breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 is a criminal offence which is punishable with fines and or up to six months imprisonment. Recent changes to the powers of the Information Commissioner gives them powers to issue fines of up to £500,000 for cases of serious breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Kuschewsky, M. (2009); Hansson, S. and Palm, E. (2005) p. 57).

On the other hand there is also a statutory framework that addresses how far an employer may go in terms of monitoring their employees in the course of employment. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communication) Regulations 2000. These provide that monitoring of employee data can only be authorized for specific, defined purposes such as where the employer has a legitimate overriding interest in the pursuit of monitoring activities (Schirato, T. and Yell, S. (2000) p. 42-45; Sime, S. (2007) p. 12; Smith, M. and Kollock, P. (1998) p. 32-35). Thus it may be argued that there is a balance to be struck between the information that employee’s disclose which may be lawfully evaluated by the employer (deemed for example in communication privacy management theory as “self-disclosed” information (see: Petronio, S. (2002) p. 3)) and information that is subject to inappropriate uses.

Clauses in the employment contract may also define the rights and responsibilities of the employer and the employee in terms of privacy, but it is important to note that employers may not, through the operation of a private contract exclude any of the rights and or responsibilities that are defined in The Data Protection Act 1998, or the ECHR (Blanpain, R. (2007); Elliott, C. and Quinn, F. (1999)). The wider legislative framework may be further defined according to the theory of privacy rule development. Privacy rule development theory argues that cultural, and sociological factors impact the boundaries of privacy rights (Petronio, S. (2002) p. 40) and it is clear that there is a balanced approach to the rights of the employee and the responsibilities of the employer under this framework and this reflects wider liberal sociological and cultural values prevalent in the UK.

企业在21世纪的生存和发展在很大程度上取决于企业的跨国扩张能力，以及扩张的成本效益和公司选择的国际商业战略的复杂性与风险。企业的资源和目标，以及对其境外产品的需求，对于决定公司产品或服务的全球化非常重要。尽管三种战略在管理文献中更为常见，即多国内、全球和跨国法，但根据Barlett和Ghoshal（1989年）的说法，企业可采用的第四种战略，那就是全球扩张的方法。本文将从企业可选择的四种方法中，分析两种方法在本地响应能力和业务成本压力方面的不同。其中国际法是企业响应能力最低、成本最高的方法，跨国法是成本最高、本地关注度最高的方法。

The survival and progression of businesses in the 21st century is highly dependent on the ability of firms to expand beyond their national borders, taking into account the cost effectiveness of expansion and the complexity and risks associated with the company’s chosen international business strategy (Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008). The resources and objectives of a firm, as well as the demand for their product outside their national borders are important in taking the decision to globalise a company’s products and/or services (Miller, 1992). Although three strategies are more common in the management literature, namely multi domestic, global and transnational approaches, the fourth strategy available to firms, according to Barlett and Ghoshal (1989) is the international approach to global expansion. This essay will analyse the two approaches that differ in local responsiveness and cost pressure for the business, with the international approach as the least responsive and expensive for the company and the transnational approach as the most costly and locally focused from the four options available to companies.

To start with, local responsiveness of multinational corporations is often a matter of mutual expectations of the company expanding into a region and the local customers’ demands and needs (Gomez-Mejia & Palich, 1997). For instance, food and beverage companies from the Western world (i.e. the US or the UK) expanding into Asian countries need to integrate certain products in their range that suit the demands of local consumers (Watson, 2006). As such, the role of the transnational approach is to enable companies from a culturally distinct country to penetrate a new market successfully (London & Hart, 2004). There are both positive and negative effects of the transnational approach. Developing a business model and manufacturing strategies is a costly process for any company and changing this for the purpose of integrating new products specific to a region is an additional financial pressure for multinational companies (Zaheer, 1995). Although the negative impact of local adaptation may deter some firms from adopting this strategy, the success of companies like McDonalds which take this approach proves that the additional costs can increase the chances of global success and the return on investment (ROI) for the company (Luo, 2001). The core advantage of the transnational approach is the potential of multinational firms to compete with local counterparts in a more effective manner through offering local products alongside their already established reputation (Dawar & Frost, 1999). High levels of local responsiveness also ensures that the reputation in the new region contributes to the ethical image and the overall CSR of a multinational company (Husted & Allen, 2006). Large corporations are often accused of unethical conduct due to the cost competitiveness with the local providers, as international firms often perfect their manufacturing techniques in order to reduce all the time and resource waste, therefore allowing them to compete with local firms (Meyer, 2004). An increasing number of countries have launched campaigns which promote local companies over the international competitors claiming that regional businesses understand the needs and desires of their customer base more, unlike the multinational firms (Kapferer, 2002). This underlines the importance of local responsiveness, as the resistance of local customers decreases when a multinational demonstrates a desire to first understand the locals’ behaviour and adjust their strategy accordingly when entering a new region (Prahalad & Doz, 1999).

