Introduction
Because of fast growing technological advancement and changing work practices, change has become an integral part of the organizations. There are many organizations, which embrace change, but it has been observed that most of the change and programs will not have been able to achieve what is expected in the form of outcomes . The reason, which can be attributed to this failure, is the resistance to change. According to Fine (1986), “Human beings tend to resist change even when change represents growth and development—greater efficiency and productivity.”
What might be the reason for the resistance? Probably people cannot deal with what is not known to them. Resistance to change is defined as the powers, which try to oppose the change in organizations. Almost five decades ago, the theoretical concept of change resistance came into being. Various researchers have put forward different viewpoints about resistance to change. Few researchers suggested that there is a natural human tendency to do what is familiar to them rather than trying unknown. (Coch & French, 1948, Tichy, 1983). , pointed out that resistance to change can be attributed to the personality type.
A substantial amount of research has dealt with the concept of change resistance. According to Kurt Lewin (1947), ” based on the person as a complex energy field in which all behavior could be conceived of as a change in the same state of field” , found out that change resistance is a grouping of an employee response to frustrations which is supported by peer groups in organizations.
An overview of the user resistance
Besides, above- mentioned research in management psychology, the idea of change resistance has been recognized in information system research. In this particular form of research, the resistance to change is known as the ‘User resistance’. Zaltman & Duncan (1977) defined user resistance as “any conduct that serves to maintain the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo”. According to “The user resistance has been identified as one of the main factors for the unsuccessful implementations of the enterprise software projects.”
According to , the main factors which have been associated with the failure of new technology implementation, user resistance is most striking because it has a link with human change resistance.
An organizational survey across many countries has shown that one of the highly acknowledged challenges in the implementation of Information System has been the user resistance. Because of the user resistance, there have been delays in the project completion and the large scale Information Systems have not been utilized properly.
Many researchers have proposed that the user resistance is rational. They have tried to support their viewpoint with the help of explanations.
Many explanations have been given based on the concept of status quo bias, which means the bias of an individual not to part from the known or the current situation. , explained that the user resistance is associated with the perceived loss of power. , suggested that user resistance can be attributed to the threats posed by the implementation of IS. Martinko et.al, (1996), said that people in organizations try to evaluate that whether the outcomes of the IS implementations are as per expectations of the employees and if the outcomes are negative it leads to user resistance.
Few of the researchers , suggested that user resistance is an outcome of the bias which is called status quo. The theory of this bias is based on the assumption that people try to maintain their current situation, therefore, they resist change.
Zeckhauser(1988), has identified three main categories in the status quo theory which includes
rational decision-making, cognitive misperceptions and psychological commitment.
Rational decision-making is associated with the cost- benefit analysis of change. If costs overrun
benefits, the outcome is status quo bias.
The cognitive misperception is a psychological concept, which proposed that a bias always creeps in when we value gain and loss. Even if a small loss is associated with a particular change, it is perceived very large as compared to the gain.
Whereas psychological commitment includes three factors: sunk costs, social norms and control. Sunk costs are those skills which will be of no use after the IS implementation. Social norms refer to the norms, which are prevalent in organizations and can have an effect on an individual’s status quo bias. If a colleague appreciates or detests a system, it may have an influence on others’ perception. Control is a person’s wish to have control of his situation and he does not want to be exposed to a system that he is not familiar.
There are few studies, which have tried to explain user resistance in terms of psychological contract. The idea of psychological contract is given by. According to , “psychological contract is a belief that individuals hold regarding promises made, accepted and relied on between themselves and another”. In organizations, the psychological contracts cannot be enforced through any legal system because it is based on the expectation of an employee of what an employer should provide to him.
An employee develops a psychological contract based on his interactions with managers, co-workers, performance reviews, manuals, grapevine, etc.
Theoretical perspectives of user resistance
Research in industry has suggested that the theories of user resistance have wide applications since these theories can be used to implement the strategies in a better way. Among the various theories suggested,
- Lapointe & Revard (2005), proposed a model where they emphasized that resistant behaviors happen when employees feel a threat to their job.
