Anda di halaman 1dari 24

Project Number: 0904

Change Management:
Employee Resistance Against Change
By Burcu Bora Submitted April 2010 Advisors: Prof. Arthur Gerstenfeld Prof. John Abraham

A Major Qualifying Project Report submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science

WPI Requirements
This report supplements the Major Qualifying Project completed with Kimberly Gallagher, Marco Angulo, and Chao Zang for Bank of America: Information Sharing at Bank of America (Angulo, Bora, Gallagher, & Zang, 2009). In order to fulfill the requirements of a jointMQP for my Management Engineering and Mathematical Sciences majors, this report is produced to emphasize my business knowledge and experience I gained through my management engineering and finance courses in WPI and my project experience in New York and combine them with the qualitative skills of my Mathematical Sciences major. .

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my advisors, Professors Gerstenfeld and Abraham, for all of their input and support that they provided. I also wanted to acknowledge my supervisor in New York, Jason Tondreau. I truly appreciate the many hours of guidance and support he provided me during the development of this report. Moreover, I would like to thank Professors Michael Elmes and Steven Taylor for dedicating time to me for guidance over the course of this project.

Contents
WPI Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Innovation and Change Management .......................................................................................................... 3 Employee Resistance against Change ........................................................................................................... 4 Causes of Employee Resistance against Change ...................................................................................... 5 Force Field Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 12 Problem Definition .............................................................................................................................. 13 Objective Definition ............................................................................................................................ 13 Identifying the Driving and Restraining Forces ................................................................................... 14 Developing the Comprehensive Change Strategy .............................................................................. 16 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 23

Table of Figures
Table 1: Trend of Employees' Support of the Change Depending on the Expected Outcomes for the Organization and the Employees (Cawsey & Deszca, 2007)................................................................. 8 Table 2: Characteristics of the Organization Forms (Cawsey & Deszca, 2007) .......................................... 10 Table 3: Four Regions Defined by Different Complexity of the Environment and the Degree of Dynamism ............................................................................................................................................................ 11

Innovation and Change Management


In todays business world, gaining competitive advantage over the competitors is the key factor for success. Demand for organizational innovation and technological advantage are increasingly crucial components of competitive strategy for many firms. According to Leonard and Sway, the end result of the creative process of developing and expressing novel ideas is an innovation, where innovation is the embodiment, combination, and or synthesis of knowledge in novel, relevant, valued new products, processes or services (Leonard & Swap, 1999). There are many factors that push organizations to rethink their business processes in order not to fail at keeping up with the competition and protecting their presence and standing at the market. Most firms face serious competitive challenges due to the rapid pace and unpredictability of technology change. Industries dependent on highly sophisticated technologies and firms engaged in multinational competition are particularly vulnerable to the need for continuous and rapid modification of their product features and the ways in which they conduct business (Teece, 1987). Emerging technologies, globalization of products, markets, and competitors, cheaper communication and distribution channels as a result of revolution in telecommunications and information technology, and the government deregulation like privatization and legislation to promote competition drive are just some of the reasons that push companies for a change at their companies product line or processes (Kettinger & Grover, 1995) (Elearn, 2005). Change management has very different definitions in literature depending on the authors perspective on which determinants are the most influential on the success of change. Examples of popular definitions of change management propose it:

is effectively balancing forces in favor of a change over forces of resistance that include the changes perceived as a threat to organizations, groups, or individuals frame of reference. (Zwick, Empirical Determinants of Employee Resistance Against Innovations, 2000) a systematic approach to dealing with change, both from the perspective of an organization and on the individual level. It has at least three different aspects, including: adapting to change, controlling change, and effecting change (Midmarket CIO, 2008) . is understanding the needs and the attributes of the impacted organization, and customize and scale the change management efforts based on the unique characteristics of the change and the organization (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). is about balance - balancing between short-term and long-term, profits and people, overview and detail, continuity and transformation, and between what is feasible and what is desirable (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). Although many of the definitions do not focus on the same determinants affecting the success of innovation, majority of them agrees that innovation is about the changing the way in which people think and act. According to a study presented by Bitzer and Poppe, the main obstacle for innovation that organizations face was the personnel rather than organizational, financial or technical obstacles (Bitzer & Poppe, 1993).

