Ecology of knowledge. Resistance to changes is not rarely becoming a serious obstacle to the implementation of various projects: the introduction of new information systems, management techniques, organizational transformations and other projects that affect the work of employees.

Resistance to changes is not rarely becoming a serious obstacle to the implementation of various projects: the introduction of new information systems, management techniques, organizational transformations and other projects that affect the work of employees.

What is resistance to change, where does it come from and how to overcome it?

Denial, anger, bargaining ...

There is a misconception that resistance to change is the conscious actions of employees aimed at ensuring that everything is "as before." In fact, resistance to changes is due to the psychology of human behavior and often do not even realize.

The famous psychologist Virginia Satir, analyzing how people perceive changes in their lives, called their source "alien element". It does not matter what it is. It may be a seizure of a serious illness or a new head with far-reaching plans. In general, they have the fact that these alien elements are deprived of a man of rest. People begin to experience confusion and strong irritation due to the fact that they cease to feel the soil under their feet and the stability of the near future. According to Satir, this painful phase is inevitable and after it there is an adaptation and subsequent adoption of a new reality.

Another model described by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in the book "On Death and Dying", entered the textbooks on changes. Kubler Ross investigated the psychology of doomed patients, but despite this, its work conclusions were interested in management specialists. Kubler Ross allocated five steps of the psychological state of a person on the way to the inevitability: denial, anger, bargaining (what should I do to reverse the events?), Depression and, ultimately, adoption. Optionally, an employee of the company experiencing organizational changes is also experiencing similar feelings.

It is impossible to order to live in a new way

In practice, resistance to change is not expressed in intentional actions aimed against the changes, but in the first place, in reducing productivity. Employees do not begin to do something "for evil", more often they simply stop doing something, or do not do what they need (act on inertia, in the old manner). And it does not happen from evil intent, but due to the psychological characteristics of human behavior, in his reactions to changes.

Hence the important conclusion - people cannot be made not resist. It is impossible to order "live in a new way" - this is the first mistake that many implementers make. The use of alone orders only overlaps employees, makes their future even more foggy. It only enhances resistance.

So, resistance to changes is to reduce the performance or involvement of employees to work due to negative expectations. The degree of resistance or support in the change process describes the change curve.

Prior to announcement of changes in the performance and involvement of the employee to work is at some constant average level. No reasons for its change.

In the management of changes, 5 stages of the process of transformations are distinguished:

1. Rejection

It should be immediately followed by the declaration of changes.

"Why change something, so everything is fine" - so everyone says and always, when the first time hear changes when the motives, goals and consequences of changes are not clear.

2. Resistance

"It used to be better," "Here in our previous system" and so on. Employees are afraid that changes will bring them from the comfort zone and they will have to make any efforts. Employees in all ways are trying to prove that it used to be better.

Not rarely resistance at this stage takes hysterical forms. This is a period of unproductive disputes.

3. Analysis

It is at this stage that the projects fail!

As the resistance stops, the staff fell into the "Stop State" - this is a form of depression, at which a person does nothing. At this stage, the inevitability of changes occurs. Employees are analyzed possible consequencesThey understand that they are required of them.

At this stage, employees need an information feedback, a clear indication of what needs to be done, and what no, who is responsible for. If this is not, the project descends on the brakes.

4. Interest

After the staff realized and accepted the inevitability of changes, they begin to look for the benefits of a new situation for themselves. Opening benefits and prospects form optimism regarding changes, employees become supporters of transformations.

5. Adoption

New rules, tools and orders are becoming the norm, employees understand that they open up new opportunities and allow us to more effectively solve problems.

How to manage it?

Three factors are crucial to overcome resistance to change: people, motivation and informing.

People

The attitude to change is based on the human values \u200b\u200bscale: if the highest value is safety and stability for him, it will avoid any changes, if growth and development is important for him, it will welcome them. According to the relationship of people to change, sociologists share all people in groups:

A. 2% - "Resisting" (do not want to change anything)

B. 14% - "waiting" (afraid to make a mistake, require evidence)

C. 34% - "inert majority" (trying to identify errors and threats, require preliminary check)

D. 34% - "less inert majority" (trying to identify new opportunities, participate in the discussion)

E. 14% - "Testers" (they like new ideas and prospects; they are ready to try them, they buy not "product", but "promise", seeking to be in the forefront)

F. 2% - "Inventors from Nature" (always thinking in a new way and want to change everything)

Depending on which group includes employees, the motive of joining transformations for them will be different. Ways to overcome resistance for them will also be different.

16% of people (E, F) - innovators. Well, when the introduction team consists of such people - this guarantees the success of the transformations. Motivation of innovators - "We did it," "We are the first".

34% (D) - inert, appreciate stability and immutability, but do not mind using new opportunities. Such employees need to demonstrate what benefits and new opportunities they will receive from innovations. Maybe for someone it will be a new position or new job. For this group, first of all, personal perspectives are important.

34% © - inert, careful, fear that it will be worse, as well as for the group D, in the first place, it is important to the influence of changes on them personally. For this group of employees, it is necessary to show that in their lives it will not change in principle: the salary, the boss, the duties - in general everything will also be, as well as now, some details will change. In a calm state, these employees will follow the group D, looking at the fact that nothing happens to them and taking, after them, all changes.

14% (b) - until the latter will consider all changes in the error and poor ventilation. There are no active influence on the change of change, such employees are not active. But it is very important that they are not in the introduction team. One such employee in the team is able to stop the whole process.

2% (a) - militant retrograds. Even when everything happens, they will be nostalgic in old times. It is very important to know such employees in their company. For the time of change, they are best sent on vacation to avoid their destructive influence.

Motivation

One of the main tasks of the implementation team is to find benefits from changes literally for each employee who will affect these changes. It is necessary to clearly realize that changes are stress for employees and read it only the correct motivation can help. The nature of this motivation depends on which group of attitude to changes include an employee.

Informing

Often, in the process of changes, the role of informing is strongly underestimated. It is necessary to see how the team of revolutionaries is developing for a long time, then everyone declare that you need to live in a new way. This erroneous tactic, most often, it leads to a different kind of losses.

The organizational system is a community of people. No need to feed illusions. The work of the "group of revolutionaries" will be known almost immediately. And in the absence of official information on their work, it will be substituted by speculation and rumors that will not be positive. People are generally teaching to prepare for the worst, and in our country, especially. As a result, by the time of the announcement of changes, they will already have a negative image, the inert majority will already be configured against the changes.

Therefore, it is important to start informing about the changes immediately, at the beginning of the preparation for them. It is necessary to give a reasonable explanation of their need, goals that pursue changes to roughly designate terms.

It is not necessary to talk about all the details, but you need to convey the idea that the changes will be positive and will benefit - this will help subsequently cope with resistance to change.published

Join us in

Resistance can have many forms: categorical denial, abstensity, helplessness, etc. . Resistance can be open and hidden, intentional and unconscious, in different ways combined, these signs form four main forms of resistance. This section will consider the most common in the real practice of resistance form.

Negation

The denial can be called the most common form of resistance. The need for changes is caused by problems, the presence of which people deny. This is possible, as a rule, or when people actually do not see them, or when they are afraid to be taken for their permission, or if they consider these problems fetched, but a change - imposed. In the latter case, a significant role can be played by fear of competition from colleagues, discomfort due to restriction of freedom of action, loyalty to a third party, disinterested in changes, etc. If the response to denial is denial (ignoring the problem in combination with increasing pressure), the resistance develops into chronic when almost any offer automatically causes resistance.

Indifference

With this form of resistance, people do not oppose changes openly, but the lack of interest in the success of the changes carried out very negatively affects their work. And the subsequent "failure" of the draft change only confirms their confidence that he did not deserve serious attention.

In such cases, managers are often perplexed why their subordinates demonstrate the lack of interest. Perhaps the staff did not realize the importance of the project, perhaps they felt that their efforts would not be assessed by merit or they did not trust their managers. In fact, you can find countless reasons why workers behave in a similar way. It is important here to see that when such behavior demonstrates not one, but a number of employees, it means that it is not in their laziness, misunderstanding or stubbornness.

Indifferent attitude to work as part of the draft change often indicates problems in relations, and this may be not only relationships with a specific manager or colleague. The case may be in relation to the highest management or unclear policy policy. Often, the causes lie and in the influence of the informal group: workers who are ready to actively participate in the holding of changes are forced to choose between the contradictory requirements and values \u200b\u200bof management and the reference informal group.

As a rule, it is quite difficult to identify the causes of the indifferentity, and nevertheless, it is an understanding of the reasons - the starting point for restoring the required level of interest.

Demonstration of incompetence

When people are afraid or resist change, they often make it indirectly and for the most part unconsciously. It may be manifested in the demonstration of their own incompetence, when employees cannot even make something that in reality is completely capable. The demonstration of incompetence may be intentional - as an indirect manifestation of a serious confrontation by change. Most often, this is due to a strong concern about the potential negative consequences of the changes carried out (such as, for example, loss of their own significance). Thus, the state of anxiety adversely affects the ability of a person to learning and performing work.

Skepticism

People often reasonably skeptical about the importance and need to change (will they lead to loss of work?) And / or with respect to the ability of both managers and colleagues, to successfully hold them. Managers are also often skeptical about employee opportunities, assuming insufficiency of abilities and fear to try anything new.

In some cases, managers are skeptical about the draft changes themselves and project their skepticism on subordinates; so They deny their own skepticism, but see it in others. Often, skepticism concerns the relationship or inadequate resources that the rest of the organization brings into the process of work on the implementation of the change, but he is aimed at the Supreme Manager or its closest entourage.

Thus, skepticism is not a simple phenomenon and, as well as resistance in general, it is wrong to consider it as quality inherent in only ordinary employees. Often it is as if "captured" in organizational relationships, generating mutual distrust of opposing parties.

Managers can also show skepticism with regard to draft changes that they charge them. When managers do not want to introduce a change or change their own work style, they can attribute their reluctance to others. So, for example, they convince themselves that in principle they could have the necessary change, which they do not like if it were not for the resistance of subordinates. Sometimes such projections are conscious and manipulative. In other cases, they are unconscious. However, almost always similar projections lead to opposition relationships.

Relations based on skepticism can be lined up both between individual employees and between managers and their subordinates. Skepticism subordinates contributes to the growth of skepticism from managers and affects their ability to perform work. The manifestation of skepticism on the part of managers regarding the qualifications and installations of subordinates will almost certainly encourage employees to justify the worst expectations, i.e. It will work the mechanism of "self-burning prophecy". The main danger here is that after a while, skepticism in relationships can turn into a habit, while the rigid interactiveness of the positions of the parties is developing, the self-consistent process of mutual increase in skepticism is launched, which may end with open conflict.

Request for confirmation of qualifications or motivation of project project managers

In essence, this is a specific form of skepticism. Employees say that the head itself did not fully understand all the difficulties and details of the project; Consultants leading the draft amendments are accused of knowing the characteristics of a particular business, in insufficient involvement and exclusively mercenary interests.

In fact, most such accusations are partially reasonable, most managers and consultants share similar concerns. However, if they are toolaring and / or shame to recognize their own fears and restrictions, they often respond to protection or aggression. Often, for example, such prosecutors are punished or dismissed: in the name of approval of their own position, managers prefer simply forget about the accusation.

