Hamilton N Week 2

Week One Written Assignment: Resistance to Change An Assessment of the Actions of Steve Jackson Niki Hamilton 3/15/2015 MBA 530 Benedictine University

An Assessment of the Actions of Steve Jackson Steve Jackson Faces Resistance to Change is a case study describing the organizational culture and personnel challenges faced by Steve Jackson, supervisor of software implementation for the Project Evaluation Group (PEG), after he recommends his employer move forward with plans to implement a new project evaluation software (Inkpen & Pearson, 2011). Jackson struggles the supervisor of a different department, Mike Barnett, through the change process. Barnett is adamantly opposed to the change in software Jackson recommended. The case study does not close with resolutions, but with Jackson facing a demand from his boss to convince Barnett of the software’s merits. The reader is left to evaluate the actions taken by Jackson in as far as the study relates and recommend a path forward that ensures Barnett’s support of implementing the new BSO project evaluation software. Appropriate Change Implementations Computer software increases productivity by automating the process of converting an individual’s thoughts and task data into information usable by multiple people. Efficient use of software requires the user be familiar with the commands and expected responses of the software. Transitioning users from one software to another within an organization is a difficult process wrought with failure (Joshi, 1991). Jackson takes a number of appropriate actions to facilitate a smooth transition. Involving the people a change affects is an important step to successful change management (Gotsill & Natchez, 2007). After Jackson’s boss, Luke Williams, gives his approval of the software, Jackson organizes a series of demo sessions for the users to evaluate the BSO software. The demo sessions are smart elements of the change process

2

for two reasons. First of all, face-to-face is the most effective way to support a comprehensive exchange of knowledge (Sarka, 2014). The demo sessions permit the users to engage with the software and receive immediate resolution to obstacles. The second positive component of the demo sessions is that the holding of demo sessions addresses the human element of the change process by making the users of the software part of the change evaluation process and providing an avenue for their commentary. Jackson and Barnett talk about BSO and the demo sessions on more than one occasion. Barnett’s response to the training sessions indicates early on that he is not receptive to new software. He verbally expresses dissatisfaction with the proposed change and does not attend the first demo session. Jackson responds by sending a personal e-mail invitation to upcoming sessions and engages in further face-to-face discussions with Barnett. Jackson’s choice to continue dialog with Barnett is another proper approach to resolving Barnett’s resistance to BSO. Even though Barnett continues to resist BSO, the project is approved and scheduled for implementation. Upon receiving the roll-out date, Barnett appeals to a higher level of management in an attempt to stop the adoption of BSO and recommends Jackson be removed from his position. Jackson is subsequently instructed to convince Barnett that BSO is the right choice. Jackson responds appropriately by requesting leadership and support from his immediate supervisor, Luke Williams. Williams neglects to offer any useful support, but further stresses the importance of Barnett’s acceptance of the new software.

3

Areas for Improvement of Change Implementations Jackson began the change process unaware of the human tendency to resist change. Barnett’s negative reaction and resistance to the proposed change are commonly observed by researchers and change management professionals (Balestracci, 2003; Gotsill & Natchez, 2007; Joshi, 1991). Prior to initiating the process of initiating a change in software, Jackson should have familiarized himself with change management. If he had been more aware of what to expect, he could have been prepared to handle the inevitable opposition. Jackson has the right idea in providing demo sessions as a setting in which people use the proposed software and express their insights. However, Jackson’s responses while handling of Barnett’s continual rebuffs Jackson’s invitations to attend the sessions miss the opportunity to ask Barnett the reasons behind his opinion of the software. One of the main reasons people are difficult is a perceived loss of control; listening to and engaging a person gives the person an opportunity to participate in control (Hannon, 2005). Barnett is a long-term employee with a history of experience and knowledge. His reasoning for opposing the change is worth seeking. Jackson fails to identify and meet a basic need of Barnett and all people: the need to be acknowledged (Balestracci, 2003). Two things Jackson can do to improve his focus on people during change implementation: ask more questions; listen more and open his mind to other perspectives; talk less. The case study indicates Jackson fails to realize implementing change is a political process (Joshi, 1991). He spends time and energy seeking the approval of his immediate supervisor and neglects building relationships across the software user and

4

peripheral management groups. Relationships are the conduits of information (Balestracci, 2003). Jackson’s apparent disregard for relationships among his peers and across departments leaves him without a broad base of support for his initiative. In this case, a network of relationships might have provided an avenue for Barnett to be convinced BSO is the right software by someone other than Jackson. In the future, Jackson can improve his change management by recognizing the political aspect of change acceptance in an organization. Causes for Resistance to Change The reasons for resisting change may seem as varied as the people resisting. However, change management professionals see only a few root causes for resistance: power, lack of understanding, disagreement, and anxiety (Gotsill & Natchez, 2007; Joshi, 1991). Barnett is likely resisting the new software for all of these reasons and because he is a difficult person by nature. Barnett attempts to assert his power within the organization by repeatedly calling for Jackson to be removed from his position. Barnett appeals to numerous managers and uses his personal relationships to advance his case. The case study does not clarify Barnett’s level of familiarity with BSO, however, one can safely conclude his understanding is limited because he does not articulate his grievances with the software but makes vague denunciations. Disagreement with the choice of software is an unlikely reason for Barnett’s resistance. His product knowledge is not presented as thorough enough to rationally disagree with the product. Anxiety, on the other hand, is also a likely reason for Barnett’s rejection of the software change. He is likely comfortable with and adept at using the company’s current software package. He may be worried about the time it will take to reach the same skill level with a new

5

product. He may be concerned his authority and control will be undermined as he leads a workgroup, but takes longer to learn the new software. Finally, based on the case study and characters’ descriptions of the man, difficult appears to be one of Barnett’s personality traits. Addressing Change Resistance The closing paragraph of the case study paints a picture of Jackson heading to his office wondering about his boss’ lack of support, worrying about his future with the firm, and struggling for a means to garner Barnett’s support. The most pressing of these concerns is Barnett’s support. The first thing Jackson should do is request an appointment with Barnett and find out why Barnett opposes the software. Jackson knows why a software change is planned. Share the reasons for the proposed change with Barnett and ask Barnett how he would handle the situation. Jackson needs to have an authentic conversation with Barnett about the project. Presumably, both men have the best interest of the company in mind. A series of conversations might provide the information exchange needed to agree upon a solution to the problem that precipitated the software change. ******I stink at conclusions…any help is appreciated*******

6

References Balestracci, D. (2003). Handling the Human Side of Change. Quality Progress, 36(11), 38-45. Gotsill, G., & Natchez, M. (2007). From Resistance to Acceptance: How to Implement Change Management. T+D, 61(11), 24-27. Hannon, K. (2005, July 7). You can take down that bully, gently. USA Today. Harvard Business Review. Inkpen, A., & Pearson, C. (2011). Steve Jackson faces resistance to change. Thunderbird School of Global Management. Harvard Business Review. Joshi, K. (1991). A Model of Users' Perspective on Change: The Case of Information Systems Technology Implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229-242. Kerry, H. (n.d). You can take that bully down, gently. USA Today. McShane, S.L., & Von Glinow, M.A., (2013). Organizational Behavior: emerging knowledge, global reality (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

7