Change is Here to Stay  ⚓︎

If today’s workplaces are to survive and prosper into the future, change must be accepted as a normal part of life. The drivers of organisational change are now many and varied. They are also constantly increasing, due to influences such as globalisation, competitive pressures, political and economic developments and ongoing technological improvements. As a result, ‘change management’ covers a host of initiatives, including mergers and acquisitions, restructuring, entering new markets, developing new products and services, introducing new technology, changing organisational processes, upskilling, upsizing, downsizing and the re-organisation of work.

Of necessity, Human Resource professionals are at the heart of change initiatives. However, according to the Irish Economic and Social Research Institute’s (ESRI) 2016 study, their measures have little impact on worker resistance to change.
Of course this problem was spotted centuries ago by the philosopher Machiavelli, who observed that the trouble with change is that there is nothing ‘more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things’. He also observed the difficulty posed by enemies of change who ‘profit by the old order’, and resist any new order. 

Employee Resistance and the Law ⚓︎

Employee resistance is the most common problem faced by management when implementing change. Such resistance frequently manifests itself in an appearance at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) or the Labour Court, though it spans a continuum, from passive withdrawal from the process to actively sabotaging the change, thus ensuring its failure.

Of course, in general, changes cannot be made to employees’ terms and conditions of employment without their consent. Many employment contracts contain a ‘variation’ or ‘mobility’ clause that may allow amendments to be made to the contract without the employees’ consent. However, these clauses are limited in that they will only allow the employer to make reasonable changes to non-material terms and conditions.

Hence, for example, if an employer fails to engage or consult in respect of the change, an employee could resign and claim constructive dismissal. The claim would be that the organisation acted unreasonably and/or that the organisation breached their contracts of employment by amending the terms without consent. Should consent be sought but not forthcoming, an organisation would find it difficult at that stage to proceed with the changes across the board. In reality, dissenting employees would need to be ‘red circled’. An employee could also technically apply to the civil courts seeking an injunction preventing the changes being made without consent and/or seeking declaratory relief (i.e. a declaration that the company has acted in breach of contract). If an employee suffers any damage as a result of the company’s actions, they could also claim damages for breach of contract.

In deciding on these claims, the WRC will usually examine the extent to which the employer acted reasonably by engaging and/or consulting with staff and whether the employees’ consent was unreasonably withheld.

The range of reasons for employee resistance includes:

• People are satisfied with or prefer the ‘status quo’ to an unknown alternative.
• The change is seen as a personal threat.
• The cost of the change seems to outweigh the benefit and the change isn’t going to be a success anyway.
• Management are perceived to be making a mess of the change.

Related thereto, organisational change is often associated with significant risks to employees’ health and is equated with high levels of stress. Hence, it should be no surprise that all of the effective ‘change models’ acknowledge that:

• People take time to accept change.
• They experience a psychological and emotional process in doing so.
• During this process, feelings of emotional distress, helplessness and meaninglessness are common.
• Employees eventually accept the change(s) and may even find meaning in their revised role\setting.

However, it is also well known that many change initiatives fail to achieve their objectives, as they are undermined by employee sabotage, falling morale, lost productivity or industrial action. Hence to enhance the prospect of successful change, the following guidelines warrant consideration:

Specify your 'Change' Objectives ⚓︎

At the outset of the process list the objectives of the change programme. This list of Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time-bound (SMART) objectives should be framed in terms of both business and employee outcomes. What are the perceived advantages of the change programme? What are the assessment criteria? What are the productivity\service targets? What are the employee engagement\ satisfaction level targets?

Involve Employees/Unions from the Outset ⚓︎

Research confirms that the best way to avoid negative consequences is to involve staff in the decision making from the very outset. Related thereto, empirical research reveals that good communication increases acceptance, openness and commitment to change. This is the most likely method through which trust between parties can be maintained. For example, in a unionised environment, it normally helps to involve the workforce’s representatives in the process. 

It is also true that a deeper strategy of participation allows for an array of options and opinions to be elicited and considered. This enhances the prospect of superior diagnostic and prescriptive processes, as ultimately the changes decided upon are better and their implementation smoother. By being involved, employees are more likely to understand the rationale for and to influence the nature of the change, thus reducing their anxiety and resistance levels.

