Resistance to change: enemy or ally?

The recent spate of acquisitions, redundancies and CEO sackings ensure that change is an inevitability for many organizations. However, nearly two-thirds of majorchanges are unsuccessful and, according to Fortune 500 executives, the primary reason for this is not a lack of skill or resources, but resistance. Resistance to changetakes a look at this relatively unexplored issue.One-half to two-thirds of all major corporate change programs fail. These are frightening figures considering the increasingly turbulent business climate that we operate in.Change fails for a variety of reasons - as with many concepts there is no "silver bullet" with which to address difficulties brought about by change. However, our focus here is the littlerecognized yet critically important contributor to change failure - resistance.Resistance definedIn an organizational setting, resistance is an expression of reservation which normally arises as a response or reaction to change. Management often interpret this as any actionsperceived as attempting to stop or alter change.Traditional management thinking views resistance as the enemy - the foe to be quashed at all cost.Resistance as an enemy* During the 1940s, management theorists considered unity of purpose to be the hallmark of a technically efficient and superior organization. Resistance was therefore understood to be detracting from the proficiency of the organization, and quickly became the enemy of change.* Early HR theory portrayed resistance as a negative consequence and saw it to be a conflict indicative of a breakdown in the normal interactions that can exist between individuals and group.Understanding resistanceHowever, as the psychological, sociological and anthropological disciplines became more prominent in management, these opinions on resistance became challenged. Before long itbecame clear that resistance was in fact a far more complex phenomenon than once thought, and was a function of several factors:RationalResistance can occur where an individual's own rational assessment of change outcomes differ with those of managementNon-rationalIndividual reaction to change is also a function of predispositions and preferences not necessarily based on a rational assessment of changePoliticalResistance is also influenced by political factors such as favouritism or "point scoring" against those initiating the change.ManagementPoor management styles also contribute to resistanceA consensus of opinion began to develop which suggested that resistance should not be approached in an adversarial way as it can play a useful role in organizational change efforts.Resistance as an allyAs we have discussed, that resistance can play a useful role in organizational change certainly stands juxtaposed to a traditional mindset that would view it as nothing more than anobstacle. However a variety of authors subscribe to this view and believe that resistance can assist the change effort.* It is a fallacy to consider change itself to be inherently good. Change can only be evaulated through its consequences and these cannot be known until sufficient time has elapsed* Resistance can help to balance the pressure of the internal and external environments encouraging change against the need for stability and constancy. The challenge therefore becomes a matter of finding the perfect balance between change and stability; avoiding the dysfunctionality of too much change while ensuring stability does not become stagnation* People resist the uncertainties that change can cause and for this reason resistance plays a crucial role in drawing attention to the potential pitfalls of a change initiative. After all, because management has proposed a change does this automatically mean it is the correct way to proceed? Perhaps not, as many management decisions are non-rational and fail to generate enough alternative solutions without the input of others* Resistance adds an influx of energy to the change process. There is a real danger of apathy when there is a need for growth and development. Where resistance occurs, it is possible to examine more closely the problems that exist* Resistance encourages a search for alternative, perhaps superior methods and outcomes in order to synthesize the conflicting opinions being observed. Thus resistance becomes a useful source of innovation* Without resistance there is the danger of proposals being accepted simply because they are favoured by management. This can be detrimental as an organization' s change will be limited to the prescriptive capabilities of those proposing the changeManging resistanceFor over 60 years the widely shared belief is that participative techniques are the best method of handling resistance. Quite logically, this is because involvement throughout a changeprogram will lead to greater commitment on behalf of those directly affected."Industrial progress finds one of its greatest handicaps in the frequent resistance of both management and workers to change of any sort" (McNurry, 1973)However, most participative techniques meet resistance with resistance and attempt to "share" information by confronting resistors with data and reports which in fact resemble anexercise in salesmanship rather than participation.ConclusionsResistance is a complex entity that directly affects the outcomes of change, both positively and negatively. To this day it still appears to be the case that the classical adversarialapproach remains the dominant means of managing resistance.The evidence presented here seems to suggest that resistance management may improve if this classical approach is replaced by one that recognizes the potential benefits ofresistance.Management ImplicationsAre you a manager who is currently proposing or involved with a change initiative? If so there a several key points to bear in mind:* Resistance is not the enemy. It is much more complex than it may first appear. Make sure you fully understand the reasons why it exists in your situation (refer to the four factors of understanding resistance) and persevere in your attempts to get to the bottom of them* Yes you are a manager, but does this in itself mean that you have all the answers? It may be of greater value in the long run to utilize the talents and energies of your staff so that as a team you can work towards fully achieving the objectives of your change program* If your workplace is marked by passivity or apathy, implementing change will be a difficult task. Resistance and conflict brings with it the energy or motivation to seriously address the problem(s) at hand* Encourage true participation in change. By involving employees and providing the opportunity to give feedback, many difficulties can be overcome and the overall outcome is far more likely to be beneficial than if a half-hearted "salesmanship" attempt at participation is usedDianne Waddell and Amrik S. Sohal of the Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Article Source: http: www.forcefulmentality.blogspot.com

