Abstract
Managers and employees alike understand the inevitability of change in an organization. However, this knowledge only makes people readily embrace the necessary transformations because humans love maintaining balance. Thus, any interference with their schedule appears as an interruption they must resist. In his famous three-stage model, Kurt Lewin recognizes the employees’ need to nurture a state of homeostasis. The unfreezing-changing-refreezing steps can help leaders navigate the turmoil of introducing a new concept in the company. There are various strategies managers can use to address the beneficiaries of resistance during the transformation.
Introduction
All organizations, regardless of size, industry, or age, experience planned change. The current ecosphere of a fast-paced world, characterized by constant digital evolution, multiculturalism, and the need for globalization, forces companies to review and adjust their strategies to meet market needs continually. Yet whenever there is some shift from the status quo, resistance is likely.
It is the task of leaders to defeat the beneficiaries of the existing conditions and to portray a better future for all stakeholders. Kurt Lewin’s model offers leaders a three-phase roadmap to increase their success probability. Although many individuals are averse to change, managers can use tactics such as guidance, behavioral discipline, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, willpower, and transformative skills to overcome the barriers to the status quo.
Effective and Consistent Communication
Many resist transitions due to the uncertainties and perceived threats to their comfort. The issue is exacerbated if there is no clear direction on expectations or duties, and no clear reason. Hence, it is paramount for managers to be active and compatible, thereby improving employees’ performance (Hussain et al., 2018). One way to take on this role is to lead in explaining to all individuals the need and rationale for doing things differently. At this stage, there should be the freedom to ask questions and receive satisfying responses. The aim is to make everyone see and embrace the need for the proposal while reducing their resistance.
Understanding the intentions lays the right groundwork for unfreezing current practices. Lewin’s framework, also known as “changing as a three-step” process, is based on the need for accordance. (Cummings et al., 2016). The analogy shows that it is necessary to make the liquid ice more responsive to shaping into the desired shape. It relates closely to the draw-check-change, as both advocate proper review before the final stage is solidified (Endrejat & Burnes, 2022). The information relayed must be congruent to help others see the uniformity and understand their role in the eternity of the process. Any form of confusion at this stage is likely to create havoc and complicate the desire to embrace the new adjustments.
Behavioral Discipline
The conduct of all stakeholders throughout the change process is a significant predictor of success or failure. It is essential to foster a positive outlook and commitment to the transition among subordinates so their actions do not sabotage the exercise (Bakari et al., 2017). Some issues, such as boycotting duties, strikes, murmuring, and discouraging others, can make the manager’s task harder. Such misconduct should be addressed wisely and promptly to ensure a calm atmosphere.
Discipline is a non-reducible minimum, even for employees who do not perceive the change as beneficial. The manager plays a role in shaping a meaningful environment and improving workers’ self-esteem to foster positive behavior (Bakari et al., 2017). Everyone should have the liberty and the means to raise their concerns, questions, and doubts without fear. The result is that when there is an issue, people can communicate and get clarity rather than resort to aversive conduct.
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation
One way to combat hardening towards a shift in organizational activity is to increase people’s self-drive. One study found that internal force is enhanced by increasing employees’ satisfaction and performance (Hussain et al., 2018). Managers should strive to uphold their subordinates’ efficacy by ensuring they are valuable. A sense of belonging and a sense of being part of something greater can help a person accept any adjustment. Moreover, each stakeholder should have clear information on the results and how they will fit in after the refreezing stage.
Furthermore, offering people incentives can go a long way in meeting the need to support the status quo. Notably, regardless of preparation, there will always be the “old-guard,” which creates barriers by clinging to familiar practices (McLaren et al., 2023). Awarding those who seem to show interest and follow through the adjustment process provides the needed stimulation to embrace the recently developed mechanisms. The skeptics can then view how others who are making the transition smoothly receive awards and decide to follow through with the procedure.
Understanding Human Resource
The will is an essential tool in the followers’ intention to offer support or to remain lax in abiding by the instructions. It is dangerous for the leadership to underestimate workers’ will and proceed with their proposal without the backing of the majority (Onimole, 2017). In most cases, an organization’s success or failure is directly related to workers’ attitudes. The innovations should be desirable and beneficial to a greater percentage of stakeholders in the long term (Lin et al., 2017). If managers notice a negative perspective, their role is to help adjust it before attempting to integrate any form of transition.
Transformative Leadership
Subordinates are always willing to trust someone confident in their skills. The implication is that the supervisor must take the forefront in guiding others on their to-do list. One study shows that the generalized outlook towards authority and justice significantly impacts the local egalitarian power structure (Wu & Paluck, 2020). Subordinates can lose faith in their leaders if they are not solid and reliable. However, if they perceive that the example given is sufficient and worth acting on, it will be easier for them to accept the changes.
The doubt can manifest as an emotional bias against the administrator. For instance, developing nations exhibit resistance to automation due to fears about job security (Almatrodi & Alojail, 2023). Failure is inevitable if someone with similar concerns about technology taking up their occupation gets the leading role while publicly displaying their mistrust.
One study affirms that the authority’s social position is a relevant predictor of the nature and magnitude of resistance to breaking the status quo (Battilana, 2011). An expert must be the first to embrace transitions. In this case, others can try mechanization after seeing the advantages of digitalization.
Conclusion
The leaders can use various tactics to ensure minimal barriers to change using Lewin’s framework. Remaining congruent and clearly explaining intentions to all stakeholders is the first stage of unfreezing. Throughout the other steps, it is vital to remain an example while encouraging others to have a positive outlook and strive to achieve the desired transitions. Moreover, understanding the people’s attitude can help ensure that everyone is prepared and working towards the same objective.
References
Almatrodi, I., Li, F., & Alojail, M. (2023). Organizational resistance to automation success: how status quo bias influences organizational resistance to an automated workflow system in a public organization. Systems (Basel), 11(4), 1-22.
Bakari, H., Hunjra, A. I., & Niazi, G. S. K. (2017). How does authentic leadership influence planned organizational change? The role of employees’ perceptions: integration of theory of planned behavior and Lewin’s three step model. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 155–187.
Battilana, J. (2011). The enabling role of social position in diverging from the institutional status quo: Evidence from the UK national health service. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.), 22(4), 817–834.
Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations (New York), 69(1), 33–60.
Endrejat, P. C., & Burnes, B. (2022). Draw it, check it, change it: reviving Lewin’s topology to facilitate organizational change theory and practice. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018). Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 123–127.
Lin, H., Chen, M., & Su, J. (2017). How management innovations are successfully implemented? An organizational routines’ perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(4), 456–486.
McLaren, T. A. S., van der Hoorn, B., & Fein, E. C. (2023). Why vilifying the status quo can derail a change effort: Kotter’s contradiction, and theory adaptation. Journal of Change Management, 23(1), 93–111.
Onimole, S. O. (2017). Introducing change in organization: implication for human resource development practitioners. Ife Psychologia, 25(2), 383–394.
Wu, S. J., & Paluck, E. L. (2020). Participatory practices at work change attitudes and behavior toward societal authority and justice. Nature Communications, 11(1), 2633–2633.