Unhealthy relationships that are built in this form of resistance tend to go deep into and express indirectly. The accusation and response can be open, but the subordinates are afraid of retaliation, and managers - exposure, as a result, effective cooperation based on an objective look at the situation and its open discussion becomes impossible.

Pessimism

Pessimism can represent the extremal form of the rooted skepticism. He is aimed at at least on the employees themselves, the draft change and organization.

Obviously, the collective pessimism of employees is due not to the peculiarities of their nature. It is usually formed against the background of repeating organizational failures, frequent layoffs, fixed payment, constant criticism and / or pessimism of managers, i.e. In response to the protracted conflict of goals, values \u200b\u200band norms adopted in the formal and informal structures of the organization. "Treatment" of symptoms - pessimism of individual employees - when ignoring the availability of problems in the organization as a social system, contributes to the unfolding of a vain devastating struggle in which there will be no winners.

Impatience

During the implementation of the draft change, there is a considerable danger of people's impatience. They can speak, for example, that the project has already taken too much time, and the lack of fast success testifies to the failure of the project. After such applications, a rigid confrontation may begin to further conduct changes.

On the other hand, often the project managers do not provide quite careful time aboutth graph. Customized by their unrealistic hopes or pressure from the top leadership, they put on their colleagues and subordinates who first believe in the achievability of the project goal, but then begin to show more and more impatience. Project executives Changes may begin to begin to experience an increasing impatience of the process of implementing the project and doubt the principled possibility of its implementation, but, fearing to finally demotivate others, do not show this. And even when subordinate and colleagues begin to express discontent, project managers can continue to persevere this topic.

So, what could serve as the basis of a constructive dialogue turns into the cause of confrontation.

The confrontation of this type also often becomes chronic, and can increase with each new project. This is a bright example characterizing resistance primarily as a problem of relationships.

2. Causes of resistance

Understanding the reasons for resistance is necessary to develop strategies for changing changes in general response in particular. Below will be considered the main reasons.

The feeling of uncontrolcity situation

In its natural state, the systems maintain the balance between change and stability. To survive, they adapt to changes in the internal and external environments. For example, organizations adapt to new personnel and new technologies that change the conditions of the market and legislation. However, even changing, the system seeks to preserve its unique entity, thus resistance acts as a stability agent.

Periods of change and stability replace each other throughout the life of the organization. The beginning of a new period of change is characterized by the inclusion of adaptive mechanisms, but after this may follow the phase when it seems that the situation has emerged from under control, and this is definitely causes anxiety and fear. As a result, people begin to resist the changes to the changes. In such cases, the resistance should serve as a signal to a slowdown in the rate of change, since it indicates that the change rate exceeds the possible adaptation speed. You need to give people the opportunity to once again feel confident enough to adapt.

The desire to preserve what is valuable

Resistance is often an attempt to preserve those norms, traditions and principles that the resistance party considers valuable and preferred implemented ideas, methods and programs.

To soften resistance, in this case it is necessary to understand that the valuable personnel may be lost due to the implementation of the draft change, which can be compensated (completely or partially), where it is possible to compromise. This suggests a dialogue between the parties, which in some cases is possible only with the attraction of the third independent part (for example, a consultant), with which people will easier speak more frankly and objectively.

The cause of resistance can be the desire to maintain authority, status and / or autonomy. People often experience the requirement of change as an accusation of their own insolvency. Often they feel that they do everything possible in these circumstances, but their efforts are not valued and even suppressed by the introduction of other people's ideas. People can be confident that the change is subject to the circumstances (for example, a remuneration system), and not they themselves. And often, they turn out to be at least partially right.

Modern management theory focuses on endowing ordinary workers b aboutmore powers, collective decision making. These are good strategies to prevent resistance. But first, the use of such techniques in practice is difficult, and secondly, resistance is usually manifested even with the best source planning. And when it occurs, it is very important to draw attention to these issues of authority, status and autonomy.

Misunderstanding of claims

Non-subordinate subordinate requirements often creates a situation that looks like resistance. The manager may interpret it as disobedience or the inefficiency of employees and, accordingly, to apply sanctions to them or reduce their expectations regarding their abilities. In the first case, the most likely reaction will be the appearance of true resistance, in the second, the likelihood of the phenomenon of the "self-burning prophecy" is high.

In any case, the incorrect interpretation of the misunderstanding of the presented requirements generates a conflict that leads to the fact that the relationship between managers and subordinates lose functionality.

Conflict of interest

Many changes lead to the manifestation of the conflicts of the interests of individuals, managers and subordinates and / or individuals and organizations. Even such obviously advantageous changes, as an increase in position, can be perceived negatively to those who prefer stability with new features. The introduction of the change can lead to the satisfaction of one employees and do not bring anything significant to their colleagues.

In such cases, even minimal pressure from the first is most likely to put in the opposition of others. The situation can improve the assessment and proportional remuneration of the personal contribution of all participants in the change.

Fighting for power

In some cases, resistance can be described as a struggle for control over the situation (in other words, as a struggle for power) between those who want to make a change and those who do not want changes. Resistance is maintained by amplifying pressure from agent changes after resistance has shown itself, resulting in a vicious circle.

In general, most people opposing changes initially relate to them ambivalent, seeing arguments both in favor of changes and against. And only unjustified and / or late pressure, provokes them to resistance, for they seek to keep at least minimal control over the situation.

Obviously, people engaged in the struggle for power do not have common shared goals. In order to resolve the conflict, in these cases it is advisable to interfere aimed at clarifying common goals or developing new goals that would share both opposing parties.

Interpretation of confrontation exclusively as disobedience

The likelihood of resistance is high when managers forget that the implementation of the draft change is the "Street with a two-way movement", i.e. interaction. Most often managers interpret resistance exclusively as a problem of disobedience. Such an understanding assumes that resistance is initially inherent in those who show it, and allows managers not to take responsibility for this problem. Thus, they avoid the need to reflect how well they prepared their employees, how clearly the tasks were put on how thought about the strategy and the rate of introduction of changes, etc.

A certain natural hierarchy is built into the idea of \u200b\u200bsuch interpretation of resistance, which implies that those who resist, simply untenable. In such cases, they feel misunderstanding, humiliation and coercion by agent changes and, in turn, continue to resist unfair judgment for a long time after the need and correctness of change is already explained and even agreed.

Interpretation of resistance exclusively as disobedience almost always leads to the struggle for power. If employees are not afraid to risk, the struggle can be open (direct confrontation or skepticism), otherwise, it will be disguised (manifest itself as an indifference or a demonstration of incompetence).

Mistrust

This reason is closely related to the previous one and, nevertheless, in my opinion, deserves separate consideration. Often, power gets, and not earn. And often it seems like one-sided relationship. However, mutual responsibility is a prerequisite for building effective functional relationships. When there is no such reciprocity, the participants in the change process lose confidence that their needs, values \u200b\u200band dignity take into account due measurement, and the constructive dialogue becomes impossible. And then becomes unimportant how clearly and clearly explains the head of the draft change of its goal and how the tasks of employees will be explained, people will resist. Frequently often in such cases, resistance can be expressed, for example, in the direct request for confirmation of the qualification of the project manager. But more often, employees resist passively.

Problems on the scale of the organization as a whole

Often, the resistance manifested in a certain department, a separate group or branch of an organization can be explained and reduced only through the intervention in a higher-level system, in which the main conflict is located. An example may be the conflict between the senior supervisor and his deputy, which leads to resistance among middle managers and ordinary employees.

3. Basic resistance properties

Here is an incomplete list of reasons for resistance. For everyone who has experience in conducting changes, it is clear that they are too much to bring their full review. However, you can select three basic properties of resistance.

Direct and active or indirect and passive

Modern management theory postulates the need for constant feedback. Without it, managers seemed to be isolated from real practice, which leads to loss of management activities. This theory is also valid for change management. Understand the value of the demonstration of incompetence and other manifestations of passive resistance is hard, and the time is often not enough for it. The more active and directly manifests the resistance, the easier it is to understand and respond, for example, by clarifying or open discussion.

Flexible or tough

At the first manifestation, resistance is usually flexible; The problem may relatively easily resolve during the discussion. However, incorrect interpretation or attempts to simply suppress it, most often lead to polarization in the relationship of opposing parties, and resistance becomes tough.

It is also true if the managers change their behavior (for example, they recognize that they set the tasks not enough), the resistance is most likely to decrease.

Saturation or chronic

While the resistance is manifested only as a reaction in a specific situation, it is relatively easy to translate into the structural channel. However, resistance can become chronic. And then, whatever managers offered, employees will respond, for example, resistant skepticism. Resistance becomes chronic not immediately, but it gradually develops. Employees begin in advance to expect unacceptable and / or impossible requirements and respond automatically. Manages are formed relatively negative expectations that are justified. This situation can only be resolved when identifying the main model of behavior of the parties and its change.

Resistance becomes unmanageable when it loses contact with its original reason. It may, for example, begin a number of cases of misunderstanding requirements, grow in the struggle for power and transform into pessimism and indifference. Resistance becomes uncontrollable in these cases, because it is too difficult to trace and influence the main reason, but it is the path of the most efficient solution to the problem.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be noted that no matter how carefully the change is planned, the resistance will most likely let them know if not immediately, later. Therefore, it is advisable to expect him to be ready to respond in time. To reduce the negative impact of resistance, it is important to track those problems in relationships to which it indicates and make them an open discussion, which will reduce the likelihood of resistance in passive (indirect) form.

In general, to make a change in the social system with the smallest loss, you need to enter it. This means that managers and / or agents of change must be recognized as not by the outside, but the integrated part of the system in which resistance is developing. In this case, the natural will be the understanding of the values \u200b\u200band roles of the parties, the interdependence of actions, reactions and behavior. Only with this approach becomes possible to build relationships of cooperation and conditions, for the rapid resolution of emerging conflicts.

So, the paper presents the analysis of the basic forms, causes and properties of resistance, proposed ways to consider resistance as source information to adjust the working relationships and recommendations for their effective organization.

List of sources used

1. Jawell L. Industrial Organizational Psychology. Textbook for universities - SPb.: Peter, 2001.
2. Lyutens F. Organizational behavior: per. from English 7th ed. - M.: Infra-M, 1999.
3. Mesacon M. H., Albert M., Hedomry F. Management Basics: Per. from English - M.: Case, 1998.
4. Models and methods of personnel management: Russian-British tutorial / ed. E.B. Morgunova. - M.: CJSC "Business School" Intel-Synthesis ", 2001.
5. Perlatov I. Innovations in organizations. Per. from Slovak. - M.: Economy, 1981.
6. Buck L.G., Chicker V.A. Organizational social psychology: studies. benefit. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Speech", 2000.
7. Prigogin A.I. Innovations: incentives and obstacles (social problems of innovation). - M.: Policy, 1989.
8. Stevenson V. J. Production Management / Per. from English - M.: LLC "Publishing House" Laboratory of Basic Knowledge ", CJSC" Publishing Binom ", 1998.
9. Tom N. Change Management. // Organization: Theory, Structure, Design, Change. Thematic collection of articles. Issue 2. - M.: Home Editorial Office of the International Journal "Problems of Theory and Management Practices", 2000. P. 134 - 142.
10. Quality management according to the requirements of ISO 9001: 2000. Course for management representatives // SGS / Belgis Seminar Materials, Minsk, 2001.
11. Project Management / Mazur I.I., Shapiro V.D. and others. Reference manual / ed. I.I. Mazura and V.D. Shapiro - M.: Higher School, 2001
12. Hunt J. Manage people in companies: Manager for Manager / Per. from English - M.: Olymp Business CJSC, 1999.
13. Hentze J., Cammel A. How to overcome opposition to planned organizational changes. // Organization: Theory, Structure, Design, Change. Thematic collection of articles. Issue 2. - M.: Home Editorial Office of the International Journal "Problems of Theory and Management Practices", 2000. P. 143 - 150.
14. Hradesky, John L. Total Quality Management Handbook - USA, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995.
15. Stan Kossen. The Human Side of the Organizations. 6th Ed. - Harpercollins College Publishers, 1994.
16. Steele F. Consulting for Organizeal Change. Amherst, Ma, University of Massachusettts Press, 1975.