In spite of the important role and effect of the transnational approach, there are multiple companies which have succeeded despite their disregard of the local customers’ specific needs and desires (Samiee & Roth, 1992). These companies opted for internationalisation as a strategy for global expansion, relying on the recognisability of their brand name, logo, specific products, packaging, etc. A successful company which took this approach in their international expansion is Starbucks, who launched their very specific coffee shops across the world aiming to take over the market share of local coffee shops through offering a very specific experience, rather than focusing exclusively on the beverages offered (Harrison, 2005). Although the local Starbucks coffee shops across the world offer some specific products, such as a variety of green tea products in Asian countries, the core product sold by Starbucks is the experience that customers enjoy alongside their chosen beverage (Gaudio, 2003). Whilst it was difficult at start for Starbucks to maintain a standardised approach to the design of their customer experience, taking over local coffee shop chains and their clientele has proven to be a successful tactic (Loeb, 2013). This international approach therefore reduces the initial cost pressure through taking over a large share of the customers of former cafés in the local region and the premises which were built and used for an identical purpose (Barkema & Vermeulen, 1998). Rebranding the coffee shops in order to maintain a standard image is less expensive than building coffee shops from scratch, in addition to the existing customer base that the American giant is able to take over (Gaviria, 2012). In consequence, the role of the international approach as an expansion tactic is to allow companies to expand quickly, cost effectively and effortlessly (Contractor, Kumar, & Kundu, 2007). The effect of the tactic is a positive one from a financial viewpoint and, more often than not, a negative one from a reputation point of view, as citizens perceive this approach to disregard any specific cultural aspect of the region that multinationals penetrate.

It is, therefore, obvious that each of these two approaches have their advantages and disadvantages for the company aiming to explore a new region, the local competition and the customer base in the country. However, companies must take into account the impact of the global mobility of the workforce and the extent to which social media influences the demands of customers and the reputation of a multinational firm (Okazaki & Taylor, 2013). The role and effect of both international business strategies are influenced by these elements, as consistency in a multinational’s approach is even more important in the light of individuals travelling on a regular basis for business and work purposes and the ability of people all over the world to share information via social media (Jin, Park, & Kim, 2008). In other words, a company must set their priorities from the onset of internationalisation in order to maximise their earning potential and the international reputation through their chosen tactic for global reach (Vrontis, Thrassou, & Lamprianou, 2009). As a result of this, both the role and the effect of the international business strategies are enhanced in the long run, as companies are less able to change their view on the approach to conquering new regions. Well established Western companies must ponder over the decision of investing capital in the transnational approach, as their lack of success of competing against local companies could mean that their financial loss may never be recuperated (Prahalad & Doz, 1999). On the other hand, without an adaptation to the locals’ needs and desires an international company’s ability to succeed may be compromised, but the financial impact of this failure will not be as great as that supported by companies who invest capital in adaptation (Solberg, 2002).

Companies must take into account all of the influencing factors, particularly those that stem from cultural elements of the destination country, when opting for an international business strategy (Drogendijk & Slangen, 2006). The gains of the company must be maximised through international expansion and the best solution is often dependent on the capital that the multinational is willing to invest in the their global strategy, as well as the market positioning of local competitors and the resistance of local consumers to new and international products or services. The emergence of social media also offers multinational companies an advantage, as the contact between individuals from distinct areas makes it possible for demand in one country for a particular brand to grow through online advertising of particular products (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). The international tactic is therefore made easy by the ability to promote a company through social media and export products, without any concern for local adaptation, through online shopping. On the other hand, the success of companies with brick and mortar shops in new region is significantly higher than that of companies that rely exclusively on online retail (Steinfield, Adelaar, & Liu, 2005). In addition to this, not all regions have the same level of trust towards online shopping, as the security concerns in some regions are significantly higher, particularly when no efforts of local adaptation are made by the international firm (Bart, Shankar, Sultan, & Urban, 2005).