Employee Resistance against Change


Employee resistance against change is a very important barrier against the success of innovation and it is vital to identify the sources of resistance and develop strategies to overcome these barriers in order to have a successful innovation at the business processes. Employee
4

resistance can prevent and delay the necessary innovations reducing the competitiveness and ability to reach long-run goals of the organizations (Zwick, Empirical Determinants of Employee Resistance Against Innovations, 2000). Peoples attitudes towards change, individual and organizational barriers to change, drivers of change, and overcoming resistance to change are the key principles accepted by many organizations for successful innovation (Wardale, 2003). Without peoples participation and involvement to change, it does not matter how effectively the innovation is planned. It is a well known fact that the change is hard for many people. The right question is why it is very difficult. Does it lack incentives for people, or urgency? Kegan and Lahey discussed in their book, Immunity to Change, a recent medical study where heart doctors told their high risk heart patients that they need to make certain changes in their lives like dieting and exercising in order to live. The study revealed that only one out of seven patients could make the necessary changes in their lives (Kegan & Lahey, 2009). It is reasonable to assume that every patient wanted to live and they had enough incentives and urgency to change, but they could not change their life styles. So it is vital to understand the real underlying causes that prevent change in peoples minds.

Causes of Employee Resistance against Change


According to the data from the 2005 Best Practices Report, top five reasons of employees resistance to change are: 1. Lack of awareness of the underlying business need for change 2. Lay-offs being announced or feared as part of the change 3. Uncertainty of employees having needed skills for success in the future state

4. Comfort of the current state where the personal rewards and sense of accomplishment and fulfillment are satisfactory 5. Feeling that employees are required to do more with less or do more with the same pay (Change Management Learning Center, 2005) (Schuler, 2003)

Although these facts create imperative barriers for a successful innovation, there are many more underlying reasons that drive employees to resist the change. First of all, employees uncertainty on owning the required skills for change is a very vital barrier. People who think the capability as a fixed source will have the hardest time to overcome this barrier. Successful innovation involves employees self-improvement, adding new skills, and widening their repertoire of responses. For an effective innovation, employees should realize that the improvement of peoples capabilities are not only restricted to childhood. Adults can also improve and gain new skills. During the change process, acknowledging employees that the company will provide the necessary training for employees if increasing employees capability is required is a good action to overcome this barrier. Another perspective is that the main determinant for the resistance is the compensation offered by the firm for the adaptation costs forced to the workers. If the change is related to layoffs where the company will need less employees or require more skilled employees, the acquired knowledge will not manifestly increase the production of employees, or there is uncertainty on how long the acquired knowledge will be useful because of fast technology progress and short life time of technological changes, the resistance against change will be very high as long as there is not enough incentives or compensation to balance these forces of resistance (Zwick, 2002). Innovations always entail training costs for employees. These training

costs do not only include monetary costs like formal training but also demand non-monetary costs such as flexibility, cognitive effort, and time. Therefore, if the employees do not see a sufficient return to their investments of time, effort, and flexibility, they will show resistance against change. Additionally, the success of change depends on the employees understanding the risk of the change versus standing still. Change is a risky move to unknown that promises better results, performance for individuals and organizations. If employees do not truly believe and feel that the risk of staying steel is greater than the risk of change, they will not attempt to be part of the change. When the change is imposed on the employees based on idealistic, unseen promises of reward, employees fight or flight response can be activated to fight against change because of their perception of risk (Schuler, 2003). The table below presents why employees resist changes showing the interaction between consequences of change for the organization and the employees, as well as the support for change. Expected Consequences for the Organization Positive Expected Outcome for Employees Positive (e.g. less and better work, more salary, additional skill that differs the employee from other employees) Positive Negative (e.g. more, worse, and slower work, risk to lose his job) Neutral Positive (e.g. less and better Positive support Imprecise support but most probably resistance Trend of Support of the Change Strong support

work, more salary, additional skill that differs the employee from other employees) Neutral Negative (e.g. more, worse, and slower work, risk to lose his job) Negative Positive (e.g. less and better work, more salary, additional skill that differs the employee from other employees) Negative Negative (e.g. more, worse, and slower work, risk to lose his job)
Table 1: Trend of Employees' Support of the Change Depending on the Expected Outcomes for the Organization and the Employees (Cawsey & Deszca, 2007)

