Skip to main content.

Technical Affairs

by Mike Aamodt, Associate Editor

This month's column will contain a relatively short answer to an ACN reader's question about organizational change as well as another attempt at humor. The Redneck Interviewer Test in the previous issue went over so well that I even got a letter from Theodore Kaczynski, though I haven't had the chance to open it yet. If you have a technical question you want answered, don't hesitate to submit it via email (maamodt@runet.edu) or fax (540) 831-6113.

Question:

Our agency has recently undergone major changes due to a restructuring plan ordered by the Governor. It seems as if none of the employees are happy with the changes. Is this normal, and could we have done something prior to the change to make things easier?

Answer:

Whew! It would take a book to properly answer this question, and Beverly won't allocate that many pages to me (Which is a good thing because I don't know enough about the topic to fill a book). So, let me give you some "essentials." To answer your first question, resisting change is certainly common — not only in organizations, but in every aspect of life.

One component that affects employee acceptance is the reason for the organizational change. Change can be the result of:

Initially, employees will resist change but they will eventually accept the change as a normal part of life. The more reasonable and clear the purpose of the change, the greater the level of employee acceptance. Employees might grumble about externally mandated change but will accept the change as inevitable. Staff might fear the change associated with organizational improvement, but will accept changes that are seen as realistically able to improve the organization. Employees will accept changes in organizational philosophy if they trust the leader. But employees will not easily accept change-for-the-sake-of-change, change occurring because "everyone else is doing it," or changes that are made for unclear reasons.

Are there things that can be done to increase acceptance of change? Yes, there are a number of factors that affect employees' acceptance of change.

The Person Suggesting The Change

Employees are more likely to accept change when the "change agent" is a person or organization they like and/or respect. No matter how good the idea, Democrats are not likely to accept changes suggested by Newt Gingrich nor are Republicans likely to accept changes suggested by Ted Kennedy. Likewise, an unpopular agency head, city manager, or governor might have great ideas, but their unpopularity will keep their ideas from fully being accepted.

Employees also look at the motive behind the change. If the change benefits the "change agent" more than others in the organization, acceptance will be more difficult. I can think of a particular incident in which a public agency was forced out of their building and began the process of finding a new home. Although, there were several suitable locations in the area, the one chosen by the three top administrators was the second most expensive and the least convenient both for the employees and the agency's clients. The primary advantage of the chosen building was that it would be only a five minute commute for the three administrators.

This situation provides a good example of the importance of motive because the employees did not like the thought of changing buildings but initially accepted the change as it resulted from an external decision over which they had no control. Furthermore, the employees were not enamored with their current building (or "digs" as our colleagues in California might say), and the move could potentially have been to a better building and/or location. However, the employees' reaction to the change quickly became hostile when they took into account the perceived motive behind the choice of locations.

Employee Input Into the Change

In general, employees will better accept change if they have input into the type, timing, and scope of the change. The phrase "in general" was used for two reasons. One, some employees either don't want the responsibility associated with providing input or really don't care about the outcome. Thus, providing input should be optional. Two, "empowering" employees by seeking their input is a double-edged sword. Morale and acceptance of change can be increased by utilizing employee input. However, asking for employee input and then ignoring it will decrease morale and delay acceptance of change. I can think of a demoralized organization that appointed a new president following the ouster of a very unpopular incumbent. Prior to taking over, the new president formed several employee committees to recommend changes in key policies affecting the organization. The employees were excited that their new leader valued their opinions and even more excited about the possibility for meaningful change. Their positive spirits were quickly dampened when the president chose not to implement any of the suggestions. Further, he didn't tell them why he didn't use any of their ideas. The morale of the organization is now lower than it has been in a decade.

How the Change Will be Implemented

The way in which change is implemented is every bit as important as the change itself. Perhaps the most important component in implementing change is communication. It is essential to communicate the nature of the change as well the reasons behind the change. An excellent example of this failure to communicate took place within a State operated university system. The Governor told each university to restructure and that failure to properly restructure would result in a decrease in funds. Each university quickly established a committee to oversee the restructuring process and a year or so later submitted their plans to the Governor. The plans of three of the universities were subsequently rejected because they did not address the issues intended by the Governor.

Why did the three universities "fail" and the other ten or so "pass?" Part of the explanation is that the successful universities took the time to meet with the Governor's staff to understand the reasons behind the restructuring, the Governor's intended goal, and the Governor's expectations. The three "failures" determined their own meaning of restructuring, definitions that apparently were very different from those of the Governor. The story becomes very complicated and full of intrigue (well, not really but I have a boring life and an active imagination). The important point, however, is that the idea behind the Governor's restructuring was excellent. His empowering of the universities to determine the process (but not the goal) of their restructuring was good, but poor communication in explaining the expected changes resulted in disaster for three universities that are now a little lighter in the pocket.

I hope the preceding paragraphs answered your question by providing some basic insight into change. A good short source of information about how employees should handle change is A Survival Guide to The Stress of Organizational Change by Price Pritchett and Ron Pound. The booklet is 36 pages long, easy to read, and costs about $6.00 per copy. Information about this booklet can be obtained by calling (800) 992-5922.

Mike's Top 10 Stupid Interviewer Tricks

The following list contains actual interviewer practices pulled from a variety of published and unpublished sources. Such practices are comical, but the fact that they are actually used underscores the importance of a good job related structured interview. If you have any "gems" to pass on, please send them to me via email at maamodt@runet.edu and I will add them to future lists.

10.
A manager at Wells Fargo won't hire MBA's who take more than 60 seconds to scan the menu at lunch
9.
A CEO won't hire applicants who salted their food before tasting it
8.
Holiday Inn doesn't hire applicants who smile less than four times during the interview
7.
An HR professional doesn't hire applicants who don't have the back of their shoes properly shined
6.
An auto insurance executive deducts points for education because he doesn't "want the valedictorian," he wants "the kid who sold cigarettes in the bathroom"
5.
An HR manager asks applicants about their favorite book or movie
4.
A town manager likes to leave the room, not come back, and then wait to see how long an applicant will wait before leaving
3.
An HR recruiter asks applicants "If you could be an animal, what would you be?"
2.
A local school superintendent deducts points if an applicant has hair in his ears or nails that are not well manicured
1.
Any interviewer who turns down a Radford University graduate

(Editor's Note: unless of course the Radford grad lists Dr. Mike Aamodt as a reference…Sorry, Mike, I couldn't resist.)

 

© Copyright 1996 by the IPMA Assessment Council. All rights reserved.