Currently it is quite difficult to find an organization that would not experience a period of change and introducing innovations. New strategies, processes, systems and structures cannot occur on an empty place and inevitably should be obtained by changing the currently existing parameters of the organization.

The implementation of strategic changes in the organization is an extremely difficult task. And, as studies of specialists show, serious changes in Russian organizations begin with full ignoring the issue of degree of readiness for transformations. There is natural misunderstanding and discontent from employees of the organization. Moreover, people respond to the prospects for strategic changes in different ways: one becomes active supporters and conductors of a new strategy to life, others - active opponents or passive observers. The middle managers who are among the main transformation engines are practically derived from the preparation process of organizational changes and relate to them almost with the same distrust, as well as their subordinates.

The purpose of this topic is to identify the main reasons for resistance to changes and consideration of the main approaches that contribute to overcoming them. To do this, we will do the following:

• ? reveal the essence of the term "organizational resistance";
• ? We define the main causes of resistance to organizational transformations;
• ? Consider the styles of guidelines that contribute to the elimination of organizational resistance;
• ? We establish the resistance level to strategic changes;
• ? We analyze approaches that contribute to overcoming resistance factors to change.

Anyone, even a slight change conducted in the organization, meets resistance, and its degree of influence is very large. However, it is unclear whether it is possible to anticipate what resistance will arise, and take measures to prevent it in advance. It is also not known whether there is an opportunity using some approaches and methods to effectively control resistance.

First, find out what is understood under resistance. There are various definitions of this term.

As noted by A.N. Lukshinov, "Resistance is a natural reaction of groups and individuals on changes that threaten their culture and influence, and is due to a violation of the continuity of culture and power; Its power depends on the rate of increasing changes. "

"A steady way of conducting operations cannot be changed at a time and causes countering changes called by organizational resistance," N. Alekseev said.

I. Ansoff did not stop at the wording of only one definition. He considered resistance from different points of view and gave the following interpretations.

• 1. "A long-sided phenomenon, which leads to unexpected delays, unforeseen costs and makes instability in the strategic change process."
• 2. "From the point of view of the analysis of the strategy, the resistance is the expression of the" irrationality "of the organization, refusal to aware of new measurements of reality, ignoring logical arguments."
• 3. "From the position of behavioral theory, resistance is the natural manifestation of various concepts about reasonable, according to which groups and individual people interact with each other." 3.

The definitions of the Anoffa disclose the essence of the term, but, in our opinion, the human factor is not enough in them. And resistance carriers, however, like carriers of changes are people. Therefore, under resistancewe will understand the problems arising from changes as a consequence of ill-conceived actions of managers in relation to members of the labor collective.

Perhaps resistance to change - an inevitable phenomenon. According to a number of specialists, any change in well-established working methods creates resistance to all employees who concern: and managers and subordinates. In this regard, it is necessary to establish which reasons forcing people to resist changes.

According to the authors of the popular textbook "Fundamentals of Management" M.Kh. Meskone, M. Alberta and F. Hedryry, people resist change in three main reasons: due to uncertainty, the emergence of the feeling of losses and beliefs that nothing good will bring change.

The first reason: a person can acutely react to changes because it does not know what the consequences will be.

The second cause of resistance is the feeling that changes will lead to personal losses, i.e. Less satisfaction of any need. Innovations can reduce decision-making, formal or informal power, access to information and other resources, autonomy and attractiveness of a challenged person.

The third reason for resistance is the belief that the organization is not necessary or desirable for organization. People may think that planned changes will not solve problems, but only multiply their number.

• ? Changes are radical and decisive;
• ? Changes are sudden and unexpected;
• ? Changes have an adverse effect on people involved in them, which in this case consider themselves victims;
• ? whatever (strategy, corporate mission, organization, etc.) turns out to be powerful support, which reduces the value of change;
• ? The reasons for the change of change are unclearly formulated, it causes anxiety;
• ? Previous changes did not bring the desired results.

American scientists John Coter and Leonard Schlesinger systematized the main, in their opinion, the causes of resistance, allowing to determine which groups of people will primarily resist change and for what reasons. The main causes of resistance to change are listed in Table. 4.2.1.

Table 4.2.1

Causes of resistance to change

Causes of resistance	Received result	Expected reaction
Egoistic interest	Waiting for personal losses as a result of changes	"Political" behavior
Incorrect understanding of the objectives of the strategy	Low confidence degree managers offering a change plan
Various assessment of the consequences of the implementation of the strategy	Inadequate perception of plans; The possibility of existence of other sources of information	Open disagreement
Low tolerance to change	Fear of people that they do not have the necessary skills or knowledge	Behavior aimed at maintaining his own prestige

Let us dwell on the table. 4.2.1 Resistance reasons.

The main reason egoistic interest is the resistance of people to changes at the organization level. This is due to a measure of selfishness inherent in each person: Employees have their own interests above the organization's interests. Such behavior due to its versatility and naturalness is not very dangerous, however, it may lead to the emergence of informal groups that will try not to give changes to implement.

Incorrect understanding of the objectives of the strategy. It usually arises due to the fact that people are not able to estimate the consequences of the implementation of the strategy (mainly due to the lack of sufficient information regarding the objectives and ways to implement the strategy). This situation is characteristic of organizations where the degree of confidence in the actions of managers is low.

Various assessment of the consequences of the implementation of the strategy. Such an assessment is associated with the unequal perception of strategic goals and plans. Managers and employees can perceive the importance of the strategy for the organization and for intra-organizational groups. At the same time, "strategists" often unnecessarly believed that employees see the benefits of implementing the strategy just as they, and that everyone has the relevant information to make sure the benefits of the strategy for both the organization and for each employee.

Low tolerance to change. Many believe that they will not be able to learn new skills or new work. Such resistance is most often manifested in the introduction of new technologies, sales methods, reporting forms, etc.

From what we can draw conclusions that the main causes of resistance to change are:

• ? Low awareness of the team members about the upcoming changes;
• ? fears regarding the lack of knowledge and skills to perform a new work;
• ? Fear of "personal" losses (reducing the impact, deprivation of position, powers, etc.).

As for Russia, the following reasons can be added as follows:

• ? conservative views of the people of the older generation;
• ? Education deficiency;
• ? fear of losses in wages;
• ? Fear of be fired.

Professor O.S. Vikhansky believes that the process of eliminating resistance changes significantly affects the style of change.

When resolving conflicts arising during changes, higher managers can use the following guide styles:

competitive style - The emphasis is done for strength, perseverance, approval of their rights, since the resolution of the conflict assumes the presence of a winner and defeated;

self-speaking style - Management demonstrates weak perseverance and at the same time does not seek to find ways to cooperate with dissenters organization;

compromise style - Guidance moderately insists on the use of its approaches to resolving the conflict and does not seek to cooperation with those who resist;

style devices - The management wishes to cooperate in resolving the conflict and, at the same time, does not particularly insist on the adoption of decision-made solutions;

collaboration style - Management seeks to implement its approaches to the implementation and to establish cooperation relationships with dissenters of organization.

When choosing a guide style, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the conflict. Conflicts are constructive and destructive, therefore, depending on the problems arising and resistance forces, the manager must select the style of change in this situation to resolve conflicts in this situation.

Easily recognizable resistance to the application of the strategy is not so often. Much more often the need to deal with potential conflicts and deadlock situations at all levels, since each group is trying to defend its interests using the change process itself. At the same time, the opposition is possible with respect to a specific change. And most often, changes cause constant and inevitable tension in relations between individual employees, groups and divisions. The problems with which you have to deal with the conflicts underlying them, which have to settle the manager, may have little in common with the proposed concrete change. Intelligence and enthusiasm of people in relation to the proposed strategy may be more related to personal benefits that they would like to get than with the benefits of the organization that should bring a change. So they consider A.T. Tooth and M.V. Ellocions.

The manager, facing resistance, should figure out all the details of this phenomenon. Understanding at what level resistance occurs and what it is characterized by, allows the manager to direct efforts to the right direction.

Resistance is distributed over three levels: individual, group and organizational (system).

Individual level. Individual resistance is caused primarily by the psychological unpretentiousness of the employee to realize the objectivity of external changes and adopt the proposed organizational innovations, requiring the revision of the previous experience of developing successful management decisions. Another one, but the more rational basis of resistance is the psychology of the perception of innovations by many people as a threat to its current situation. This happens first of all by virtue of the lack of competence for work in the new capacity. This is the opinion of N. Alekseeva.

To help employee acquire a new understanding of what is happening and reconsidered by A.T. Tooth and M.V. Ostlocions, it is most often necessary for individual work with it to clarify the benefits and the advantages that it will personally receive as a result of the implementation of the strategy. Such work should lead to a change in the behavior of the employee. Properly organized explanation procedure involves a clear awareness by the manager of what it is he who is trying to change in the views of a specific employee and why it is necessary. Attempts to make someone change anything that is fundamentally contrary to both its character and the properties of his personality are doomed to failure.

Group level.Employees with similar views on the problems that exist in the organization are usually combined into groups, internally homogeneous on organizational cultural orientations. Such groups have already defended collective valuables and are more actively trying to influence the organization's strategy. Conservative groups are sources of group resistance.

We present the opinions of the tooth, Lokthionov, Alekseeva and on other issues.

Wide coverage of strategic design and consultation before the implementation of the strategy (ideally - at the planning stage) can help reduce resistance from the groups and reveal what is really worried about people in the proposed strategy. This may require the following: transmission (in order of feedback) of the results of organizational diagnostics of those divisions and groups of the Organization, which directly affect strategic changes; Conducting seminars and discussions in which the group would participate; Organization of a new information network so that everyone can learn about what is happening, and had the opportunity to express his doubts.

Organizational (system) level. At this level, resistance arises due to the absence of potential organizations to analyze external changes and develop an adequate reaction. So, if the solution of strategic tasks as an additional load is entrusted to units responsible for operational activities, the current problems are displacing work on the introduction of organizational and technical innovations. A similar situation occurs and when the managers specially appointed for this work turn out to be insufficiently competent.

One of the ways to reduce resistance is a systematic approach to change. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that to understand the behavior of the organization as a system, it is necessary to take into account the behavior of all interconnected subsystems, such as finance, production, sales and supply, human resources. The system approach, therefore, provides for the consideration of the organization as a whole, identifying the relationship between the parts of the system, for example, changes in the hierarchical order of decision-making or ensuring some equilibrium between the social and technical parts of the system. This will allow you to continue to successfully implement a strategy.

