How should leaders deal with a multitude of stakeholder interests, which are based on different values and worldviews?
Change Management
The initial attitude towards resistance is one of negativity. It is usually viewed as a burden to management when related to change in that particular environment due to the possible conflict it may cause, and the perhaps negative change that it may result in, therefore portraying them as a bad manager.
The immediate harmony of a company in the short term is always the easier choice for management, avoiding resistance, which is the function of a variety of social factors including rationale factors, non-rationale factors, political factors and management factors.
However, resistance should not be approached adversarially as it can play a key and useful role in an organisation change effort. It is something that can be used constructively. As human beings it is in our instinct to avoid change, as we are comfortable. Nevertheless, we should consider change to be inherently good as it can only be evaluated by its consequences.
In order to move forward as an organisation it is important for change to be accepted. Without resistance that would not be a possible option. Granted this may be a risk, but in this modern day and age risks are complimentary to success. However having said that, the challenge is to find the right balance between change and stability: avoiding the dysfunctionality of too much change while ensuring stability does not become stagnation.
Furthermore resistance can behave as a motivational factor when addressing a potential problem at hand, that otherwise would have become transparent, resulting in a much more serious problem in the future. Bringing out the energy in rivaling parties, resistance can also spark a debate, which encourages participative techniques (the best method of handling resistance) and also the search for alternative and more efficient methods in order to synthesise the conflicting opinions.
In conclusion, the view that resistance is the enemy of change is still a very prominent opinion amongst
The initial attitude towards resistance is one of negativity. It is usually viewed as a burden to management when related to change in that particular environment due to the possible conflict it may cause, and the perhaps negative change that it may result in, therefore portraying them as a bad manager.
The immediate harmony of a company in the short term is always the easier choice for management, avoiding resistance, which is the function of a variety of social factors including rationale factors, non-rationale factors, political factors and management factors.
However, resistance should not be approached adversarially as it can play a key and useful role in an organisation change effort. It is something that can be used constructively. As human beings it is in our instinct to avoid change, as we are comfortable. Nevertheless, we should consider change to be inherently good as it can only be evaluated by its consequences.
In order to move forward as an organisation it is important for change to be accepted. Without resistance that would not be a possible option. Granted this may be a risk, but in this modern day and age risks are complimentary to success. However having said that, the challenge is to find the right balance between change and stability: avoiding the dysfunctionality of too much change while ensuring stability does not become stagnation.
Furthermore resistance can behave as a motivational factor when addressing a potential problem at hand, that otherwise would have become transparent, resulting in a much more serious problem in the future. Bringing out the energy in rivaling parties, resistance can also spark a debate, which encourages participative techniques (the best method of handling resistance) and also the search for alternative and more efficient methods in order to synthesise the conflicting opinions.
In conclusion, the view that resistance is the enemy of change is still a very prominent opinion amongst