Is a method to manage resistance that managers sometimes resort to when they must lay down the law

Sobre esta revista

Navegar por todas as edições

Page 2

Sobre esta revista

Navegar por todas as edições

No organization design or method of management is perfect. And any form can suffer from a variety of problems that develop because of the design itself. This is particularly true when a company tries a new form. In this article we look at one relatively new organization form—the matrix—which has gained considerable popularity in recent years but which has some significant pathologies. Before discussing its ills, however, let us look for a moment at matrix management and organization (see the sidebar below) and at how widespread the matrix is in U.S. industry today.

A version of this article appeared in the May 1978 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Reprint: R0807M

The rapid rate of change in the world of management continues to escalate. New government regulations, new products, growth, increased competition, technological developments, and an evolving workforce compel organizations to undertake at least moderate change on a regular basis. Yet few major changes are greeted with open arms by employers and employees; they often result in protracted transitions, deadened morale, emotional upheaval, and the costly dedication of managerial time. Kotter and Schlesinger help calm the chaos by identifying four basic reasons why people resist change and offering various methods for overcoming resistance.

Managers, the authors say, should recognize the most common reasons for resistance: a desire not to lose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its complications, a belief that the change does not make sense for the organization, and a low tolerance for change in general.

Once they have diagnosed which form of resistance they are facing, managers can choose from an array of techniques for overcoming it: education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and both explicit and implicit coercion. According to the authors, successful organizational change efforts are characterized by the skillful application of a number of these approaches, with a sensitivity to their strengths and limitations and a realistic appraisal of the situation at hand. In addition, the authors found that successful strategic choices for change are both internally consistent and fit at least some key situational variables.

The Idea in Brief

Faced with stiffer competition and dizzying technological advances, companies often must change course to stay competitive. But most change initiatives backfire. That’s because many managers take a one-size-fits-all approach to change. They assume they can combat resistance, a notorious obstacle, by involving employees in the design of the initiative. But that works only when employees have the information they need to provide useful input. It’s disastrous when they don’t. Also, managers often don’t tailor the speed of their change strategy to the situation. For instance, they may apply a go-slow approach even when an impending crisis calls for rapid change.

To lead change successfully, Kotter and Schlesinger recommend:

• Diagnosing the types of resistance you’ll encounter—and tailoring your countermeasures accordingly. To illustrate, with employees who fear the adjustments the change will require, provide training in new skills.

• Adapting your change strategy to the situation. For example, if your company must transform to avert an imminent crisis, accelerate your initiative—even if that risks greater resistance.

The Idea in Practice

The authors suggest these steps for managing change successfully:

1. Analyze Situational Factors

Ask yourself:

• “How much and what kind of resistance do we anticipate?”

• “What’s my position relative to resisters—in terms of my power and the level of trust between us?”

• “Who—me or others—has the most accurate information about what changes are needed?”

• “How urgent is our situation?”

2. Determine the Optimal Speed of Change

Use your analysis of situational factors to decide how quickly or slowly your change should proceed. Move quickly if the organization risks plummeting performance or death if the present situation isn’t changed. But proceed slowly if:

• Resistance will be intense and extensive

• You anticipate needing information and commitment from others to help design and implement the change

• You have less organizational power than those who may resist the change

3. Consider Methods for Managing Resistance

Editor’s Note: A lot has changed in the world of management since 1979, when this article first appeared, but one thing has not: Companies the world over need to change course. Kotter and Schlesinger provide a practical, tested way to think about managing that change.

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.”1

A version of this article appeared in the July–August 2008 issue of Harvard Business Review.