BUSI 335 Week 4 Discussion Board Forum 2 Replies Example

Discussion Board Forum 2 Replies: Responding to Classmates on Resistance to Change

BUSI 335 Leading Change, Discussion Board Forum 2 Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The classmates and their threads are composites; the research cited is real, and the replies are written in the third person as the guide requires.

Reply to Kevin

Kevin's thread argued that resistance to the hospital's new scheduling system came mainly from employees who are naturally resistant to change, and the description of long-tenured nurses who disliked any new procedure was vivid. Personality does play a role, but research suggests it is only part of the story.

Oreg (2006) studied employees during a major organizational change and measured both their dispositional resistance to change, a personality trait, and features of the change context. Dispositional resistance was related to employees' reactions, but contextual factors also mattered substantially. Trust in management, the amount of information employees received and the change's expected effects on their power, prestige and job security were all related to resistance. In other words, the same employee might resist one change and accept another, depending on how it was introduced.

That finding suggests the hospital could reduce resistance without changing the people involved. If the nurses trusted managers' reasons, received clear information about how schedules would be built and saw that the system would not reduce their control over shifts, resistance might fall even among those inclined to resist.

The study also helps explain why resistance in Kevin's example seemed concentrated among long-tenured nurses. Employees with the most experience often have the most control over their current schedules, so a new system threatens to take away something they value. That is a contextual concern, not a personality flaw, and it can be addressed by protecting seniority in the new rules.

Which contextual factor does Kevin's example suggest was weakest at the hospital: trust, information or the expected consequences of the change?

Reply to Alyssa

Alyssa's thread described resistance as the main obstacle that managers must overcome in the bank's branch consolidation and recommended stronger communication from leadership. Communication matters, but research suggests looking at resistance from another angle.

Ford et al. (2008) argued that much of the change literature has told only one side of the story, treating resistance as something irrational that resides in recipients. They proposed that change agents contribute to resistance through their own actions, such as breaking agreements, failing to restore trust and communicating poorly, and that resistance can also be a resource. Objections from employees can reveal problems with a plan, raise legitimate concerns and keep the change on the agenda.

Applied to the bank, this suggests asking what branch employees' objections reveal. If tellers warn that elderly customers cannot easily reach the remaining branches, that resistance may point to a real flaw worth fixing, such as offering mobile banking help or a transport service, rather than a barrier to push through.

Treating objections as information does not mean every objection should stop the change. It means sorting concerns that reveal flaws from concerns that reflect discomfort, and answering both honestly.

Did the bank's leaders in Alyssa's example ever ask what the resisting employees knew that they did not?

References

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247