As human beings we often seek stability and predictability in the environment and circumstances we find ourselves. This desire has empowered us to work towards means in which to deal with change and in some cases resist it in pursuit of what we would consider a safe environment. As most of us know this is a fleeting desire with many of the events that shape our existence come without warning or permit us to prepare for it.
Within business organizations, change is a necessary and desired condition in which to pursue innovation and strive towards continuous improvement resulting in organizational sustainability and eventually success. Although stability in certain circumstances is desired in order to avoid chaos, many individuals will use different methods in which to resist. The form of resistance may come in the form of overt, implicit, immediate, or deferred (Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 647).
Overt and immediate resistances are the easiest for leaders to overcome since they present themselves in direct feedback from employees. These verbal or written responses permit leaders to address the concerns head on and open a discussion that hopefully rests in a mutual level of acceptance and compliance to the change. Often employees are not as direct as desired and use implicit or deferred approaches of resistance which are more subtle and less identifiable. Examples can include a reduced sense of engagement or motivation, decrease in employee performance and other more passive responses that result in increased absenteeism and turnover. Unfortunately, it is even more difficult for the manager to identify these signs since they can emerge over a period of time after the changes have been implemented and can fester into more complex organizational problems. An example of such behavior is the creation and spreading of rumors. Researchers have found that rumors spread under certain conditions including times of change can create anxiety and uncertainty resulting in stress for employees (Bordia, Jones, et al, 2006).
Stress is a major and increasing issue in the workplace and for decades has been the source of many organizational issues relating to employees. The source and nature of such stress can be diverse and have multiple sources. Three major categories that include the sources of stress are; Environmental, Organizational, and Personal factors (Robbins & Judge, 2007, pp. 667-669).
Environmental factors contribute to stress that are often out of the direct control of the organization. Examples such as the economy, politics, and technological advancements can create a feeling that the person has a loss of control which might manifest itself as stress. The organization can be a source of stress in the form of the demands relating to the individual role or position. Job tasks, position demands, or interpersonal relationships may be a source of such stress. Within the individual certain personal factors may also come into play. Issues’ relating to the employee’s family, financial situation, or individual personalities can be a contributing element to the source of stress from these personal factors.
The consequences of such stress might manifest itself in the form of physiological, psychological, and behavioral symptoms (Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 667). Stress may affect the individual physically and result in signs and symptoms such as headaches, or heart related ailments from stress contributed high blood pressure. The psychological toll that stress takes can present itself from a change in attitude relating to the person’s position or job to acute anxiety or depression.
More noticeable consequences come in the form of exhibited behaviors within the workplace. Issues such as the reduction in productivity increase in absenteeism, and employee attrition can be by-products of stress. The consequences can be in the form of increased employee health care costs, reduced productivity, or eventually affect profitability when stress affects either a large number of employees or specific, high-impact individuals within the organization.
The challenge to the organization in dealing with work related stress has both a humanistic and financial rationale. The issues relating to the resistance to change can certainly affect an organization’s performance both in the immediate and long-term. One approach is for organizations to empower their employees to play a more active role in the implementation of change. In this approach, employees would have a higher level of participation and involvement in the change process and take an increased stake in the success of the change (Tiong, 2005). It is also necessary that any change undertaken by leaders be clearly communicated as to the rationale of the change and providing the opportunity for employees to express concerns and voice opinions. Such a process should result in greater buy-in by the workforce and would control resistance. More favorable results could occur when co-workers assist each other in dealing with change and have a role in each other’s acceptance. Once the change has been completed, it is imperative that the leader continue to monitor workplace behaviors and respond appropriately. Should the undesired behaviors go unchecked further organizational issues may emerge that would hinder future success.
There exists opportunities for individuals to deal with their own stress in the workplace. Such approaches might include better time management methods, increased physical activity in the form of exercise, relaxation techniques, and participating in support networks (Robbins & Judge, 2007, pp. 673-674). Some other available, yet less utilized approaches include: Aromatherapy, Acupuncture, Yoga, Massage therapy, Music therapy, and even Colour Therapy (Ornelas & Kleiner, 2003).
The organization has opportunities to control work related stress as well. Approaches that properly allocate organizational task and role demands can directly affect employee stress levels. In addition, the establishment and management of prioritized employee goals and objectives as well as effective selection and placement methods can also have a positive impact when dealing with stress (Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 674).
It is also believed that employees who have an increased degree of control over their work have reduced stress and it would be in the organizations best interest in permitting employees have a say in how they should go about their work. The level of management and colleague support provided as well as provide information and support through accessible policies and procedures and availability of regular and constructive feedback are methods in which can ground an employee and move the ambiguities and questions relating to role definition into more clearer view (Goldman & Lewis, 2005).
References
Bordia, P., Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V.J., & DiFonzo, N. (2006). Management Are Aliens!
RUMORS AND STRESS DURING
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE. Group &
Organization Management, 31(5), 601-621. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from
ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1129258731).
Goldman, L. & Lewis, J. (2005). The emphasis on stress. Occupational Health, 57(3), 12-13.
Retrieved October 14, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document
ID: 813457021).
Ornelas, S. & Kleiner, B.H. (2003).
New Developments in Managing Job Related Stress. Equal
Opportunities International, 22(5), 64-70. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from
ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 673250271).
Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Tiong, T.N. (2005). Maximising Human Resource Potential in the Midst of Organisational
Change. Singapore Management Review, 27(2), 25-35. Retrieved October 14, 2007,
from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 862576011).