G7-Nega Last Thesis

Organizational Change Practices
LETTER OF CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that Nega Tadesse has carried out his project work on the topic of
Organizational Change practices a case on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister
company under my supervision. This work is original in its nature and it is suitable for
submission in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Business
Administration in International Business.
Tewelde Mezgobo (Asst. Prof.)
(Advisor)
_____________________
Signature
____________________
Date
A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company
Department Of Management
Collage of Business and Economics
MBA program
Title: Organizational Change practices a case of EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city
sister company
BY: Nega Tadesse
Approved by Board of examiners:
______________________
Advisor
Signature
______________________
Examiner
___________________
Signature
______________________
Examiner
___________________
___________________
Signature
DECLARATION
I, Nega Tadesse, declare that this project work entitled Organizational Change
practices a case of EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company is my own
original work. I have carried out it independently with the guidance and suggestions of
the research advisor. And it has not been presented in Mekelle University or any other
University.
Nega Tadesse
(The Researcher)
___________________
Signature
____________________
Date
Abstract
Change is occurring in all organizations today. However, many change efforts fail due to resistance
from employees. The purpose of this study is to show the predictors of resistance to change. The study
used the survey method to collect data from a sample of 182 employees at the Messobo Cement
Factory and Bruh Tesfa irrigation Technology. 86 item Organizational Change survey, which
measures attitudes, demography and resistance about organizational change, was developed and
administered. Results showed that level of transparency and fairness were the most significant
predictor of resistance to change. In addition to job satisfaction, involvement in the change process,
lack performance measures, lack of adequate resource, and good governance were also found to be
significant predictors. Further research is Resistance to Change recommended.
Keywords: resistance to change
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have supported me throughout
my graduate school experience. First, I would like to thank my Advisor Ato. Tewolde
Mezgobo for being a great assistance professor and advisor. I am thankful for your
support and confidence in me. Thank you to Ato Adem Mohammed for guiding me
through this study and for being so welcoming.
Thank you to all department of management. I have learned something unique and
beneficial from each one of you.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends you have taught me how to be
confident and assertive and I would have never forgotten to where I am today without
those qualities.
Thank You All Indeed,
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background of the study
Due to globalization our world became a global village, in China, Russia, India and
Brazil there is new challenges and potential market, for this reason management have
been concerned with different issues such as, trade terms, import export barriers and
exchange rate are important points. Technology reaches to the highest level in its
accessibility, link and visibility. The globe remains small, transparent and with dynamic
features. Employees demographic remain diverse, aged and heterogeneous in nature.
Because of a rise Skilled and educated man power employees expectation are changing
consequently. Furthermore customers preference have also changed, customers are
aware of with whom to work and investors are selectively investing. Competition
became keen with local and global entrants (Dave Ulrich, Wayne Brockbank,Dani
Johnson, & Jon Younger, 2009) .
In the past decades, everyone is interested to know the progress of companies over the
decades either it adapt or fail to adapt, initiating change and responding to change
and in the cumulative, system-wide consequences of individual organizations
responses, both planned and unplanned (Mohrman, Susan Albers, Allan M. Mohrman,
Jr., 1993). Organizational environments have become less benign, more complex, more
interconnected, and more dynamic producing conditions that pose the need for change
while making it difficult to learn and change by overloading the information-processing
capabilities of organizational members. Provoked by the challenges posed to American
industry, first by the success of Japanese firms and the Asian economies and then by the
disruptive technological innovations of the new economy, the recent literature on
change management has tended to argue that organizations are facing an accelerating
and pervasive need for continual, and increasingly rapid and dramatic, change
(Mohrman, 1989).
While change management is the techniques that will renovate the whole procedure,
way and ability with serving the dynamic change for the need of customer and
stakeholders
(John W. Moran and Baird K. Brightman, 2000, pp. 66-74), Ford (1994)
Also states change that happen as a result of something else, where the something else
is end results. Based on the view of Burnes (2004), Rieley & Clarkson (2001) the entire
future of an organization lie in its changes. Moreover its management and positive
outcome should be carefully kept because of the strong tie between organizational
change and strategy. Senior (2002) also outlines the concern and degree of skill requires
managing organizational changes.
Since the need for Change can be describe as reactive, ad hoc, caused by situation of
organizational instability and unpredictable (Burnes, 2004); (De Wit, B. and Meyer, R.,
2005) (Luecke, 2003) (Nelson, 2003). But the acceptance of effective change management
in todays competitive and dynamic environment is high (Luecke, 2003), (Okumus, F.
and Hemmington, N., 1998). According Burnes (2004) a lack of reliable framework for
implementing and managing organizational change has a negative consequence.
Guimaraes & Armstrong (1998) argue that mostly personal and superficial analyses
have been published in the area of change management, and according to Doyle (2002)
there is even evidence to suggest that with only a few exceptions existing practice and
theory are mostly supported by unchallenged assumptions about the nature of
contemporary organizational change management. Edmonstone (1995) Support this
observation that stating many of the change processes over the last 25 years have been
subject to fundamental flaws, preventing the successful management of change.