Resistance against change

Undetermined support for change

Resistance to change

Furthermore, employees lack role models for the change. Many people like to observe how others do the tasks before they put effort to try them by themselves. It is important to find change agents who will be willing to experience the change before others and will also be the role model providing an opportunity for observational learning for others. According to Daniel and Hogarths analyses on interviews made with a total of 2,019 firms from British economy, employees showed resistance against the changes in the organization of work while employees supported the changes in investments like buying new machines (Daniel & Hogarth, 1999). Zwicks analysis on the results of a survey included 151

German firms known by successful innovations claimed that when the innovations aim to increase the employee performance rather than the quality of products and services, innovations encounter with higher resistance. This also shows that firms that compete to maintain low prices through cost reductions rather than diversification, product quality and flexibility will face with higher employee resistance against innovations (Zwick, 2002). Moreover, resistance against the change might be a sign that the change is not effective enough to promise better outcomes for the organization or the individual. Hearing employees concerns, ideas, and complaints is a key to address this possible barrier. If we consider the business as a system, employees are the main blocks. They are the natives and they can see the consequences of the change better than outsiders such as consultants and managers. So learning from the resistance through listening the employees will not only provide better planned change but also will involve employees in the process giving them a sense of ownership for the change. When employees develop an emotional connection with the projects, they become more inclined and motivated to be part of the project and work hard to achieve good results. Another factor that influences the employees reaction against change is the formal structure of the organization. The structure of the organization includes the division of tasks, coordination and grouping. The structure of the organization is designed to improve efficiency in organizations and it influences how the change needs to be done. Understanding how the change will influence the existing structure and systems are crucial for an effective change. Understanding organizational structures and systems is a lengthy process and it is only briefly described in this paper. Below are the traditional design variables to categorize the organizational structure: a. Differentiation: In what extent the tasks are differentiated from each other?

b. Integration: To what degree the activities and processes are integrated? c. Chain of Command: What is reporting structure? d. Span of Control: What is the influence of the number of employees reporting at each level to the success of the system? e. Centralization: Is decision making distributed at different levels of the organization or centralized at top level management? f. Formalization: How regulated or formalized are the processes and the structures of the organization? (Cawsey & Deszca, 2007) These variables help us to classify the organizations in two types, mechanistic and organic. The table below represents the characteristics of the organizational forms. Mechanic Tasks are separated into different parts and strictly identified and assigned Strict formalization with many rules, strict hierarchy of authority and control Narrow span of control Centralized decision making at the top levels of management Vertical communication Simple, straightforward planning processes Horizontal, free flowing communication Sophisticated planning and forecasting processes
Table 2: Characteristics of the Organization Forms (Cawsey & Deszca, 2007)

Organic Tasks are flexible and can be accustomed by teamwork and involvement More freedom of employees to make their decisions, less rules, better involvement Wide span of control Decentralized decision making

10

When the goal is an effective innovation, organic organizations will be more successful than the mechanic organizations. Sometimes, it is crucial to see deeper reasons that drive employees to resist the change and the innovation might be necessary to begin with the structure of the organization. Robert Duncan brings another perspective to understand the environment and organizational structure. He identifies four environments depending on the complexity of the environment and the degree of dynamism. Static Simple Complex 1 3 Dynamic 2 4

Table 3: Four Regions Defined by Different Complexity of the Environment and the Degree of Dynamism

1. Simple and static: An environment that includes simple factors which do not frequently change. For example, company producing Christmas cards will be in this category. The company can easily forecast the trend of their sales by looking at the past data, and there are neither many factors affecting the market not the factors change rapidly. 2. Simple and dynamic: An environment with a few factors that change very fast. An example is the sport clubs. It is a very dynamic environment which is open to new entrants and factors like competitors change rapidly. 3. Complex and static: An environment that contains many static factors. An example will be the government agencies which deal with many different static factors like other government agencies. 4. Complex and dynamic: An environment with large number of factors that change quickly. An example is the financial corporations that are commonly influenced by many
11

environmental fast changing factors. In these environments, change leaders face with many problems related to diverse factors influencing the company and their fast paste of change. (Needle, 2004) When consider organization as a system which involves people, systems, and organizations, we need to understand the forces at play. More importantly, we need to understand how these forces react to changes in pressure since it is highly possible the change to disturb the equilibrium of the forces and create resistance against change.