In conclusion, the role and effect of international business strategies are crucial in the success of expanding a business beyond its national borders, but the potential of these can only be maximised when taking into account other elements that contribute to the internationalisation, such as local culture, the demands, needs and wants of customer base targeted, etc. The impact of the chosen strategy must be thoroughly analysed by a firm, as international strategies require consistency over time in the approach taken. In consequence, the advantages and disadvantages presented in this essay must be weighed against the multinational’s company mission and their future plans in order to opt for one of the two extremes, transnational or internationalisation approach, or the two other options in between, global or multinational approach.

本文的目的是分析“平衡计分卡”，并回顾其作为绩效管理工具的有效性。它将简要回顾“平衡计分卡”的简短历史，然后从各个方面分析管理工具，以及它们之间的关系。

Introduction

The intention of this essay is to analyse the ‘Balanced Scorecard’ and to review its effectiveness as a performance management tool. It will review briefly the short history of the ‘Balanced Scorecard’ and then analyse each of the different aspects of the management tool and describe how they link together.

History of the Balanced Scorecard

The notion of the ‘Balanced Scorecard’ first appeared in the Harvard Business Review in 1992 in an article titled “The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance,”authored by Robert Kaplan and David Norton (Kaplan and Norton 1992). They had conducted a year-long study with “12 companies at the leading edge of performance measurement, [and] devised a ‘balanced scorecard’”as a result of their research (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, p.71).

A ‘Balanced Scorecard’ is a “strategic planning and management system that is used to align business activities to the vision and strategy of the organisation, improve internal and external communications, and monitor organisation performance against strategic goals”(Balanced Scorecard Institute, Unknown). It was brought out of the necessity to include non-financial indicators to measure performance, where in the past businesses and managers focused primarily on financially-based indicators to measure performance. These financially-based performance measurement systems “worked well for the industrial era, but they are out of step with the skills and competencies companies are trying to master today”(Kaplan and Norton, 1992, p.71).

After spending a year with various companies, Norton and Kaplan realised that “Managers want a balanced presentation of both financial and operational measures”(Kaplan and Norton, 1992, p.71). The recognition of the importance of operational measures was a milestone in performance measurement systems, as financially-based measurements help indicate the final outcomes of actions and processes already set in place, whilst operational measures help aid the driving of future financial performance.

Since its inception in 1992 the ‘Balanced Scorecard’ is now “adopted by thousands of private, public, and non-profit enterprises around the world”(Kaplan, 2010, p. 2). Which provides testament to its importance and effectiveness as a performance management system, it is likely that businesses that have implemented the systems have seen profound impacts on their profit margins and the happiness and innovativeness’ of their workforce.

The Four Perspectives

The scorecard itself is made up of four different perspectives; Financial, Customer, Internal Business Processes, and Learning & Growth. By looking at these different perspectives the balanced scorecard “provide[s] answers to four basic questions; How do customers see us? What must we excel at? Can we continue to improve and create value? How do we look to shareholders?”(Kaplan and Norton, 1992, p.72) By providing senior managers with information from four important perspectives, another benefit of implementing a scorecard is that it minimises information over-load by “add[ing] value by providing both relevant and balanced information in a concise way for managers”(Mooraj, Oyon and Hostettler, 1999, p.489).

To understand more completely how the interaction of the phases helps an organisation create additional financial value whilst aiding in the learning and growth, internal business processes and customer satisfaction perspectives see the appendix for fig.1, and fig.2. The four different perspectives and the way they interconnect are an important issue, as such it is also important to analyse each of them on an individual basis; first it must be recognised that each of the perspectives is made up of Objectives, Measurements, Targets and finally Programmes.

公司的成功与否取决于其决定和实施战略的能力，这些战略将有助于公司保持或增强竞争地位。本文的目的有两个方面：回顾环境分析在生成战略选择中的使用，以及衡量战略的绩效。商业环境瞬息万变，公司需要改变其策略以适应环境的变化。

Introduction

The success of a company is strongly influenced by its ability to identify and implement strategies which will help it in maintaining or enhancing its competitive position. The objective of this essay is two folds: to review the use of environment analysis in generating strategic options, and to measure the performance of a strategy. The business environment is changing rapidly, and companies need to change their strategies to adapt to changes in environment to prosper or just to survive (Wu, 2010). With external environment, and to some extent internal environment, of a firm changing quickly, it is important for a firm to review them when formulating and evaluating strategic options. The BCG matrix, Porter’s generic strategies and the Suitability, Feasibility and Acceptability framework are useful in generating strategies. The application of an environment analysis in generating strategies by using these three strategic management tools is reviewed in this essay.