- Markus (1983), explains that the change is more acceptable when the employees have a belief that it will support them and enhance their power. If people perceive that it might take away the power from them, there is a tendency that that they will show resistance.
- Joshi (1991), theory of resistance is based on equity theory in which employees try to evaluate their new inputs in comparison to their old outputs and new outcomes in comparison to the old outcomes. It they feel that after software implementation, the inputs have increased and outputs decreased, they resist it.
- Marakus & Hornik (1996) suggests that resistant behaviors arise out of the stress or threat, which is associated with the new systems. The software implementations exposes the stubbornness of a person to adapt change that gives rise to resentment and leads to deviant behaviors.
- Martinko et. al (1996), adapted that the user resistance is associated with the view- point of achievement motivation. The people involved try to analyze whether they were successful or failed in the tasks that involved similar technologies. If their experience is a failure-, they show resistance.
- Kim & Kankanhalli (2009) have based their theory of user resistance on status quo bias that explains that people have the preference to stay with their current state; this is the reason they hate change and start resisting it.
- Kotter & Schlesinger (1979) put forward their point of view. According to them people show resistance because they lack the patience for accepting the change.
- Goldstein (1994) said that people resist change because they believe that self-sufficiency and self-rule is in danger.
Effects of user resistance
The effects of user resistance can be explained in terms of employee behavior. As , defined user resistance as, “an opposition, challenge or disruption to process or initiatives”. There are two types of classifications related to the resistance behavior: negative resistance and a positive resistance . Many researchers that have suggested that such kind of behaviors vary from lack of co-operation to sabotage (). Resistance may rise from concealed and lifeless behaviors to obvious and active behaviors. (Kim & Kanakanhalli, 2009).
Kim & Kankanhalli has given the concept of ‘Enraged Employee’ behavior, which is an obvious and active type of resistance. According to this concept, the enraged employees due to the implementation of IS try to express their anger by continuous complaining, influencing others to believe that the change which is being implemented is bad and objecting to the change. Ford & Ford (2008), identify all these behaviors as examples of the angry employees.
, said, “Enraged employee behavior is a system and public phenomenon founded in conversations in which people engage”. In this kind of a behavior employee develops his own viewpoint of reality and based on his views, he tries to influence the perception of others. This type of the enraged behavior of employees is regarded as one of the most important factors responsible for user resistance.
Such kind of resentful behaviors are usually associated with low performance and may affect the quality. Sange (2004) has identified different types of change resistant behaviors, which include:
- Non-destructive: Employees start withdrawing from the job, absenteeism increases, and they try to influence other employees through their negative feelings.
- Pro-actively-destructive: Employees try to sabotage the processes and intentionally make mistakes.
Passively destructive: There is no effort made by employees to improve their skills. They ignore the work given to them and stop co-operating with other employees
Solutions to decrease user resistance
There are many strategies, which can be used by managers to reduce negative response of the people towards the changes in technology. (Aladwani, 1998).
(Klaus, 2010) emphasized the role of proper communication. According to them managers should provide a detailed picture of the implementation plan to users and help them out with their expertise. It is highly significant that the staff, which is responsible for communication to the users, should possess good diplomatic skills so that they can generate a positive vibe among the users.
(Jaing, 2000) discovered that participation of the employees in the implementation and launch may prove quite helpful in avoiding the resistance. He also suggested that the training provided to the users during implementation is an appropriate way of handling such situations.
There are many researchers, which have supported participation of users in the development (Barki & Hartwick, 1994, Ives & Olson 1984, Markus & Mao, 2004). (Barki, 1994), said that users who are involved in happenings during the implementation of technology, usually look at the system as being virtuous, vital and applicable. Users having a knowledge about how new technology is going to affect their job. Encouraging user participation in the implementation phase is regarded as one of the most favorable strategies that might help in reducing user resistance.
(Sabherwal, 2006), found out that training has a pronounced impact on how a user will perceive the new technological system and it should be considered as an investment which will pay in the long run. Training is usually helpful when users have a threat to lose their job because they are not familiar with the new technology and do not know how to work on it.