Force Field Analysis


One of the common tools used to understand and systematically analyze these forces is force field analysis. It outlines problems in terms of factors or pressures that create barriers against change (the restraining forces) and other factors that encourage the change in the desired direction (driving forces). A factor or pressure can be people, resources, attitudes, traditions, regulations, values, needs, desires, etc. and Force Field Analysis helps identify these factors that should be addressed and monitored for successful innovation. There are five crucial steps while using this tool: Defining the problem, identify the change objective, discovering the restraining and driving forces, and developing the comprehensive change strategy. Now, we will use this tool to analyze the forces acting over the change, Improvement of Information Sharing in Bank of America.

12

Problem Definition

Inefficiencies in information sharing among employees at Bank of America is reducing the employees production causing a serious threat against the effectiveness of the employees. With offices spanning the globe, Bank of Americas resources are split up among numerous time zones. The time discrepancy triggers complexities relaying information as data and personnel are not always readily available. Additionally, temporary communication platforms such as emails, phone calls, and instant messages are found to be occasionally ineffective; these platforms have a tendency to be overlooked over time, causing a large degree of information loss. Furthermore, due to the merger of Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, there are many legacy employees of Merrill Lynch worldwide that must now learn the applications used by Bank of America. However, with limited information sharing capabilities, it has proven extremely difficult to relay information and teach them how to use new applications.
Objective Definition

The goal of the change is to build an environment that will minimize the obstacles that limit the information sharing ability of Bank of America. Firstly, employees require an information sharing tool that will enable them to share information efficiently. After a fourteenweek research, observation, and development period, an effective information sharing platform that aimed to encounter all the needs of the employees is created based on the employees feedback. Secondly, the information sharing tool must be used by employees at its full capacity to solve our real problem, inefficient information sharing. After implementing the information sharing platforms, employee resistance against changing their routines and use the new

13

information sharing platform is observed and it is crucial to reduce this resistance for the success of the change.
Identifying the Driving and Restraining Forces

First, I gathered feedback from employees on which forces support the change, what motivates the changer to change, and how strong and committed these forces are. Below are the main facts that came up: Lack of efficient communication tool that should serve the purpose of improving the efficiency of the team, and reducing time spent on training new members: Employees who are aware of the problem will let the change happen. Acknowledging employees about the need and development of the platform: Employees who are informed about the solution of the problem will help the development of the platforms. Involving employees in the process of developing information sharing platform: Employees who are involved in the development of information sharing platform will make the change happen. Management Participation: Managers looked to create efficiency in their teams, create uniform platform for learning and development will support the change. Employees will be encouraged to help the development of the platform. Second, I defined the forces that oppose the change including structural forces such as reward systems or formal processes in the organization, as well as the effect of informal processes, groups, or the culture of the organization.

14

Uncertainty of the effectiveness of the new information sharing practice: People will ask why this change makes a difference, how it is going to help the group or the individual. If the change is not clearly laid out, the change will face with high resistance from employees.

Training costs of the change: Training costs such as employees time and effort required to learn the new platform or develop a new platform might seem higher than the positive outcomes of the change. If the current information sharing practices remain stagnant for too long, it is possible that a complete revamp of the process is necessary.

Lack of awareness: Employees might be unconscious about the need to change. Habits: Employees might prefer old information sharing platform even though it is outdated and create a need for employees to travel in order to teach the processes to other employees in person or through phone conversations.

Fear of being disqualified: Employees might feel that they lack the required skills. This is a genuine fear that limits change. Often people think they will lose their jobs as others are more qualified.

Poorly developed information sharing platform: Change might not be meeting every team members needs.

People are the biggest limiting factors in any given situation. Some people are good at resisting the change when they are facing one or some of the factors described above and some of them are not. So when the winds of change start rolling through those that are good will do everything in their power to resist it. Thus it is crucial to define these forces that work against the change and address them during the change process.

15

Developing the Comprehensive Change Strategy

Sometimes in business and elsewhere change is necessary. It also means that some people might not benefit as much as others or might not even be in the future plan. Again it is important to weaken the forces that work against the change and strengthen the forces that support the change. Below are the main ideas that should be included at the change strategy to reduce the employee resistance against change in Bank of America: Communicate the decisions as they are known so that employees who are in the future picture are at ease and can "get on with it" without constantly speculating if they are going to be around. During Bank of Americas merger with Merrill Lynch, employees saw and continue to see a lot of this sentiment. People fear being let go when they are not 100% definitely sure that they are in the future plan. This is a huge obstacle in the face of productivity and moving a company forward through change. Involve employees in the improvement process of the platform which will incline employees to own the change and encourage them to make it happen. Hear employees concerns, dislikes about the platform and modify the change to meet the needs of employees. Approach employees ahead of time and inform them that they will be trained on any change so you can help to alleviate the fear of being disqualified. Provide clear incentives to employees in order to support the change. This point is KEY, too often the incentives are not clear or the "plan" is not well established, understood and shared with employees.