The success of a strategy in achieving its objectives is also dependent upon the ability of a business to measure its performance so that corrective actions can be taken to improve performance. The two tools analysed in this essay for measuring the performance of a strategy are the benchmarking and the Balanced Scorecard.

Generating strategic options

“A strategy of a corporation forms a comprehensive master plan that states how the corporation will achieve its mission and objectives” (Wheelen and Hunger, 2006, p. 14). Strategies are developed to maintain or enhance the competitive advantage of a firm. According to Saloner et al. (2001), the two main groups of competitive advantage are based on the firm’s position and the firm’s capabilities. The firm’s position reflects its place in an external environment, and the firm’s capabilities corresponds to its internal environment. This implies that external and internal environmental analyses has a vital place in generating strategic options.

An analysis of external and internal environments helps in identifying the strategy that fits the firm most. Porter’s Five Forces and SWOT analysis show the information which can be collected from the external and internal environment analysis to be used for developing a strategy. The tools reviewed in this essay for generating strategic options after conducting an environment analysis are BCG matrix, Porter’s generic strategies and the Suitability, Feasibility and Acceptability framework.

Porter’s Five Forces

The external environment analysis is useful in understanding the factors which are influencing a firm, but are beyond its control. External environment analysis can be done with strategic tools, such as PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal) and Porter’s Five Forces. The Porter’s Five Forces framework helps in understanding the position of a firm relative to customers, suppliers, competitors, new entrants and substitute products, and these are useful in generating strategic options.

SWOT

The SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis is useful to a firm wishing to follow the cost leadership strategy to understand whether it has the desired set of resources to do that. A review of resources and capabilities can show whether the firm has the cost leadership abilities, and which can be maintained in the future. The internal resources of a firm play a significant role in deciding the strategic option that a firm can use to grow its business (Becerra, 2009). The SWOT analysis can also help in identifying the internal weaknesses and external threats which should be factored in deciding which one of the Porter’s generic strategies should be adopted by a firm. The selection of generic strategies would be less effective if the firm does not know whether it has the desired set of resources to defend the strategy. The SWOT analysis is useful in deciding the strategic option to choose by making the best match of the abilities of a company with market opportunities (Spulber, 2004).

BCG Matrix

The BCG matrix is a useful tool for evaluating the relative performance of markets in which an organisation operates. The BCG matrix analyses each business segment in terms of a company’s market share and market growth (Figure 1) (Grant, 2013). The four categories are Star, Cow, Question mark and Dog. The BCG matrix can be used to identify the markets that the firm should focus on to improve its performance. This is based on the results of the external environment analysis which shows growth and relative positions of competitors in different market segments.

为什么人们会抵制工作中的变化？如何从人力资源的角度克服这种阻力？

Why do people resist change at work and how can this resistance be overcome from an HR perspective?

1. Introduction

Change is a common feature of the workplace. This paper examines why people resist change at work. It then explores how this resistance can be surmounted from an HR viewpoint.

2. Resistance to change at work

From research into individual and organisational behaviour, it is well established that people at work can sometimes resist change (Robbins, 1992). The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) define resistance to change at work as “an individual or group engaging in acts to block or disrupt an attempt to introduce change” (CIPD, 2014, p.2) and argue that, in general, resistance to change in the workplace occurs in two ways: “resistance to the content of change” and “resistance to the process of change” (CIPD, 2014, p.2).

The reasons for resistance to change at work are numerous. Resisting change enables stability and for the status quo at work to be maintained (Robbins, 1992). Change jeopardises the comfort zones and security of employees who are risk averse and who like familiarity (Holbeche, 2001). The fear of the unknown may result in resistance to change (Robbins, 1992). There may be resistance when change appears to threaten someone’s income (Robbins, 1992). Change can appear threatening to the individual worker when it is foisted on them top down without their input as they do not feel in control (Holbeche 2001).