"Recycling - The Big Picture" article in National Geographic Magazine

, Jan 2008, by Tom Zeller Jr.
Link:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2008-01/high-tech-trash/recycling-text.html
Photograph by Peter Essick
Recycling: The Big Picture
Does it make sense to recycle?
The short answer is: Yes.
True, some critics wonder whether mandatory programs are a net benefit, since they can require more trucks consuming energy and belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
"You don't want a large truck carrying around just a few bottles," concedes Matthew Hale, director of EPA's Office of Solid Waste. But, he notes, most cities are getting better at reducing the environmental costs of recycling. (They're also working to reduce the economic costs. Many recycling programs still cost more to run than they bring in when they sell the recyclable materials back to manufacturers.)
Consider the true cost of a product over its entire life—from harvesting the raw materials to creating, consuming, and disposing of it—and the scale tips dramatically in recycling's favor. Every shrink-wrapped toy or tool or medical device we buy bears the stamp of its energy-intensive history: mountains of ore that have been mined (bauxite, say, for aluminum cans), coal plants and oil refineries, railcars, assembly lines. A product's true cost includes greenhouse gases emitted in its creation as well as use, and pollutants that cause acid rain, smog, and fouled waterways.
Recycling—substituting scrap for virgin materials—not only conserves natural esources and reduces the amount of waste that must be burned or buried, it also reduces pollution and the demand for energy. "You get tremendous Btu savings," Hale says.
In an international study published last year by the Waste & Resources Action Programme, a British group, researchers compared more than 180 municipal waste management systems. Recycling proved better for the environment than burying or burning waste in 83 percent of the cases.
It makes sense to reuse products, of course, and to reduce consumption altogether, as well as to improve initial product design. But given the rising mounds of waste worldwide, it also makes sense to recycle.
What Gets Recycled in the U.S.
It depends on the markets.
Whether or not a particular material is recycled depends on a number of factors, but the most fundamental question is this: Is there a market for it? Markets for some materials, like car batteries, are highly developed and efficient—not least because strict regulations govern their disposal—and a mature recycling infrastructure has grown up as a result. About 90 percent of all lead-acid batteries are recycled, according to the EPA. Steel recycling, too, has been around for decades, while formalized recycling of yard trimmings has not. Despite the explosive growth of plastics—particularly for use in beverage containers—that industry has been slow to develop recycling infrastructure, with most plastic still going to incinerators or landfills.
Excess Packaging
Taking Charge of Discards
Higher hygiene standards, smaller households, intense brand marketing, and the rise of ready-made meals have all contributed to an increase in packaging waste, but international trade may be the biggest factor.
Even simple items like bottles of water now routinely crisscross the globe, meaning that thirst for a few swallows of "product" can generate not just plastic bottles, but also a large amount of other packaging debris—from wrapping film to bin liners to shipping crates.
So far, Europe has led the world in recycling packaging materials—principally through the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive of 1994. The EU directive calls for manufacturers, retailers, and others in the product chain to share the recycling burden.
With the exception of hazardous wastes, the United States has been slower to embrace the concept of "extended producer responsibility," as the idea is known, according to Bill Sheehan, director of the Product Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Athens, Georgia. Some municipalities, however, are starting to demand that businesses help cover the costs of recycling.
"Otherwise," Sheehan says, we are "just stimulating the production of more stuff."
Subscribe to National Geographic magazine.