16

Every employee does not always know what they are contributing to. Employees might have little knowledge of what their neighbor is doing and how it all comes together for a common goal. Championing change is more about sharing the vision of change with each and every person involved. Take a scenario where you have a new system coming in that is replacing an old one. Right away employees who use and support the old one will be skeptical and are highly likely to resist change. They can and perhaps will go as far as trying to undermine the development of the new system and do everything in their power to keep the status quo. This generally is not because the old system is better but instead a result of people not knowing the vision, goals and plan for the future. If it was communicated to those who will be affected what will occur and how their role will change, it would take the guess work out of it for people who are scared of change. If people who are being asked to change are well informed of the reasons behind the change, the likelihood of it happening more smoothly will greatly increase. Therefore, making the goals clear, concise and well known by all is crucial to diminish the employee resistance.

Conclusions
After analyzing the information gathered during this project and the feedback received from Bank of America employees, I was able to point out the most important problems regarding change management. First of all, Bank of America is a mechanistic organization where employees work under strict formalization. Every employee has strictly assigned tasks that they need to accomplish. The work environment is complex and dynamic. It is influenced by many external and internal factors which force employees to accomplish their responsibilities in a very timely manner in
17

order to ensure the effectiveness of their actions. Time restrictions due to dynamic work environment create large barriers at the process of a change. Many employees prefer to get their assigned tasks done instead of spending time to be part of a change and put time and effort on the development or use of the new information sharing platform. Furthermore, developing a new sharing platform is a change to the organization of a work. It aims to change the communication channels that employees used to use and improve the employees performance through the different capabilities of the platform such as easier and faster reporting to management by employees and efficient issue tracking tools. However, employees are not very eager to use it since it does not have direct influence on the improvement of the services that bank offers to its customers. When I examined the possible outcomes of the platform for the organization and employees as it was done by Cawsey and Deszca that mentioned earlier at the report, I came up with the following table. Expected Consequences for the Organization Information reservoir for the organization, reduced traveling costs for training overseas employees, less information loss that might result inefficiency at the operations Expected Outcome for Employees More information documentation, time to learn the new platform and its capabilities, easier reporting, better communication with other employees, new skills Trend of Support of the Change Imprecise support but most probably resistance against change

18

When I compare the expected consequences of the new platform for organization and the employees, the positive expected outcomes for employees are not strong enough to encourage employees to support the change. Employees actions like focusing on their assigned tasks rather than supporting the change seems like a smart action. On the other hand, the change has many benefits for the organization. Another important drawback for the change was from the support teams counterparts in different regions. The Asia and London teams were using different wiki/platforms that the support team in New York uses. One big issue is due to the structure of the team. The support team does not perform the same functions that they do in Asia or London. This alone makes it difficult to create a platform that is 100% perfect for everyone. The support team needs to first unify the actions of the team for the platform to help everyone equally. Right now it is definitely geared for the support teams particular needs in New York. Another obstacle is the overall lack of communication the support team in New York have with the other support teams in Asia. Due to the large difference in day to day activities as mentioned and different time zones, it is hard to involve them at the platform development process or familiarizing them with the platform. Lack of communication causes very little knowledge about the tasks the team in Asia is dealing with and what tools they are using to help them accomplish these causing inefficiency in team work. Members of the support team ends up traveling to other continents in order to reduce the lack of communication which brings up the monetary and non-monetary costs. When change attempts in corporations face with all these barriers, it is expected the changes fail to be successful. There are many factors that need to be carefully addresses during

19

change management in order to gain support and involvement from employees and the change to gain success. After identifying all these barriers against change, I was able to come up with recommendations that will help the support team and Bank of America overall to overcome these barriers.