Resistance levels to strategic changes in the organization are depicted in Fig. 4.2.1.

Fig. 4.2.1.

• 1 - Individual level; 2 - group level;
• 3 - organization level

Naturally, universal ways to overcome resistance do not exist, however, there are some proven methods with which you can significantly reduce and even completely eliminate resistance.

E. Hughes allocates eight factors to overcome resistance to changes that we will consider in more detail.

• 1. Accounting for the causes of personality behavior in the organization. The behavior of an individual in the organization is a consequence of the interaction of the personal position of the individual and its social role. With any changes, it is necessary to take into account the needs, inclinations and hopes of those affecting changes, as well as the impact of the organization. Before participating in the process of change, the employee must see a certain personal gain, which he will receive as a result of these changes.
• 2. The value of the authority of the head. The higher the authority of the head, the greater the influence that it can provide the process of change. As a rule, the head has a greater authority than members of the labor collective, so the instructions of the manager are usually a more powerful incentive to start and maintain the process of change than the wishes of one or another subordinate.
• 3. Providing information to the group. Activities for the implementation of changes can be stimulated by the provision of a group of necessary information regarding the very style of its work. The group may have a conscious desire to change if information is provided on how the group is valid, especially if these data are objective and contains new information that complements the already known. Information relating to any one organization or group has a greater impact than general information on the activities of individuals. The more information is centralized, significantly and is associated with the problem, the wider the possibilities for successful changes.
• 4. Achieving a common understanding. A strong desire to change may be caused by the achievement of a common understanding of all members of a group of need to change, with the initiative aimed at stimulating the changes will proceed from the group itself. Facts mined by individual employees or groups, or the participation of these employees or groups in planning, as well as assembly, analysis and interpretation of data, have a significant impact on the change process. The information obtained by one of the group members is more clear, acceptable and has more chances to be used than the one that is provided by the "external expert".
• 5. Feeling belonging to the group. The strength of countering changes is reduced when those employees who should experience this change on themselves, and those who are trying to influence the course of change sense themselves to the same group. The change that comes from the inside looks much less threatening and causes less opposition, rather than that that is imposed from the outside.
• 6. Group authority for its members. The more authoritative group for its members, the greater influence it can have on them. The group is attractive for its members to the extent that it satisfies their needs. This entails the willingness of each member of the Group to adopt the influence of other members and the strengthening of incentives for the group's cohesion, if it is important for it. The group's cohesion can contribute to both reduction and strengthen resistance to change, depending on whether the group considers them useful or harmful.
• 7. Support changes to the group leader. A group that retains psychological significance for individual members has a greater impact than a group whose membership in which is brief. In many training programs, training is mistakenly conducted with a margin from work, and the fact that this manager continues to be a member of at least two groups: a) consisting of its subordinates; b) includes executives of one with him the level responsible before the same superior leader. Thus, the process of changes in which individual managers participate, are combined into temporary groups with a separation from the main work, less effective in the case of long-term change than the process in which managers are involved without separating from a specific work environment.
• 8. Awareness of members of the group. Information relating to the need to change, the plans of changes and their consequences should be brought to the attention of all members of the group, which it concerns.

The combination of listed factors illustrates Fig. 4.2.2, from which it follows that factors are not hierarchicles, since their significance is determined by the specifics of changes, time and place.

The famous "Guru" of the management, the investigator of the strategic department I. Ansoff offers four approaches to overcome resistance to change.

1. Forced change of change - The introduction of changes in which resistance is overcome by the power of the highest management.

Fig. 4.2.2. Factors of overcoming resistance to strategic changes

Enforced changes are expensive, they are fraught with large social shocks, but have the advantage of a quick strategic reaction. Therefore, this approach should be used in cases where the management is experiencing a time deficit.

So that forced changes have been more efficient, it is necessary:

• ? to diagnose the behavior of employees and working groups to determine potential resistance sources;
• ? focus in their hands sufficient powerful powers, which will allow you to carry out the necessary changes;
• ? follow the appearance of the most minor signs of resistance;
• ? After changing the strategy to control its implementation, until the new strategy will "turn out" the necessary abilities, and the changes will not fit into the organization.
• 2. Adaptive changes - Implementation of intermittent strategic changes through gradual innovations stretched over time.

If the changes occupy a long period of time, at each specific moment resistance to them will be small, but not equal to zero, because even minor deviations from the "historical order of things" lead to violation of the organization's work and internal conflicts. However, the degree of positive impact, which is required, will be lower. Supporters of gradual transformations are usually managers of the Middle and Lower Management Links of the Organization. Conflicts are resolved by finding a compromise or conclusion of transactions.

Adaptive changes pass slowly, but have the effect of reducing the resistance level at each time and do not require the close attention of the management. Adaptive changes make it possible to carry out changes in conditions when the power of supporters of transformations is limited. This approach is most effective when all threats, trends and opportunities are predictable in advance, which makes it possible to increase the time-assigned time.

3. Crisis management. Recently, the likelihood of the fact that organizations may not keep track of new, rapidly developing changes in the external environment. In these cases, a threat to the survival of the organization appears, it is forced to act in a tough time frame, a crisis situation arises.

In the event of a crisis, the behavioral resistance of the organization's employees is replaced by support for reforms. However, in this situation, the likelihood of incorrect decisions increases, since the organization's management is experiencing a shortage of time. Therefore, the first task of the highest leadership is to prevent panic and rapid effective transformations.

But as soon as the organization comes out of the crisis, management faces the rapid revival of resistance, which is already manifested on early stages "Recovery" of the organization.

If the key managers do not have enough power for radical actions, and the crisis is about to break out, the following options remain at the organization's managers:

• ? try to convince employees in the inevitability of the crisis and act without waiting for it;
• ? Complete with the inevitability of the crisis and prepare to play the role of "Savior";
• ? Symake artificial crisis, usually consisting in the fight against the "external enemy", "threatening" organizations. Usually, the key political figures of the organization enjoy this method.

The first two options are less risky. With the third on the heads of the organization, there is a high degree of responsibility, and moreover, serious ethical difficulties arise, since an artificial crisis can lead to unpredictable consequences. But he has its advantages - the threat of the crisis sharply reduces the resistance of employees, provides support for the team decisions taken by leadership, and increases the chances of a happy outcome.

4. The "Accordion" method, or controlled resistance, - An approach, acceptable in conditions of moderate urgency, when the organization has enough time to not resort to coercion, however, it is not enough for the implementation of an adaptive approach, but a positive effect for a certain time interval, the value of which is set by external conditions.

The main characteristics of this approach are:

• ? The duration of the change is determined by the time. If the need for transformations increases, the approach is applied forcibly, and vice versa, when the manual has a time reserve, this approach acquires the features of adaptive. This property "stretch" and "shrink" and gave the name "Accordion";
• ? The "Accordion" method is based on the use of a modular approach (the planning process is divided into modules, at the end of each of which the priority of the implementation of new projects is determined);
• ? With this approach, they do not adhere to the generally accepted idea about the sequence of planning and implementing projects, on the contrary, these two processes are in parallel;
• ? Resistance is minimized at the very beginning and controlled throughout the length of the time allotted for transformations.

The main drawback of the "Accordion" method is high in comparison with any of the extreme approaches complexity. Moreover, it requires constant attention from the top leadership.

The "Accordion" method is preferable in all cases where the organization has sufficient times and is not going to resort to forced measures. Its main advantage, according to I. Ansoff, is that the method allows you to find a compromise between a decrease in resistance and the use of power, without forgetting the time constraints.

The advantages and disadvantages of the described approaches, taking into account the position of Ansoff, are presented in Table. 4.2.2, from which it follows that the most preferred approach is made difficult to virtue of the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

Table 4.2.2.

Comparison of methods of introduction of change

	applications	Dignity	disadvantages
Forced	Increased urgency	Speed \u200b\u200bof change	Strong resistance
Adaptive	urgency	Significant resistance	Slow
Crisis	Threat to functioning	Significant resistance	Large time shortage, risk of failure
"Accordion" method	Moderate urgency, periodically repetitive changes	Inssential resistance, adjusting to time, comprehensive change in abilities	Complexity

J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger developed their methods to overcome resistance to change.

• 1. Education and information transfer. This method implies an open discussion of ideas and events, which will help employees make sure that it is necessary to change before they are conducted. It is also assumed to use various methods of information transfer: individual conversations, performances in front of the group, memorandums and reports.
• 2. Attracting subordinates to making decisions. This method makes it possible to some employees who can resist, freely express their attitude to these innovations, potential problems and change.
• 3. Relief and support. These are funds by which employees fit easier into a new environment. For example, the head can provide emotional support, i.e. Carefully listen to employees or give them some time to rest after a busy period. It may also be necessary for additional training to improve the skills of employees so that they can cope with new requirements.
• 4. Conversation. This method is appropriate in the case when it is clear that someone loses something as a result of the change and therefore can have strong resistance. Manager, for example, can find a higher wage employee in exchange for changing the working task.
• 5. Cooperation. This method means granting a person who can have or resist change, leading role in making decisions on introducing innovations and in their implementation.
• 6. Maneuvering. Such a method is applied to reduce resistance to change and means selective use of information or drawing up a clear schedule of activity and activities to provide the desired impact on subordinates.
• 7. Compulsion. This is a threat to deprive work, promotion, raising professional qualifications, increase wages or appointment to a new position in order to obtain a consent to change.

Advantages and disadvantages of J. Coter and L. Schlesinger are shown in Table. 4.2.3.

Methods for overcoming resistance to change

Table 4.2.3

	use	Dignity	disadvantages
Education and transfer of information	With resistance based on the absence of information or in inaccurate information and analysis	Assistance in obtaining consent to change from people when they are convicted	May require a lot of time if many people are involved in this process
Involvement of employees in decision making	In situations in which initiators do not have all the necessary information for developing innovations, while others have significant resistance opportunities.	Can help people realize the need for change and their commitment to help it	May require a lot of time and lead to errors in conducting change
Relief and support	In cases when dealing with people who have resisted only because of fear of personal problems	Optimal tactics for solving personal problems	Can take a long time, expensive cost and still not help

Continued

	use	Dignity	disadvantages
Conversation	In situations where someone or the group clearly loses with the introduction of innovations and where they have great ability to resist	Sometimes it is a relatively easy way to avoid basic resistance	In many cases, it may be too expensive; can set up others to seek consent persuasion
Cooperation.	For specific situations in which another tactic is associated with too large expenditures or is generally impracticable	Can help find support for change	Can create problems if people recognize co-optation
Maneuvering	In situations in which another tactic will be ineffective or too expensive	Can be a relatively high-speed and inexpensive solution to the problem of resistance	Initiators can lose some kind of confidence in themselves; may lead to other problems
Coercion for situations in which the speed and initiators of change have significant power.		Can quickly overcome any kind of resistance	Risky method; can create a negative attitude to the initiators of change

The latter method, as, however, is the forced method I. Ansoff, make us make a comment and disagree with their use in practice. In this regard, we recommend not to resort to them under any circumstances.