(Venkatesh, 2008), have identified few other factors, which may be useful in the avoidance of a user resistance. These factors include providing incentives to the better performers, organizational support and support of co-workers.
Many studies have concluded that the characteristics of the software system have an effect on its acceptance and success (Davis, 1989). If it is a user-friendly system, then users will feel comfortable and easily accept the system that will increase their self-efficacy, as it is a major determinant of good performance.(Compeau, 1995) . If there are technical problems associated with the software system, it will enhance the user resistance.
According to (Ba, 2001) , a change is encouragement associated, when it has set in structures that make users to use it in such a way which is steady with the design objectives of the system as well as goals of the organization. If outcomes are associated with the attractive incentives, it may increase the interest level of users to use the system.
(Lin, 2007), identified low self-efficacy with respect to computer knowledge as a factor which increases user resistance. He suggested that the increased experience with the system might overcome this barrier.
Organizational support, which can be provided either formally or informally, can also be quite helpful in convincing employees to accept the new system. (Venkatesh, 2008). This support can be provided in the form of equipment and by sharing of knowledge. A helpdesk can be provided to the users to solve the technical problems of software systems.
(Echardt, 2009), found out that the support of co-workers was with the workers who resisted adopting the new system. Therefore, the people who are influencers in the organizations are the barriers to systems. It is advisable to involve those key influencers in the system implementations because if they become convinced about the benefits of the system, user resistance will decrease.
Management can make use of the knowledge it has about the users to devise the strategies, which can help in reducing the user resistance. (Aladwani, 1998;). We all know that user resistance is a behavior, determined by our attitude, or behavior about certain phenomena. Therefore, communication can be used to change the attitude of users by making them aware about the benefits of IS. Awareness is one of the main factors, which can be used by management to overcome user resistance. According to (Al-Mashari, 2000), IS implementations have failed in many organizations because of lack of proper communication. When a detailed description is provided to the users about the benefits that a system can deliver it can help in building the positive attitude among the users. However, the management has to be careful that it should develop only realistic expectations among the users. If the expectations are not realistic, it may lead to the lack of credibility that will increase the problem.
A general description of how the software system works should be given. Users usually show reluctance when they do not know how to operate the system. It is advisable to teach users how a particular software system works. (Stratman, 1999).
Management should make users understand what should be inputs and what are the likely outcomes, and the requirement of the particular computer skills to operate the system should be clearly defined. Another strategy, which can work in favor of the user acceptance of technology, is differentiation. A literature review of the concept, ‘user acceptance’ talks about Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which suggests that user acceptance of technology is determined by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989;). Therefore, management needs to highlight the usefulness of software systems. According to Aaker (1992), “Quality is one of the important basis for product differentiation”. If users perceive new technology as a high quality system, it will have a favorable impact on their attitudes. Since users cannot measure the quality of the software system, however based on their experiences, they can develop the perception, positive or negative.
Timing, when the software system is introduced can also have a significant effect on the successful implementation. It should not be introduced when the majority of employees are feeling threatened. A majority of employees have to be convinced by the management before the implementation of the system.
The success of the above- mentioned strategies of the avoidance of user resistance could be taken care of by the performance management system. A performance management system can be used to find out whether the expected outcomes are achieved or not (Al Mashari & Zairi). It is of high significance for the management to ensure that the users’ resistance and their stress levels should be in control. Conduct timely surveys in the organizations to find out the feedback of the users about the newly implemented software systems.
Based on the performance feedback of the users that determines the levels of user resistance, management should take action. If the performance feedback is negative, top management has to understand the needs of users and find out what strategies to be adopted to make the change acceptable.
Conclusion
This report started with the explanation for change management and user resistance in the light of literature review. User resistance is one of the most important concepts and has gained a lot of attention in both management psychology and industrial research.
The present study has tried to find out how user resistance has led to the deviant behaviour in organizations. The study has also put an emphasis on the strategies, which can be brought into use, and the important strategies, which have been identified quite effective in decreasing resistance, include user participation, communication and training. This study may prove helpful in understanding the resistance effect & finding out the underlying issues of the phenomena.