Gifford et al (2012), in their review of change programmes in NHS South of England, found that “many people do embrace change, but it is easy to feel undermined or threatened by it, even if one accepts at a broad level that change is needed. As well as the challenge of embracing new ways of working, it can be hard to let go of the old ways. Not only do people have ingrained habits and ways of thinking; they also become skilled in familiar work and may feel that their credibility is based upon it. For example, if someone spends years honing skills in a specific procedure and is then told they should be using a completely different technique, this may cut at their sense of self worth” (Gifford et al, 2012, p. 15).

Thus, there may be resistance if a person’s perception of how the world of work should be is threatened. Robbins (1992) explains that “individuals shape their world through their perceptions. Once they have created this world, it resists change. So individuals are guilty of selectively processing information in order to keep their perceptions intact” (Robbins, 1992, p.281).

Psychologists have studied resistance to change and it has been recognised that change may involve a significant shift for the individual, like a bereavement, where what was once certain is no longer so and they have to relinquish the familiar in order to be able to embed change (Holbeche, 2001).

The psychological contract is an important consideration when looking at resistance to change at work. Guest and Conway (2002) defined the psychological contract as “the perceptions of both parties to the employment relationship, organisation and individual, of the reciprocal promises and obligations implied in that relationship” (Guest and Conway, 2002, p.22). The CIPD (2005) argue that the psychological contract is “now best seen as a tool that can help employers negotiate the inevitable process of change so as to achieve their business objective without sacrificing the support and co-operation of employees along the way” (CIPD, 2005, p.4).

CIPD (2005) commented that people expected commitments made to them by management to be honoured and that management should make the effort to do so. Where management is not able to honour a commitment, attempts should be made, however difficult, to explain why and its impact on the employee. A breach of the psychological contract is likely to result in employees having a negative attitude to their employer which would include resistance to change. A case study at a Scottish manufacturing plant, where employees believed that the psychological contract had been breached by the employer, noted that the regular imposition of change programmes had resulted in a high level of cynicism amongst supervisors and shop floor staff (Pate, Martins and Staines 2000).

If there is a lot of organisational change in a workplace, it is likely to be negatively received by its staff (CIPD, 2005;Guest and Conway 2001). Furthermore, where there is frequent change, it is likely to result in staff believing that management do not know what they are doing and their trust in them declines (CIPD 2005) (Guest and Conway 2001).

In spite of all the above, research into change management reveals that there are things that can be done to alleviate resistance to change.

3. Overcoming resistance to change: the HR viewpoint

3.1 Adopt a positive approach to resistance at work

Resistance to change can be a cue for stakeholders in an organisation to have a meaningful debate about the merits of the proposed change. This may lead to amendments and improvements to the change (Robbins 1992).

3.2 The need to understand why change is happening

Research has shown that it is important for staff to understand why change is happening in terms how it will benefit the business and ideally how will it benefit them.

In the Gifford et al (2012) review of change programmes across the NHS South of England, it concluded that “leaders need to sell the benefits of the change. To do this they need to express their vision in a way that makes it easy for stakeholders to relate it to the purpose and values of the NHS and to their own principles and motivations” (Gifford et al., 2012, p.5). Gifford et al (2012) added that “purpose and vision [of the change programme] are crucial factors” (Gifford et al., 2012, p. 51) that should be communicated in many ways to make sure the message connects with the stakeholders.

In redundancy situations, Holbeche (2001) discovered that there was a “link between the perceived reason for the delayering and the effect on employees. If people thought that the reason for the delayering was simply cost cutting, their morale and motivation tended to be more adversely affected than where there appeared to be a more ‘strategic’ reason for the change” (Holbeche, 2001, 367).

3.3 Communication

Communication plays a critical part in helping staff understand why change is happening and in feeling engaged in the change process. Internal communication mechanisms which enable staff to feel empowered and involved are key to minimising resistance. Two way communication mechanisms like attitude surveys can be effective, but only if visible changes arise as a result (Holbeche, 2001). Other forms of communication that can help are senior management presentations (where questions can be asked and answered), road shows, team briefings and management cascades, question and answer mechanisms (for example by email) and internal newsletters (Holbeche, 2001).

Communication should ideally involve an element of being two way and should include all stakeholders. The CIPD (2005) found that top down communiques by senior managers were perhaps the most ineffectual way of delivering important messages to staff. Mission statements were slightly more effectual, but the most successful way of reaching staff with messages that they are likely to believe is through line managers (CIPD, 2005).