You can force once, the other, but in the end the manager may lose credibility in the eyes of employees. As the practice of management shows, the most brilliant plans of changes are not triggered if the human factor is ignored. It should always be remembered that the main condition for the success of the changes undertaken in the organization is the readiness of the personnel to maximize its potential to achieve the goals set as possible, and with the help of forced methods of this never achieve.

We tend to the fact that the leaders of organizations do not need to apply some such approach to overcoming resistance. In order for the organization's strategy to be successfully implemented, managers need to skillfully combine the considered methods in various combinations, really considering all the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

Control questions

• 1. What is understood by the organizational resistance?
• 2. List the main reasons for resistance to organizational changes.
• 3. List the reasons for resistance to change. What will be distinctive features Each of the reasons?
• 4. What affects the process of eliminating resistance to change?
• 5. What are the guide styles that managers can use during transformations.
• 6. Describe the main levels of resistance to change: the level of the individual, the level of the group, the organizational level.
• 7. List and briefly explain the factors to overcome resistance to strategic changes.
• 8. Tell us about approaches to overcome resistance to change.
• 9. Why is the "Accordion" method most preferable to combat resistance to change? Name its main drawback.

Literature

• 1. Alekseev N. Management of changes in a new economy // Consultant of the Director. 2003. No. 16 (196). P. 2-7.
• 2. Ansoff I. New corporate strategy. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999.
• 3. Vikhansky O.S. Strategic Management: Tutorial. 2nd ed., Pererab. and add. M.: Gardariki, 2002.
• 4. Duck D.D. Monster Change. Causes of success and failure of organizational transformations. M.: Alpina Publisher, 2003.
• 5. Tooth A. T., Lokthonov M.V. System Strategic Management: Methodology and Practice. M.: Genesis, 2001.
• 6. Lukshinov A.N. Strategic Management: Tutorial for universities. M.: Uniti-Dana, 2001.
• 7. McKay X. How to survive among sharks (define competitors in the ability to sell, lead, stimulate, conclude transactions) /

McKay X. Business strategy: concept, content, symbol / lane. from English Ufa: Academy of Management; M.: Economics, 1993.

• 8. Meson M., Albert M., Hedoury F. MANAGEMENT BASES: PER. from English M.: Case, 2000.
• 9. Thompson A.A., Strickland A.J. Strategic management. The art of the development and implementation of the strategy: a textbook for universities / trans. from English; Ed. L.G. Zaitseva, M.I. Falcon. M.: Banks and stock exchanges, Uniti, 1998.

"If there is no further growth, then the sunset is close"
Seneca.

People resist not to change, and attempts to change them themselves.
Richard Beckhard

The most mystical management problems, after, perhaps, the problems of leadership are the problem of changes, especially large organizational change. We live in a complex dynamic world, which changes faster in our eyes. In order to have time to react into these changes around the world, we must "run even faster", as in the fairy tale Lewis Carroll. And besides the requirements of the need arises the requirement of their timeliness and speed, which makes the problem even sharper. After all, it has already become a generally recognized opinion that the ability of the organization to change is determined by the degree of success.

Removed in the epigraph of the center reflect the actual position in modern business. Yes, and not only in modern - since time immemorial, enterprise executives are concerned that the business strategies do not lag behind the changing external environment, and the Graclitus statement that "permanent changes only" is known from 500 g. BC. e. One of the working associations is an escalator going down. Stopping, even if "on good", we start moving down, without making a special one step. In turn, the need to intervene in the course of events leads to administrative reorganization programs, and this is already a certain impact on people and it causes a response.

Why are we talking about the mystical of this problem? At a minimum, because with all the rational necessity and correctness of logical prerequisites for the implementation of changes, with a high level of professionalism of the Guru Management, which are engaged in their implementation, as well as good technical support in the form of modern software, only a minor part of them was implemented successfully. Moreover, we can still abstract from our domestic experience, (let yourself combine this definition "post-Soviet" space), due to its specificity and time failure for analytical conclusions.

Fortunately, we have the opportunity to observe the consequences of certain business trends on the example of Western experience, of course, given the peculiarities of national business. In his book "Guide to the kingdom of wisdom: the best control ideas," Joseph and Jimmy Boautt, authoritative control theorists, have processed more than 200 books and 3000 articles, the authors of which were Stephen Cori, Peter Senge, Tom Peters, Peter Drager, Michael Hammer and many others "Guru" in the field of management. And "During the 1980-90s, the Guru of American Management preached that large-scale, strategic organizational changes are the mysterious, magical and most important, indispensable condition for success, and perhaps even the survival of American bizens. American supervision governments have aware of the prophets of change and acted on their wise advice, introducing into their companies of the Universal quality management program, reduce delivery time, decrease in size, restructuring, restructuring, and many others, which were the result of aging organizational change. The managers initiated changes, changes and change again. "

This process has become global, and continues to remain. The changes turned into a panacea from all the troubles, each major American company launched one or another program of change, or even several. In the short period of the early 1990s. More than 40% of companies allowed themselves to 11 and larger transformations. These changes became a truly cauldron for American workers, which led to serious apologies of the editorial office of Trainings magazine, proclaimed on behalf of the American managers, where it was said that the retelling from change to change was "almost with the same speed, with what could read About them in magazines for business people. "

The transformations were not thought out carefully, the results were not expected patiently, but, following the fashion, all new and new "panaceans" were tried. This led to the fact that according to most estimates, from 50 to 70% of all corporate changes initiated in the 1980-90s., Did not lead to the achievement of the goals set. For example, one of the countries held in the mid-1990s. Research has shown that two thirds of all corporations taken by restructuring efforts did not give results that were expected from them. And the leading organizational restructuring experts reported that the indicator of their success in 1,000 included in the list of Fortune magazines companies was much lower than 50%, perhaps no more than 20% of everything.

According to Michael Hammer, one of the most prominent experts on the restructuring of companies, out of $ 32 billion spent by American business for this business, 20 billion were thrown into the wind.

But the opinion of deservedly popular Peter Senge, the leading lecturer of the Massachusetts Technological Institute (MIT), the author of the books "Fifth Discipline" and "Dance of Change ...": "Considering attempts to reform in large companies in the last 10 years, I have to say. Based on the ratio of victories and defeats, that changes, firstly, are possible, but, secondly, it is unlikely ... As a rule, inertia wins with a clear advantage ... If the problem consisted in intelligence (they say, most bosses are very close People, and the leaders are not enough leaders from the sky), then the most capable would have achieved success ... the market would have rewarded the clever who managed to change, and would have punished fools that could not be done. But nothing like this happens ... on the contrary, I will tell you on personal experience, many very competent leaders suffered a fiasco, trying to actuate the mechanism of change. This brings me to the idea that more universal principles operate here ... ".

Another reason to talk about the mysticism of the problem of change is that, in one voice, all experts point out the fact that people resist not only "bad" changes that complicate their lives or are simply useless, but also to those reasons that are clearly corresponded to their own selfish interests. This irrational resistance for some reason is very typical and the causes of this puzzling behavior are deeper than it seems at first glance.

Such phenomena arise both in production, and in trade, in large companies and in small, and are examples of puzzling behavior, which, according to Michael Hammer, is "the most discouraging, annoying, which drives into a longing and confusion part [changes].

For example, in the real case with dye workers, when the automation of their manual labor was carried out and their health was eliminated by installing the conveyor line and special chambers for painting. Labor productivity has become even lower than was, contrary to the evidence and began to arise "Ludister" uprising against "too fast conveyor speed", although it was specially designed and corresponded to the average speed of the most unskilled workers. Why does this irrational resistance occur? As for any other type of human behavior, one of the most important factors is negative reinforcement. Or fear that it will come that "even worse." As Manfred writes F.R. Kets de Fris in his book "Life and Death in Management Circle", "Changes ... Many of the chains have a lot of fears: the fear of unknown, the fear of losing freedom, the fear of losing power and officials and, finally, the fear of losing comfortable conditions Labor and money. " Moreover, the concept of comfort comfort is very individual. For example, in this example, the workers put on each other. It turned out that they did not see each other and were deprived of the opportunity to communicate as they were accustomed. And that was enough to outweigh all the advantages from a simpler and less harmful way to their health work.

The reasons for resistance to change became the subject of the study, practically, for each expert in the field of managerial counseling. Controversial, but, it seems to me, the James O 'Tula, which he outlined in his book "Leading Change: The Argument for Values-Based Leadership" ("Guide to the Values \u200b\u200bAssociation: The Argument of Leadership, :

Thirty-three James O'Tula hypotheses: why people oppose change

1. Homeostasis: Change - unnatural condition.
2. Stare Decisis: presumption preference status quo; The burden of proof of the opposite lies on the supporters of the change.
3. Inertia: Changing the course requires considerable effort.
4. Satisfaction: Most people like the existing state of affairs.
5. Immaturity: There are no prerequisites of changes, the time of change has not come.
6. Fear: People are afraid of unknown.
7. Egoism: changes, possibly good, but not for us, but for others.
8. Insecurity: We do not think that we can solve new tasks.
9. Shock from the future: depressed by change, we turn into retrograds and opposite change.
10. The futility of effort: we consider any changes as superficial, cosmetic and illusory. So why change something?
11. Ignorance: We do not know how to carry out changes and what should be changed.
12. Human Nature: People are predisposed to rivalry, aggressive, greedy, selfish, and they have no altruism needed for change.
13. Cynicism: We are suspected about the agents of change.
14. Perversion: Changes seem attractive, but we fear that their consequences besides our will may be bad.
15. The conflict between the genius of the personality and the mediocrity of the group: people of medium abilities are not able to comprehend all the wisdom of change.
16. Egocentrism: the refusal of people to recognize their wrongness.
17. The desire to live today's day: the inability to postpone pleasure for the future.
18. Myopia: Inability to see that the change matches our own, wider interests.
19. Actions blindly: most of us lead your life unknown to others.
20. "Snowy blindness": group thinking or social conformism.
21. Collective fantasies: We do not learn from experience and consider all events biased.
22. Chauvinistic logic: We are right, and those who want us to change, mistaken.
23. The sophism of exclusivity, changes, possibly somewhere and are triggered, but we are special.
24. Ideology: all of us have different worldviews, different and incompatible values.
25. Institutionalism: individual people can change, but groups - never.
26. Natura No Facit Saltum - Nature does not tolerate jumps.
27. The unconditional superiority of the leaders: Who are we to doubt the leaders who forced us to go to the current way?
28. "There is no need to support the masses": most are more interested in preserving the status quo than the minority - in change.
29. Determinism: Nobody is given to make a targeted change.
30. Science: History lessons are scientific, and therefore useless.
31. Strength habit.
32. Despirable despotism: Ideas of change seem to be represented by society.
33. Human stupidity.

With many of these provisions, you can and need to argue, especially with the latter. After all, it reflects the behavioral protective reaction rather, and not a genuine cause. Some of the provisions can be analyzed for a long time and look for the roots of such behavior in human physiology and psychology. We will simply agree with the general opinion that some of the reasons for resistance are most often found. We have already called one of them: predictable or imaginary negative result. Often there are concerns that the changes will have a negative impact on a person or the group that they are exposed to them, and enough of what they would only consider it so that the resistance already originated. The theory of negative and positive reinforcements is basic to study the behavioral reactions of high-organized living beings and should not forget that the conscious "superstructure" in a person is of all about 3%, and everything else is built-in behavioral reactions that helped the preservation of the entire species.