A common approach is to clearly outline the business case for (and inevitability of) change and to invite the union representatives to help in the search for a solution. This has merit in helping to minimise any negative fallout that would accompany a process that simply tells employees that their terms and conditions (and job security) are under review. By engaging the union's support in creating both clear business and people objectives the change path should be smoother and completed more quickly. For example, a practical product from such a process may include supporting\financing individuals facing redundancy in finding new employment or developing new skills. For those employees opting to leave, the provision of career transition support to help them identify other employers and roles where they can add value will ensure they feel supported in moving on, protect the employer's reputation and minimise the prospect of them becoming disengaged and\or disruptive.

Of course, in these circumstances, some organisations take what’s termed the ‘co-optation’ route, where they pay off the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a key role, seek their advice to enable their approval and emphasise the value placed on their opinions. This is largely a ‘needs must’ combination of ‘manipulation’ and ‘participation’. In a similar vein, some organisations prefer to progress change via coercion, as they apply direct threats or force on the resisters (e.g. threats of redundancy, transfer, loss of promotion, negative performance appraisals, a bad reference). Dimensions of this approach were identified in the aforementioned ESRI study, which found that employers who faced employee resistance were more likely to increase their use of part-time workers and job rotation techniques.
However, the fall-out from such a strategy should be carefully considered (e.g. reduced trust levels, declining morale and productivity, labour turnover).

Tune into the Employees ⚓︎

Whilst engaging key staff (and if applicable their union representatives) is essential, the prospect of success is likely to be significantly enhanced via a good overall communications’ exercise. By extending the communication across all areas and levels, misinformation and misinterpretation can be minimised. Hence, fora should be provided where staff are encouraged to share their concerns and be listened to. By encouraging questions, listening to and reflecting appropriately thereon, staff concerns can be allayed as they gain a better understanding of the necessity and format of the change – and how their issues are being addressed in the new order.

Success in implementing change is normally associated with those who must live or give effect to the change. Therefore it’s important to view the change process through the eyes of the most crucial participants to the process, including the managers who establish the priorities, devise the strategies, control the resources and manage the performance levels. Should the organisation fail to realise the full value of a change initiative or survivors' resentment result in staff turnover and declining productivity, staff (incl.  management) should be furnished with an opportunity to vent their frustration. Yet again, the appropriate response is to listen to concerns and think constructively and creatively – rather than defensively - about how to respond to them.

Where the change initiative involves job restructuring processes and tasks, employee fears re. their capability in the new order can cause unnecessary stress and reduced productivity, even far in advance of the change taking effect. Hence a strategic approach, enabling the required training and education programmes, should be in place before the changeover. Employees need to know what is happening, why it is happening and how it will impact on them. This has major implications for communication, training and follow-up with staff. At the most fundamental level, this is about helping them to view or redefine their value in terms of the range of skills\competencies that they have to offer and to find opportunities for deploying their abilities.

Select Leaders and Support Mangaers ⚓︎

Some organisations recognise that there are proactive and open-minded managers and staff who embrace change willingly and effectively. Their identification and engagement throughout and at various levels of the entity can help ensure that it’s not perceived as just a ‘top down’ or executive onslaught.  However, one cannot assume that managers (or other employees) who were previously considered competent will automatically have the requisite skills to deliver the necessary change. This is where the fruits of effective training, succession planning and coaching services kick in, ultimately serving to meet the organisation’s need to change. 

Key Points ⚓︎

• Set SMART business and human resource\people objectives for the change management programme. Consider the selection of appropriate ‘change leaders\agents’.
• Invite various levels of the management team, other key staff and\or union representatives to diagnose the relevant problem(s) necessitating change and to prescribe the solution(s).
• Help staff to view their value in terms of their full range of competencies\skills and if necessary to develop the competencies associated with the change process.
• Assist those experiencing fear and stress at the prospect of change. Let them vent their concerns\issues, listen and enable a supportive, participative and responsive process.