Recommendations

While adapting a change, employee support and involvement is the unquestionable necessity for the success. Although the change always aims positive outcomes for the organizations, they do not always provide clear benefits for the employees. In order to encourage the support and involvement from the employees, there are certain actions and efforts needed to be taken by the organization. First of all, participation and push from top management is crucial. Employees need incentives to involve in the planning and implementation of the change, more specifically in the development and improvement of the information sharing platform in this case. Employees should know that they will benefit from the change more than they will spend on it through their time and efforts. In a mechanical organization like Bank of America, top management has substantial influence on providing incentives for the employees. Once employees believe that participating in the change like supporting the use of new information sharing platform will be a plus for them while managers decide on whom to promote, they will be willing to put their time and effort into the implementation and improvement of the change. Secondly, the change is required to be marketed to the employees. In this case, employees should be informed on why the new platform is required, what capabilities the new
20

platform has, how these capabilities will help employees, and how to use this platform. First step should be to approach employees ahead of time and inform them that they will be trained on any change so you can help to alleviate the fear of being disqualified. Then employees should be encouraged to give feedback about how the platform is working and what improvements can be done. Involving employees at this process aims to give them an opportunity to voice their concerns and share their ideas, as well as giving them a sense of ownership of the project. Once the final version is ready, it can be introduced to employees through a demo session where employees get a chance to play with it. Thirdly, the change should aim to profit as many employees as possible. In this case, making the new information sharing platform more flexible by creating partitions for each region to make it their own and then assessing the overlap in the future once they have a lot of useful content rather than trying to create the best case scenario from the start will be an optimal strategy to address this issue. Fourthly, exterminating employees fear of getting laid off is an important step to reduce the employee resistance against change. During Bank of Americas merger with Merrill Lynch, employees experienced a lot of this sentiment. People fear losing their jobs when they are not sure that they are in the future plan. This is a huge obstacle in the face of productivity and moving a company forward through change. Communicating the decisions in this case as they are known so that employees who are in the future picture are at ease and can "get on with it" without constantly speculating if they are going to be around is key for employees to be open to the change.

21

Additionally, every change requires early adopters who will be role models for others. When the change is implemented, organization should choose the employees who are the most excited ones for the change to experience it before the other employees. Witnessing the benefits that the change will bring to another employee will not only motivate and encourage other employees to be part of the change by proving that the risk associated with the change is low, but also will empower employees to adapt it faster in order not to fall behind of the competition between employees which is a common situation in complex and dynamic business environments like Bank of America. This paper aims to improve the success of the change management in complex and dynamic organizations like Bank of America through minimizing the employee resistance against the change. As an example, the paper specifically focused on my major qualifying project, the Enhancement of Information Sharing at Bank of America (Angulo, Bora, Gallagher, & Zang, 2009). This project was a sufficient example for employee resistance against change and provided valuable insight from Bank of America employees. In order to enhance the whole picture of the change management, research on change planning and organization is also required for future reference.

22

Works Cited
Angulo, M., Bora, B., Gallagher, K., & Zang, C. (2009). Information Sharing at Bank of America. Worcester: WPI. Bitzer, B., & Poppe, P. (1993). Strategisches Innovationsmanagement. Betrieb-swirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis. Cawsey, T., & Deszca, G. (2007). Toolkit for Organizational Change. United States: Sage Publications. Change Management Learning Center. (2005). Top Five Reasons Employees Resist Change. Prosci. Daniel, W., & Hogarth, T. (1999). Worker Support for Technical Change. New Technology, Work, and Employement , Vol. 5, pp. 5-35. Elearn, T. C. (2005). Management Extra - Change Management. Pergamon Flexible Learning. Hiatt, J. M., & Creasey, T. J. (2003). Change Management: the People Side of Change. Colorado: Prosci Research. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Kettinger, W. J., & Grover, V. (1995). Toward a Theory of Business Process Change Management. Journal of Management Information Systems , 9-30. Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (1999). When Sparks Fly. United states of America: Harvard Business School Press. Midmarket CIO. (2008, 12 09). Change Management. Retrieved 03 15, 2010, from Midmarket CIO: http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/ Needle, D. (2004). Business in Context. London: Thomas Learning. Nilakant, V., & Ramnarayan, S. (2006). Change Management: Altering Mindsets in a Global Context. Response Books. Schuler, A. J. (2003). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Resistance to Change . Teece, D. J. (1987). The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Cambridge: Ballinger Pub. Co. Wardale, D. (2003). Change Management. Resource Kit: Rural Health Service Development . Zwick, T. (2000). Empirical Determinants of Employee Resistance Against Innovations. Centre for European Economic Research . Zwick, T. (2002). Employee Resistance against Innovations. International Journal of Manpower .

23