From this concern of negative consequences, the second cause of resistance, which consists in concerning that work will become more, and the remuneration is less. Paul Strible, the head of the application-designed program of change in the International Institute of Managers Training (IMD) in Lausanne (Switzerland), argues that people oppose changes primarily because large transformations change the terms of personal agreements regulating the relations of workers with the organization. Strollest allocates three general aspects of such agreements: formal, psychological and social.

The formal aspect "covers the main task of the employee and the basic requirements for their work, defined by such documents of the company, as the schedule of official duties, hiring contracts and labor agreements." The formal aspect gives answers to the following questions of the employee:

• What are my alleged duties?
• What help will I have when performing this work?
• How and when will I evaluate my work and what form will the reaction to it?
• What will be the payment of labor and how will it depend on the assessment of my work?

The psychological aspect of personal agreements concerns those parties to employment relations, which for the most part remain implicit. This aspect gives answers to such questions of the employee:

• How difficult will work actually?
• What recognition, financial reward or other personal satisfaction will I get for my efforts?
• Will my work be rewarded worthy?

Finally, "employees are evaluating the culture of the organization through the social aspect of their personal agreements." People always evaluate not only words, but also actions in confirmation of words. Especially carefully they belong to the declarations of the company's managers. This applies, first of all, corporate values \u200b\u200band company strategies. Social aspect gives answers to the following questions:

• Are my values \u200b\u200bwith those who adhere to other employees of the organization?
• What are the genuine rules that determine who and how much gets in the company?

The main driving factor of this behavior is the tendency of people to the competition, to comparing themselves with others. If the changes affect the principles of justice, they are doomed to sharp resistance. Moreover, Paul Strible believes that however, the employees consider the impact of changes to personal agreements, so they will resist change.

In addition, new methods of work may require people to change group norms and traditions, which occurs quite slowly.

The third cause of resistance: the need to break the habits that every person have. John P. Coter in the book "The Force of Changes: What the leadership differs from the control" says that it is possible to identify one habit, but usually a person has a lot of interrelated habits. Human behavior is very holistic and, in the event of a change in one habit, the entire system of components of its elements may, at best, simply restore the status quo. Amend the entire set of your behavior at once, "how to try to smoke at the same time, drinking and eating fat." In addition, the readiness to change is a personal trait that is not inherent in the majority of people. Started by the zoopsychologists of observation of rats were picked up by sociopsychologists and confirmed the "universality" of the Paretto principle - only about 20% are prone to the search for the "best", already having a "good". Most people are rather focused on maintaining the achieved ("Comfort Zones"), and not to achieve a new one.

The fourth cause of resistance: insufficiency of information. If people do not understand what, why and how to change, then resistance is provided. Cotter believes that before most people agree to accept the proposed change, they want to get answers to the following questions:

• What will it mean for me and my friends?
• What will this mean to an organization?
• Are there any options better offered?
• If I intend to act differently, can I do it?
• Do I really believe in the need to change?
• Do I really believe that I hear about the path leading to the future?
• Do we need to follow this course?
• Do others play any game - maybe in order to improve your position at my expense?

According to Coter, the majority of companies do not answer these questions, which creates the feelings of "confusion" of goals and natural desire not to go "there, I do not know where."

A very serious reason is the "discreteness" of changes when they occur in a separate element, and the traditional organizational structure, technology and other factors are not related to the initiative of the change, do not give holistic support for the whole organization. In practice, it is proved that if the changes affect only some aspects of the organization's activities, and all other methods, processes, procedures, remuneration systems, etc. They remain the same, then the changes are impossible, at least they were fairly locked and did not concern the "stressful" introduction of new technologies and products. Very often, the "local" improvement leads to a destabilizing effect for the whole organization. And the whole system in order to stay in equilibrium, begins to work against the initial change.

When methods of work and employee motivation system were adjusted accordingly, the changes were quite painless, even when it was necessary to change several parameters at the same time. For example, by returning for example with the dyeers, the sequence of events showed that even when it was possible to solve problems in this area, this local success was negatively affected by the workers of other workshops, becoming a common destabilization factor. Performance growth and, accordingly, wages on this site became a demotizing factor for qualified workers in other areas that have become relatively less paid. The specified injustice of the initial conditions is another cause for resistance.

One of the main reasons for the "rebellion" is that employees believe that other people and events are forced to change them, which are beyond their control. Daryl Conner, founder and president of Organizational Development Resources and the author of the book "Managing At the Speed \u200b\u200bof Change" ("Management at the speed of change"), writes that "we will come together not so much interference in our life of something new, how much is the loss of control, which is a consequence of innovations. The term resistance to change can be considered inaccurate, misleading. People resist not so much change as their hidden consequences - ambiguity, which arises when familiar is lost. "

Most people frighten the external, uncontrolled interference of someone else's will. Especially if you consider that most of the programs can somehow use the coercion systems, in particular, when learning. Thus, employees embody other people's ideas about what they both and all of their organization as a whole should be, and the authors of these ideas are very often completely outsider for the organization (for example, the author of the book or methodology, which is carried out by change or external consultants. ). If at the same time it is necessary to simply execute the prescriptions and follow the recommendations, then in this case the effect of loss of control over its own life arises. The same reason is most often very important for the company's first persons, not necessarily for owners and top management, and for informal leaders. And in conducting organizational changes, the wrong moment appears - the changes that should be based on the leaders, are radically contrary to one of the main properties of the leader - the adoption of responsibility for its and not only their lives.

There is another reason for resistance to change: loss of stability. It should be noted that in the opinion of some psychologists researchers, the reaction to instability is a national feature. Just as for individuals, the ability to operate in conditions of uncertainty is a congenital feature, which is determined by the activity of the hemispheres of the brain. By analogy, there are nations that are simply "contraindicated" crises, as well as people who any uncertainty can bring out equilibrium for a long time. The worst Chinese curse is to live in the era of change. And for many of our compatriots, this has become the time of extraordinary opportunities.

The leading Russian consultant on managerial development, doctor of philosophical sciences, Professor A. I. Prigogin noted: "Crises are a constant factor, an integral part of the life of our society, the state, the economy at all levels - from the central government to specific organizations. A similar "crisis" type of development imposes special requirements for management. We still adopt abroad and build managerial systems, designed for another, sustainable development. The main difference between domestic business is the conditions of growing internal and external uncertainty.

Another well-known Russian expert on managerial counseling Igor Altshuler said that managers and consultants have long agreed to change the fact that any crisis is a chance to change, it is the "inevitable regular stage of development, characterized by the exhaustion of some resources and searches for new, which, in turn , will also be exhausted. " This is "just" the transition from one business model to others, "the moment of truth" and getting rid of the illusions, rehabilitation, albeit a painful way.

What are the main conditions for conducting successful changes?

In the book "Real Time Strategic Change" ("Strategic change in real time") Robert F. Jacobs (Robert F. Jacobs) offered a very interesting formula:

C \u003d a x b x d\u003e x,

where C is the probability of the success of the change,

A - dissatisfaction with the existing position of cases

B - a clear statement of the state that must occur after change,

D - concrete first steps to goal,

X - the cost of changes.

This formula shows the influence of the following factors: the need to change, clarity of the end targets and specific steps to their achievement.

If you need to make changes to perceive people, they need to be convinced that the existing situation is not used anywhere (a) and, therefore, changes are necessary. B gives an idea of \u200b\u200bhow much people will be better if they keep changes; And D convinces that the progress towards goal is not only possible, but already happens, bringing positive results. Of course, provided that the cost of changes is correctly calculated and justified economically. After all, the concentration on lighter aspects and the disregard of the financial party can lead to failure even very useful reforms.

And yet, it can be assumed that the most important of the members of this equation is a, which awakens in the organization a sense of need for change, without which subsequent actions are impossible.

Noel M. Ticchi (Noel M. Tichy) Professor School of Business School of Michigan University and one of the authors of the book dedicated to Transformations in General Electric: "Control Your Destiny Or Someone Else Will" ("Control your destiny or someone will do it for you "), It claims that the emergence of a sense of need for change -" emotionally the most traumatic and frightening aspect "of any major organizational change. In his opinion, this stage of the process of transformation becomes such a painful and awesome partly due to the fact that people should achieve some degrees of senses before gaining readiness to change. It is quite difficult to determine this degree. Daryl Conner believes that this condition is achieved primarily by a feeling of hopelessness. He became clear to him when he saw an interview with a man who survived after the explosion and a fire on the drilling platform in the North Sea. Andy Moken, the drilling master, jumped with a burning platform with a 15-storey house in the cold sea, the surface of which was covered with burning oil and fragments.

He did it not because he was confident in salvation. He jumped because he had no choice. According to Conner and many other experts, such hopelessness is one of the necessary conditions of change. If you want people to take changes, do not give them a choice. In order for them to rush into the cold, dark, frightening sea of \u200b\u200bchange, you need to warm up the situation - set fire to the once convenient platform, - so they write Joseph and Jimmy Barette, commenting on this case.

It is not enough to simply push the "to the jump" of several people working in the organization. To successfully carry out changes, it is necessary to convince almost all workers, 75% of managers and almost all executives of the organization.

But how to convince them? After all, so far the crisis is not born or will not be provoked to what, naturally, the head is extremely difficult to decide, people simply do not see the reasons to change something. There should be at least a sense of uncertainty. Starting elements of this feeling can be, for example:

• bad indicators compared to competitors;
• serious complaints by customers, especially VIP;
• care of one or more key figures;
• new information from the "External World", affecting the fate of the company, etc. Launch changes, as a rule, authoritative staff, heads of different ranks. If they find important any of the listed elements, we can talk about the start of planning the necessary changes.

The following condition for the success of changes: - Creating people of a clear vision of the future so that they understand how their lives will change.

It is necessary to clearly and clearly convey to the employees the company's mission, show each his personal contribution to the common cause. This is necessary for the cohesion of the collective and concentration of effort. Without proper visions, the purpose of the effort to transform may easily crumble on a row of confusing, incompatible with each other, devouring the time of projects. But it should be noted that his profanation should be more evil, when, according to John Coter, everything "comes down to the composition of primitive intended for accommodation on the bumpers of cars, promotional slogans like" Consumer-oriented, cyclically operating Organization "or" Rebuilt Organization ". These banalities cause ridicule, lead to deep cynicism and alienation. " Most often, this situation arises when the creation of a mission was simply a tribute to fashion or a response to short-term competition challenges. So far there is no clear and distinct understanding of the goal to which the organization must be brought, the transformation should not even start. It is better to do it at all at all anywhere to make people go to the ghostly or initially fake target. In fact, the goal is set by the basic values \u200b\u200bof the company, therefore, putting a new goal, the existing system of values \u200b\u200bshould be taken into account. Otherwise, the negative reaction to reforms can not only stop them, but also lead to the collapse of the company. Donald N. Sall (Donald N. Sull) in the book "Revival of the Fittest. Why Good Companies GO Bad and How Great Managers Remake Them "(" Why good companies fail and how outstanding managers will revive them ") leads many sad examples. He believes that the actual collapse of Arthur Andersen also appeared to a consequence of transformation, which was contrary to traditional values. Arthur Andersen at one time created the company whose name was considered synonymous with the concept of "professional honesty" ... The company became one of the largest in its industry. It should be noted that its reputation was based largely on the financial impeccability of partners. And then the "2x" rule was introduced, according to which "audit partners had to twice the greater income from other types of services than from the main audit activity. This led to the fact that the company turned out to be filled with a number of large financial scandals (Waste Management Inc., Sunbeam, Baptists Foundation Arizona and, of course, Enron), because initial principles of good faith and independence were violated.