In recent times, storytelling, narratives and theatre have been used in change situations as innovative ways of communicating with staff in order to get them engaged and involved. These methods allow for a move away from top down senior management communication (Daley and Browning, 2014, Dennis, 2010, Thomas and Northcote, 2012).

Formal communication, in times of change, should:

• Inform – about the organizational/ personal implications
• Clarify – the reason for the change, the strategy and benefits
• Provide direction – about the emerging vision, values and desired behaviours
• Focus – on immediate work priorities and actions, together with medium term goals
• Reassure – that the organisation will treat them [staff] with respect and dignity” (Holbeche, 2001, p.368).

3.4 Staff engagement

Those affected by the change need to feel engaged so that they believe that they are invested in the change. This can be time consuming and difficult for those leading the change (CIPD 2005, Gifford et al. 2012). Engagement can mean getting staff to buy into change that has already been devised or it can mean getting staff involved in actually designing the change (Gifford et al., 2012). Leaders need to be clear about what level of engagement is being offered as unfulfilled expectations risk demotivating staff and weakening good will. (Gifford et al, 2012).

Bearing in mind the psychological contract, the CIPD (2005) argue that managing change well involves getting employees’ buy-in and making sure that they are not caught unawares. Employees want fair treatment and it is important that they believe that they can trust management. As stated earlier, if employees’ expectations are not to be met, the reason why should be explained by management (CIPD, 2005).

3.5 Leadership

Those in leadership positions in the organisation have to act as role models for change to be successful. If the behaviour of the leaders in an organisation is at odds with their verbal utterances in a change situation, it can result in cynicism in staff and thus resistance to change.

Holbeche (2001) reports of a case study where company directors were charged with leading an organisational change involving paying particular attention to the customer. The directors talked to staff about the importance of the organisation’s values, especially teamwork. However, staff knew that the senior leadership team did not work well as a team and thus, the change message was being met with cynicism. When the Chief Executive took drastic action and threatened to punish the directors financially, that was when the directors became serious about role modelling good team work and effective leadership. As a result, the change message became believable to staff.

3.6 Apply learning from neuroscience

Dowling (2014) explored the connection between neuroscience and change management. He found that neuroplasticity, the concept of the adult brain being able to change through specific activity and experiences, was applicable in change situations, if it was self-directed by the individual employee. He advised that employers should give their employees the latitude to have their own insights into the proposed change and that this would allow new neural pathways to be formed in the employees’ brain, making sustainable change possible.

Downing (2014) also explored the impact of threat and reward on employees’ behaviour. He argued that when a person is faced with a perceived threat, the brain has an inbuilt defence mechanism which is activated. This provides some explanation as to why there is resistance at work when an employee feels threatened. This argument reinforces the need for those leading the change to emphasize the benefits of the proposed change so that the employee’s brain reward response is activated as opposed to their threat response.

Downing (2014) additionally looked at habit and how the prefrontal cortex of the human brain (the advanced cognition brain area) operates primarily on the basis of habit, otherwise it would be using a huge amount of energy which would not be sustainable. During periods of change, when individuals are being required to adopt new habits, a heavy burden is potentially being placed on the prefrontal cortex. When designing change programmes, there needs to be an awareness of the brain’s limited capacity for change (Downing, 2014, Scarlett, 2013).

3.7 HR

HR has a pivotal role to play in staff communication and engagement as well as in planning change effectively, including taking into account the learnings from neuroscience. There has to be a real partnership between the business and HR for change to be effective. HR plays a role in assisting, developing and supporting those in leadership positions to be effective in their roles so as not to undermine the success of the change programme and engender resistance to change (Holbeche, 2001, CIPD, 2005, Gifford et al., 2012).

4. Conclusion

Although resistance to change is something that occurs in the workplace for many understandable reasons, it can be minimised by good communication and staff engagement, explaining the need for change in terms of its benefits to the business and to the individual member of staff, learning from research, effective leadership as well as HR working well with the business and being an integral part of the change. Overcoming resistance at work matters, as while resistance is occurring, it may result in negative consequences such as having a negative impact on performance and productivity, creating an environment for turf wars at work as well as demoralising and demotivating staff (Holbeche, 2001,Robbins 1992, Cannon and McGee 2008, Hughes, 2010).