Employees and change - slc 9 By: Daryl Horney SMART Leadership Consulting

1. ©
SMART Leadership Consulting
a SMART way of doing business
May 29, 2014
Daryl Horney
SMART Leadership Consulting
What is the likely reaction to the change you want to
champion?
I believe the initial reaction will be one of cynicism as described by Fleming &
Spicer (2003) and followed by ambivalence as suggested by Piderit (2000). In
my opinion, employees always have mixed emotions when it comes to
change. It’s not until the unfolding of the changes when employees can
visually see what is happening around them. Employees can then start to
create images and those images are things that are tangible to them. However
as Fleming & Spicer (2003) suggest workers become cynical due to ideological
discourse. Employees may think, “This won’t affect me!” or “I am too good at
what I do to have any changes impact me.” I believe this type of reaction is a
defensive reaction, and plays on employee’s insecurities.
How can you influence this reaction?
I can influence employee reactions by being transparent. If the employee’s
trust their leadership and me and have no reason to question management’s
decisions then it is possible to direct them with the belief that the proposed
changes are to the benefit of everyone. I do not intend to manipulate the
employees, rather confronting the employees with truthful facts. I believe
their will always be some sort of cynicism and resistance, but in the end I will
only influence from the realities of the situation.

2. How did silence contribute to the crisis-laden results raised by Ezzamel,
Wilmott, and Worthington (2011)?
Ezzamel, Willmott, & Worthington (2001) points out that in the case of Motor
–Co reserve by the workers contributed from a cynics voice. When one cynic
raises their voice more employees were to follow. The new proposed working
practices were really to benefit all the operators at the plant. Ezzamel,
Willmott, & Worthington (2001) further go on to say that employees resisted
because they were worried about their job security. They claim that the
establishment of the employee’s beliefs can be recognized through their
masculinity. In short, their identity was as stake as well as their jobs.
How can you use Vince and Broussine (1996) and Orton (2000) to help foster
positive communication during the change you are working on?
Orton (2000) defines enactment as a process for members of an organization
to view and rely on. In order for members to solve their problems they must
look at each event that brought them to the problem. Orton focuses looking at
each event in detail to understand how a problem unfolds. Also, by paying
close attention to the events that took place, members are able to find
solutions, therefore helping them to make the best decisions.
When an employee receives personal satisfaction from their work it may be
because helping others is rewarding. When this is taken away from them they
feel that they became a casualty of politics, thus making them emotionally
nauseous (Vince & Broussine 1996). Positive communication in this case can
be interpreted as offering acknowledgement. Employees want and need to be
acknowledged and by doing so managers are communicating that they are
doing well during the change process.
Given that Piderit (2000) argues that ambivalence is widespread during
organisational change, how can you help uncover and explore ambivalent
attitudes when implementing your change? How can you ensure that
employees at your organisation do not meet your attempt with cynicism
(Fleming & Spicer, 2003)?
As I have stated above, “I can influence employee reactions by being
transparent. If the employee’s trust their leadership and me and have no
reason to question management’s decisions then it is possible to direct them
with the belief that the proposed changes are to the benefit of everyone.” With
this said, I believe their will be cynics, but not to the detriment of the
company or proposed changes.

3. Explore how the sense-making process (Orton, 2000) is influential in
uncovering how potential crisis can arise from a change (Ezzamel,
Willmott, & Worthington, 2001).
Orton (2000) purposes the organization decision process is designed by events
or enactments. Orton (2000) claims there is a need for organizations to
transition from their formal design to a redesign process. By doing so,
organizations are able to restructure and reorganize thus making the
organization more of a stable structure. Orton incorporates the teachings of
Weick’s (1995) book on sense making. If managers are able to make sense of
their organization and clearly see the benefits of redesigning their
organization the organization as a whole will become a dynamic
organization. Dynamic organizations are effective, responsive, and defined. In
principal redesign allows for greater insight into the decision making process.
Reference
Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H. & Worthington, F. (2001) ‘Power, control, and resistance in the
factory that time forgot’, Journal of Management Studies, 38 (8), pp.1053–1079. Available from:
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Journal+of+Management+St
udies&volume=38&issue=8&spage=1053&date=2001
Vince, R. & Broussine, M. (1996) ‘Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing and working
with emotions and relations underlying organizational change’, Organization Studies, 17 (1),
pp.1–21. Available
from: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Organization+Studies
&volume=17&issue=1&spage=1&date=1996
Piderit, S.K. (2000) ‘Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multi-dimensional
view of attitudes toward an organizational change’, Academy of Management Review, 25 (4),
pp.783–794. Available
from: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Academy+of+Manage
ment+Review&volume=25&issue=4&spage=783&date=2000
Fleming, P. & Spicer, A. (2003) ‘Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power,
subjectivity and resistance’, Organization, 10 (1), pp.157–179.
doi:10.1177/1350508403010001376. Available from:
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Organization&volume=10&i
ssue=1&spage=157&date=2003
Orton, J.D. (2000) ‘Enactment, sensemaking and decision making: Redesign processes in the
1976 reorganization of US intelligence’, Journal of Management Studies, 37 (2), pp.213–234.
Available from:
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Journal+of+Management+St
udies&volume=37&issue=2&spage=213&date=2000