Suppose that the company's management represents, in which direction to go, and this does not contradict the basic values \u200b\u200bof the company. If at the same time, employees are not devoted to plans for a bright future company, then communication between them and the leadership is violated. And without communications, no vision means nothing. It can be said that even the vision itself plays a decisive role, but how it is communicated to employees. There are some laws of "fixing" vision. It should be clear and understandable in shape and content, carry a positive charge, to be motivating and encouraging to action. The problem is not only in creating a "right" vision, but also in compliance with the overall communicative strategy.

Bad and (or) inadequate messages - one of the main experts mentioned by experts the causes of failure of changes attempts, and the role of communications in the process of change recognize not only experts, but also their customers. For example, Wyatt Company asked the management of the highest rank out of 531 companies, shortly before that, which carried out a large restructuring, to allocate the only factor that they would have changed in the reorganization efforts made by them. The overwhelming majority of the highest managers said they would like to change the way to report to their employees about restructuring.

So what is the secret of successful information transfer? Cotter advises:

• prepare a simple and accessible message;
• use metaphors, analogies and examples;
• spend more diverse meetings, use oral messages;
• repeat, repeat, repeat;
• led by using your own example;
• speak about the apparent inconsistencies openly;
• listen to others and force yourself to listen.

Eastern adds that a significant part of communicative efforts can be combined with training workers. If you want them to understand the need for change, the process of transformation itself, it should be paid to the fact that people need to be aware of the company.

Employees need to give information that managers possess. They must understand the cash flow reports, income and accounting balances; know factors whose impact increases or reduces indicators in reports and balances; Understand the authentic meaning of numbers and clearly imagine the current position of the company compared with the past and its position in relation to competitors.

The staff must have an idea of \u200b\u200bthe threats faced by the organization and how to eliminate these threats, including to understand the meaning of certain plans. In addition, people should be informed about what other options for action were considered before it was decided to elect this course, as well as the criteria that were guided by decision-making, about the limits of permissible risk, as well as the consequences of making erroneous solutions.

People need to know the expectations of consumers and the best satisfaction of these expectations.

Personnel and asses of knowledge of the global economy, an idea of \u200b\u200bthe costs of doing business, social compensation costs.

People need to know which technical system is used for the production of goods and services, how it works and why so, and not otherwise, to present possible technical alternatives.

It is necessary to instill people of social communication skills, the ability to resolve conflicts, listen to others and be able to speak publicly.

By providing honest information, making everything the most openly, the skeptical and wanted relationship of employees to the change process can be avoided. To get rid of fear and resistance to change, you should consider one of the most obvious and most important when conducting changes to postulates: own ideas People do not oppose.

Of course, in the Council to attract employees to making decisions there is nothing new, participation has long been an effective way and a key element of the implementation of changes in both the organizational and individual level. Usually changes the initiative group. And most of the management of middle, employees and employees remain almost outside the planning process. And when proposals for reorganization are announced, employees do not want to go there, where their name is the project team. And why would they want? People from the project team creatively participated in the process, became, according to the definition of Pasteor, active citizens of the corporation, adherents of change. But all the rest are middle managers, other employees - remained outside the process. How to avoid this? In fact, it is necessary to collect everyone - from the top to the bottom - for three days and involve everyone in the process of revolutionary transformations. This is the fact that some "Guru" management is called strategic changes in real time, while others are conferences on the search for the future. The essence of these measures is to simultaneously involve all employees in the decision-making process. Marvin R. Weisbord (Marvin R. Weisbord) describes this as collective planning, where everything is focused on solving pressing tasks. These conferences were resorted to Mariott, 3m, Ford and many others in their practice. And these are really large-scale events. For example, in one of the similar meetings of Ford in 1994, all 2,200 workers of the Dirnborn Assembly Plant were attended. Questions that are resolved at such conferences relate to major problems of the company and the need to carry out certain changes in order to succeed in the future. In fact, workers summarize the need to determine the joint future and commit certain steps towards the implementation of the developed plan: the implementation of the changes themselves. It is difficult to calculate the economic success of such actions, since the activities of the whole organization for a while paralyzes, but in Western experts, this method has just gained striking commitment. This is due to the specific advantages of such conferences, the implementation of both four conditions for the success of the change:

• maximum awareness of employees;
• maximum of their involvement;
• integrity and synchronization of changes;
• achieve positive results.

In addition, changes are faster and perceived by employees as part of their daily activities.

Obviously, it is not always possible to attract to participate in the discussion of changes in all employees: temporary and material costs can make this task simply unreal. In this case, it should be working with as much as possible of people, to create initiative groups, a kind of "foci" for further formation of the information space. It is enough that inspiration covers 7-10% of people (of course, those who are considered with whose opinions), then there is hope for the successful implementation of the planned changes. The highest leadership must be involved, because by how committed to new goals leaders depends on the readiness to follow them from all employees. As the cotter shows, the prerequisite for success is the presence of the leader's enterprise, which meets the following qualities:

• vizier thinking;
• flair to change;
• courage to change already approved goals;
• the ability to inspire and inspire others;
• radiation of heat and humanity.

To make changes to successful, create a strong, committed changes to the coalition with the highest leadership in its composition. Without the head, the change is impossible, but the head alone is alone to carry out major organizational transformations. He needs a team of support - top and Middlemenov, high-class specialists in technical issues, good administrators and informal leaders.

John Cotter and David Conner generalize signs of such a coalition. To legitimize the change and overcome the resistance of those who could block its implementation, a sufficient number of key figures of the organization should actively support changes. The members of the leadership coalition must separate the acute dissatisfaction with the existing situation. Among people who support changes should be consent to the vision of the future.

In order for the support team to accept substantiated and rational decisions, it should include people who represent the existing different points of view. Members of the Support team must have a good reputation in the firm, use authority to listen to their opinions.

Coalition of supporters of changes should control key resources (time, money, frames), which are necessary for success, as well as a system of rewards and punishment in the organization and be ready to use both both to achieve changes in the behavior necessary for the implementation of change.

The members of the coalition should appreciate the personal sacrifices who will have to bring people to ensure that the change has happened, and show sympathy for those who lose from change, demonstrate the public to support changes and words and cases. They should hold meetings with influential persons and groups and transfer them their commitment to change, make the commitment to "participate in the long distance race". It should be understood that transformations require time and victims and that short-term actions contradict the long-term change goals need to reject.

What should this coalition be consisting of? The catter believes that "a coalition consisting of some managers is even if it is first-class managers and beautiful people - there are numerous aspirations in the field of failure." Make up the team from one single charismatic leaders and visionaries is also dangerous: they can "lose the soil under their feet." Of course, there must be in teams and visible and managers who mutually respect the abilities and skills of each other. And all this is "illuminated" by the vision of the highest leadership. This is ideal. But he is the ideal to strive for him. And in order to bring it closer, it is necessary to fulfill the condition D from the formula of successful changes: to achieve real results in work and success in the early stages of the change process.

Successful change programs begin with obvious, tangible practical results, and the sooner they appear, the better. Jan R. Katzenbach (Jon R. Katzenbach), director of the consulting company McKinsey & Company and one of the authors of the book "Real Change Leaders" ("Leaders of genuine changes") writes that one of the main problems of change programs is uncertainty or inaccurate formulation goals. Too often, the success of organizational efforts is determined by such indicators as the number of mobilized teams, the number of ideas arising, etc. It is categorically incorrect. "The objectives of the program cannot be actions. The goals should be the results of the company's activities for its consumers, employees or shareholders, "approves the catzenbach. William Pasmore emphasizes that the results should be visible: "The organization's changes primarily relate to increasing its effectiveness. The more apparently the connection between what we do, and the results, the greater energy, greater commitment, greater enthusiasm we will create in the process of change. If the connection of efforts with the results is dark, it is not obvious, then in the end we will certainly encounter resistance, apathy or we will support the support of insane marginals, i.e. we will face that we do not need at all. Instead, we should ... put the goal of improving efficiency. And then change everything that needs to be changed to achieve this result. "

Of course, if the changes are carried out in a small company, it is impossible to wait for a long time: a desired period is about 6 months. "Most people," Catter believes, "will not go to a long campaign, until the irrefutable evidence that the journey gives the expected results for 6-18 months. Without quick success, too many workers will alpath and joined the actively resisting ". Fast success helps a lot of change process. For example, they:

• give evidence that something worth sacrificing something;
• adeptons repente changes, allow them to relax and celebrate progress;
• check the viability of perspective vision and suggest how to adjust it;
• undermine the positions of opponents of change;
• help maintain support for management changes;
• inverting the inertia of the changed changes, attracting neutrally confined to its supporters.

Fast results are very convincing. The cat leads several examples of what he considers good quick success: "When an attempt of restructuring promises that the first reduction in costs will occur within twelve months, and it occurs in predicted time - this is a success. When reorganization reduces the first phase of the development cycle of the new product from ten to three months - this is a success. When quick absorption and fast integration of the newly acquired enterprise is carried out so well that Business Week publishes a laudatory article - this is a success. "

Only Donald Sally warns from a success trap, which becomes the cause of inertia companies. It brings an example of the unsuccessful transformation of Compaq Computer. It would seem that everything was done correctly: they secured the concept of transformations with specific planned tasks and solid promises to perform them by reinforced with decisive actions. Even there were good results that could be measured quantitatively. However, then the "quantitative" mentality became a trap, from which the company was no longer able to get out. Specific results and the race for the "strategic" competitor of Dell did not allow to see the new strategy of orientation on system solutions at IBM, which was the cause of the company's defeat.

The specificity of the goals and focus on the result leads, in turn, to the locality of the change. And organizations consist of interdependent parts, the complexity and interconnectedness of actually resembling a living organism. Therefore, it is very difficult to produce local changes. Even if it happens, it is unlikely that such changes will be productive. If something is changed in the organization, then ultimately have to change almost everything. As Peter Senge says: "Problems of organizations are located somewhere in the middle between environmental and personal. Why do we consider our organizations as tough structures, not as a community? .. I thought about it for more than 25 years and came to the conclusion: we need to realize that we are part of nature and inseparable from it. Look back and think why most reform attempts ended in failure? Here is the most likely explanation: companies are actually alive organisms, not by cars. " If you take this point of view, then planning changes will be much easier. In any case, the practice shows that even significant improvements in a separate area, if their further expansion does not occur, they do not lead to an improvement, but to the deterioration of general indicators in the long run.

Changes must be holistic and carried out, if possible, synchronously. In increasingly, the opinion is that a large-scale and difficult change is easier to accomplish than a small and gradual one. So consider, for example, Richard Plasteron (Richard Farson) The author of the book "Management of the Absurd: Paradoxes in Leadership" ("Control of the absurd: guide paradoxes") and James Champy (James Champy), the author of the book "Reengineering Management: The Mandate for New LEADERSHIP "(" Management of reenzyrring: the mandate of new leadership "). Both experts insist that "the larger the scale of the changes, the greater the chance of success." CHAMPI claims that if large-scale changes are started in the organization, it will inevitably arise very serious problems with the company's corporate culture, in particular, with the management style. It is these problems associated with the management of the company, in many cases make gradual changes almost impossible.