Bibliography
Aaker, D. (1992). Developing Business Technologies. New York: John Wiley.
Aladwani, A. (1998). Coping with user resistance to new technology implementation. Proceedings of the 9th IRMA Conference, (pp. 54-59). Boston.
Al-Mashari, &. Z. (2000). Information and Business Process Equality: the case of SAP R/3 Implementation. Electronic journal on information systems, 2.
Argyris, c. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood: Dorsey press.
Ba, S. S. (2001). Research commentary: Introducing a third dimention in information system design- The case for incentive alignment. Information systems research, 12(3), 225-239.
Balogun, J. &. (2004). Exploring strategic change. London: Prentice Hall.
Barki, H. H. (1994). Measuring user participation, user involvement and user attitude. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 59-82.
Beaudry, A. a. (2005, August). Understanding user resistance to information technology. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493-524.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://www. entrepreneurship-sme.ed/pdf-ez
Coch, L. &. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512-532.
Compeau, D. H. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance in information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340.
Dent, E. &. (1999). Resistance to change. The journal of applied behavioral science, 35(1), 25-41.
Echardt, A. L. (2009). Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents social inflence on adoption and non-adoption,. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 11-24.
Fine, S. (1986). Technological Innovation, diffusion and resistance: A historical perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 7, 83-108.
Ford J.D. & Ford, L. (2008). Conversational profiles. The journal of applied behavioral science, 44(4), 445-467.
Goldstein, J. (1994). The Unshackled Organizations. Portland: Productivity Press.
Ives, B. O. (1984). User involvement and MIS success, a review of research. Management Science, 30(5), 586-603.
Jaing, J. W. (2000). User resistance and strategies for promoting acceptance across system types. Information and Management, 37(1), 25-36.
Jermier, J. &. (1994). Resistance and power in organizations. London: Routledge.
Joshi, K. (1991). A model of user’s perspective on change: The case of information systems, technology and implemenation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229-242.
Kim, H. &. (2006). Towards a process model of information systems Implementation:The case of customer relationship management. Data base for advances in information systems.
Kim, H. &. (2009). User resistance to information system implementation: A status quo bias. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567-582.
Klaus, T. &. (2010). User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementations. Eur J Inf syst, 19(3), 625-636.
Kotter, J. &. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. HBR, 57(2), 106-114.
Lapointe, L. a. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 461-491.
Lee, D. L. (2010). THE EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT ON ERP IMPLEMENTATION. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(2), 269-283.
Lee. S.M., K. I. (2006). The role of exogenous factors in technology acceptance. Information & Management, 43(4), 469-480.
Lin, H. (2007). EFFECTS OF EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION ON EMPLOYEE KNOWLEDGE SHARING INTENTIONS. Journal of Information Science, 133(2), 135-149.
Marakas, G. &. (1996). Passive resistance misuse: overt support and covert recalcitrance in IS implementations. Journal of information systems, 5(3), 208-219.
Markus, M. &. (2004). Participation in development and implementation. Journal of Association for IS, 5, 11-14.
Markus, M. (1983). Power, Politics and MIS implementation. Communication of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444.
Martinko, M. &. (1996). An attributional explanation of industrial resistance to the introduction of information technology in the workplace. Behavior and information technology, 15(5), 313-330.
Morrison, E. &. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: a model of how psychological contract voilation develops. Academy of management review, 22(1), 226-256.
Mullins, L. (1999). 35(4), 567-591. Operational Research Society.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measurer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Employee responsibilities and rights journal, 2(2), 121-139.
Sabherwal, R. J. (2006). Information system success: individual and organizational determinants. Management Science, 52(12), 1849-1864.
Samuelson, W. &. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
Stratman, J. &. (1999). Enterprise Resource Planning Competence, a model proposition and pre-test, design-stage scale development. 30th DSI Proceedings, (pp. 1199-1201).
Tichy, N. (1983). Managing strategic change, technical, political & cultural dynamics. New york: Wiley.
Venkatesh, B. &. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.