Of course, it is better to build than rebuilding, so PUTOR advises to choose an approach as a "pure sheet", which allows you to abandon old agreements regulating ways to perform work: "You can ask people to change, but if we are not able to rebuild the surrounding structures and systems, then Many old stereotypes of behavior receive a feedback, and new types of behavior remain non-substituted. Labor wage systems, management styles, official frameworks, technology, company policy - all these factors, remaining unchanged, simply contribute to the return of people into the state in which they were before the start of the change process ... We can learn how to learn people with the skills that facilitate adaptation . Or pronounce more incendiary speeches. Or once again rebuild the process. But in most cases, in fact, it is necessary to change everything at the same time - as if we construct the organization from scratch. " We should not forget that most often the crisis of the company is caused by the management of managers, and it is possible to implement the necessary changes only to refuse previous mistakes. And, as the Cotter writes, "the transformations often begin only when a newbie comes to a key position in the leader, who does not need an excuse for his actions committed in the past." The experience confirms that the top managers are very often, especially at the end of the period of their active activity, are not inclined to carry out large-scale changes. And it's not just that someone has to take responsibility for the necessary decisive actions, risks, danger, time and costs. In many cases, according to the expert, the leaders are afraid, "that they are accused of being that they themselves are the culprits of the problems that they now indicate, and therefore want to make changes." It is possible to overcome this situation by changing the approach from the problem-center-oriented problems. It is the problem-centrist approach that creates conflicts and uncertainty. Analysis of the problems is certainly necessary, but it should not turn into the search for the perpetrators, otherwise the team may lose the creative atmosphere and the necessary energy for transformation. And when approaching the problem-oriented problem, there is a conversion of problems in the target, their joint formulation. Objectives "overlap" all the well-known problems of the company. This allows you to achieve consistency of the objectives that it is necessary for a holistic transformation.

It should be noted that such measures for "awareness" of themselves and their own goals lead to the next stage of the company's development - the creation of a student organization. At this stage, as for a separate personality, changes occur consciously, which makes the process of their holding less traumatic. In fact, genuine organizational changes are impossible without learning when the organization is not just starting to do something in a new way, but the process of increasing the possibilities for future change occurs. As Peter Senge writes in the book "Dance of Changes", changing strategies, structures and systems is not enough if they do not accompany changes in thinking, generating these strategies, structures and systems. In general, the creation of a learning organization Many Guru management is considered a guarantee of success not only the implementation of changes, but also the entire life of companies. But this is the topic of a separate study.

Often, workers without visible reasons resist change. Change resistance is an installation or behavior that demonstrates reluctance to conduct or maintain changes. First of all, the changes affect the installation of each employee and cause certain, due to the reaction change ratios. One of the types of psychological protective mechanisms are stereotypespreventing the right perception of innovations. The forms of these stereotypes are such that they can ensure their carriers invulnerability from public opinion:

"We already have this":

"We will not succeed":

"It does not solve our main problems

"This requires refinement":

"Not everyone is equal here."

"There are other suggestions

The group takes attempts regardless of what makes changes by any means to maintain in the inviolability of installation and evaluation. Consequently, each external impact causes opposition within the group. This characteristic of organizations was called homeostasis.

We list a few more characteristic phrases:

"Patience and work will be perfectly" (rejection of changes);

"Let's start a new life from Monday" (delay "for later");

"Wouldn't play in the box" (uncertainty);

"The new cry has broken paralysis" (lack of implementation);

"The more paint we spend, the less believe in the fairy tales" (country

tags ineffectiveness);

"What the boss does not know, it does not suffer from that" (sabotage);

"Let's go back to the present work" (retreat).

Types of resistance to organizational changes.In order to understand the reasons why people are quite difficult to perceive changes, it is necessary to investigate the types of resistance to changes in the organization.

Resistance to workers to changes in the organization may be in the form of logical rational objections, psychological emotional attitudes, sociological factors and group interests.

Logic resistance- means disagreement of employees with facts, rational arguments, logic. It occurs on the soil of real time and the efforts necessary for adaptation to changes, including the development of new job responsibilities. These are real costs that workers carry, even though in the long run, we are talking about the changeable changes for them, and therefore, the management needs to be able to compensate them anyway.

Psychological resistance- Usually based on emotions, feelings and installations. Is internally "logical" from the point of view of employee installations andhis feelings about change. Employees may be afraid of unknown, do not trust managers, feel the threat of their safety. Even if the manager considers such feelings unjustified, they are very real, and therefore he is obliged to take them into account.

Sociological resistance- The result of the call, which changes are thrown by group interests, standards, values. Since public interest (political coalitions, trade union values \u200b\u200band various communities) is a very significant external environmental factor, management must carefully consider the attitude of various coalitions and groups to change. At the level of small groups of change, they are dangerous to the value of friendly relations and statuses of team members.

Changes implies that management has prepared to overcome all three types of resistance, especially since psychological and sociological forms are not something irrational and aloghy, and on the contrary, they meet the logic of various valuables. In specific working situations, moderate support for changes or opposition are most likely.

The task of management is to create a leadership detention situation that provides positive perception by the employees of most changes, and sense of security. Otherwise, management is forced to apply powerful powers, too frequent appeal to which are fraught with their "exhaustion".

The threat of changes can be a real or imaginary, direct or indirect, substantial or insignificant. Regardless of the nature of the change, employees seek to protect against its consequences using complaints, passive resistance, which can grow into an unauthorized absence in the workplace, sabotage and reduction of labor intensity.

Reasonsresistance may be threats to the needs of employees in safety, social relationships, status, competence or self-esteem.

Three main reasons for resistance to personnel changes:

1) uncertainty - arises with insufficient information about the consequences of changes;

2) the sense of losses - arises with the conviction that innovations reduce decision-making, formal or informal power, access to information;

3) The belief that changes will not bring the expected results.

The main cause of resistance to changes is the associated psychological costs. Changes can resist both the highest leaders of the company and linear managers, but gradually, as they perceive new goods, this opposition can go to no. Of course, not all changes are encountered on the resistance of employees, some of them are perceived in advance as desired; Other changes may be so insignificant and invisible that resistance, if it takes place at all, will be very weak. Managers must realize that the attitude to change is determined primarily how skillfully managers of the organization reduced to a minimum inevitable resistance.

Changes and feeling of threats emanating from them can provoke the occurrence of the effect of the chain reaction, i.e. Situations where the change directly relating to the individual or a small group of people leads to a direct or indirect reaction of many due to the fact that they are all interested in the development of events.

The causes of resistance change are usually:

Sensation of discomfort workers caused by nature itself

changes when employees show uncertainty in correctness

accepted technical solutions, negatively perceive

committed uncertainty;

The fear of the unknownness, the threat to the safety of their work;

Methods for making changes when employees are unhappy

The feeling of injustice officers caused by the fact that someone else receives the benefit from the changes carried out by them;

The feeling that changes will lead to personal losses, i.e. Less satisfaction of any need. Thus, workers can decide that innovations in technology, a high level of automation will lead to dismissals or violation of social relations, reduce their powers in decision-making, formal and informal power, access to information, autonomy and attractiveness of the work entrusted.

The conviction that the change is not necessary for the organization is not necessary and welcome. So, the head can decide that the proposed automated management information system is too complicated for users or that it will not produce the type of information; It can also solve that the problem affects not only its functional area, but also the other - so let it be changed in the division.

Thus, starting to implement the intended change in the team, the manager must first determine whether they will cause resistance that it will be for resistance and how to change its line of behavior to overcome or eliminate it. Experience shows that most often the resistance of employees in innovations occurs in cases when:

1) People are not explained by the goals of change. Mystery and ambiguity always give rise to unknown and anxiety. The afraid of the unknown can configure employees hostile to a new one not to a lesser extent than the essence of this new. In general, people resist general reforms much more than frequent changes in the work process;

2) Employees themselves did not participate in the planning of these changes. People tend to support any reforms if they participated in their preparation - after all, everyone is ready to follow their own recommendations;

3) Reforms are motivated by personal reasons. So, the head who asks to help an employee to process documents can be sure that others will immediately have questions about what this employee will give up and why it is necessary to help him. Solidarity is a wonderful feature, but only a few are capable of something personally and agree on innovations by virtue of this feeling. People need to make sure that it really helps solve the problem, achieve the desired goal, and they benefit;

4) ignore the traditions of the team and the familiar style for it, the mode of operation. Many other formal and informal groups will persistently resist innovations that threaten their familiar relations;

5) The subordinate seems that an error is made in preparing the reforms. This feeling is particularly enhanced if people suspect that the threat of a salary reduction, a decrease in position or loss of the leader's location;

6) Perestroika threatens a subordinate increasing increase in the amount of work. Such a threat arises if the manager did not bother to schedule changes fairly in advance;

7) People seem to be that everything is fine ("no need to stick out," "Why to substitute the neck for a blow," "We have never been so good for now," the "initiative is punishable", etc.);

8) the initiator of reforms is not respected, has no authority. Unfortunately, antipathy to the author of the project is unconsciously postponed on its proposals, regardless of their true value;

9) When planning reforms, the team does not see the final result (what will this collective?);

10) the employee does not know what his personal benefit will be;

11) Subordinate does not feel confidence, the conviction of the head;

12) reforms are offered and carried out in a categorical form, using administrative methods;

13) the innovation may entail the reduction of states;

14) people believe that changes can lead to violations of the principle of social justice;

15) in the team do not know what it will cost (costs, efforts);

16) the reform does not bring rapid results;

17) reforms will bring good to a narrow circle of persons;

18) The course of reform is rarely discussed in the team;

19) there is no confidence in the team;

20) under the guise of reform actually offer old, not justified by themselves;

21) Inside the team there are powerful groups of people who are satisfied with the old, current position (group egoism);

22) unsuccessful examples of such reform are known;

23) The informal team leader is configured against change.

It must be said about the advantages of resistance to change. In certain situations, it leads to the fact that management once again carefully analyzes the proposed plans, assessing their adequacy of the real situation. Employees act as part of the reality control system and equilibrium maintenance. Resistance can help identify specific problem areas, give the manager information about the installations of employees on certain issues, and employees - the ability to spill out emotions and encourage them to aware of the essence of the change.

The methods of overcoming resistance to organizational changes are: providing information, participation and involvement, negotiations and agreements, manipulation, coercion.

1) education and information transfer - open discussion of ideas and events, which will help the staff to make sure that it is necessary to change before they are carried out;

2) attracting subordinates to decision-making. Gives the opportunity to personnel, which can resist, to express its attitude to innovations;

3) relief and support - funds with which the staff is easier to fit into a new environment. Additional training and professional training will be possible so that it can cope with the new requirements;

4) material and moral stimulation. Includes improving wages, commitment not to dismiss employees, etc.;

5) Cooperation. Means providing a person who has resistances leading the role in making decisions on the introduction of innovations;

6) maneuvering - selective use of information provided to employees, drawing up a clear schedule of activities;

7) the phase of transformation, which gives the possibility of gradually addiction to new conditions;

8) Forcing - a threat to deprive work, promotion, increase professional qualifications, wages, appointment to a new position.