According Robbins, summers and Miller (2000) to have Dysfunctional and positive
outcome of change the change must be accepted or resisted. Resistance to change is a
mixture of a people response to frustration with strong and coordinated forces (Coch,
L., and French, J.R.P., Jr, 1948) cited in (bennebroek, 2003). Watson (1969, p488-498)
Cited in Bennebroek (2003) has also defines resistance with instability that had been
influenced by different forces on social system and personality. Conner (1998) States
resistance to change as fundamental outcomes of peoples reaction when their status
quo have been interrupted significantly, He has also add our expectation and
psychological value are disrupts and produce loss in our psychological equilibrium
respectively.
The business environment has become increasingly multifaceted and the marketplace
has distorted from restricted location to a worldwide one, to improve competitiveness
there should be application of constant pressure by minimizing cost and enhancing
logistics. Companies should work for responsiveness to competitors and customers in
order to face the challenges. Because it is a crucial that helps a business to stay in the
right truck of business (Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M., & Al-Mashari, M., 2001 ).
In the Ethiopian case most companies were public sectors which are owned by the state.
Since 1991 the Ethiopian government has encouraging privatization policy. In 1995
Ethiopian privatization agency have been establish to facilitate privatize companies
such as St. George Brewery, and the Lega Dembi Gold Mine, Kenticha Tantalum Mine,
the Calub Gas Company, Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola bottling plants, Other companies
and textile mills, and garment factories and the Wonji-Shoa Sugar Factory were among
these privatized companies. Source, (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com).
As the result of privatization, Endowment Fund For Rehabilitation of Tigray (EFFORT)
Corporation is established after the introduction of new privatization policy and free
market in the country, in order to attract private sectors. EFFORT Corporation is
committed to contribute to the sustainable development efforts in the region (Tigray
national regional state). In light of the changing business environment along with
changes and development of the country's social, political and economic aspects as well
as the global trends EFFORT Corporation has clearly stipulated its mission, vision and
core values to be strictly adhered and committed by all its shareholders, management
and employees. Source ((http://www.effortgroup.org/companies.htm))
EFFORT runs more than 20 companies which are engaging in construction, agro
industry, transportation service, engineering, banking, mining, textile, merchandise,
practical boards, pharmaceuticals, transit, travel agency and laser industry etc. To meet
customer demand through efficient customer service and strengthen partnership with
various development actors and stakeholders, the companies have to cope up with new
way of doing business or changes. To implement the mission and vision under the
umbrella of maximizing profit, Over the last 12 years EFFORT has been involved in
introducing four type of organizational change or reforms such as Mass mobilization,
Balance score card (BSC), Benchmark and kaizen package. These reforms were
introduced at different time interval for instance Mass mobilization has been introduced
in the infant stage of the corporation within few companies. The latter three reforms
namely Balance score card, Benchmark and Kaizen package were also introducing five
years ago at the same time for different companies respectively.
In light of the implementation process, cutting in source of income from potential
customer, a need in improving productivity and facing with new entrants are a driving
force which leads to make organizational changes (Chuang, 2004). In addition to that
EFFORTs change desire come up with the need to be competitive and providing
quality product and service. This paper has explored from sample sister companies
which are found in Mekelle city, for the reasons why corporate change practices fail or
succeed and offers some ideas as to how a corporation can institutionalize change to
become a constantly evolving success story, because employees acceptance and
resistance will determine the fate of change efforts.
1.2.
Statement of the Problem
According to Knowles & Linn (2004, pp 117-148) Even though the reaction of change
recipient refers to functional and dysfunctional change it is inevitable to add value on
the existence, engagement, strength of a change and provision of asset and resources for
implementation process.
To deal with external and internal development (minimizing cost) it required applying
a change but there is a difficulty to apply it. Peoples resistance in organization is a
major barrier for a change and too difficult to create a change without resistance
(Kanter, R.M., B.A. Stein and T.D. Jick, 1992). Resistance to change is a major obstacle in
organization (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. M., Werkman, R. A., & Boonstra, J. J. , 2003,
pp. 83-105); (Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. , 1998). Resistance comes as
the result of applications for organizational change or it is the outcome of
organizational change, which is inevitable that apply for every type of changes whether
it is ranging from modest improvements to far-reaching change and organization
transformation. Change and resistance go hand in hand: change implies resistance and
resistance means that change is taking place, top management and change agents
responsibility
is
to
overcome
others
bottom
line
managements
resistance
(Gravenhorst, 2003, p. 3).
Beyond the creation of development oriented infrastructures and bringing sustainable

socio economic development the establishment of manufacturing and service
industries, EFFORT are also well known in the introduction of new way of doing
business. The company has introduced different type of organizational change
practices. Even though the corporation introduced, trains its employs and spent
millions of money for the application of the practices, there is a doubt whether the
change brought the expected results. According to an article published by the
corporation in July Effort (2013), in line with the changes practices that have been
introduced, it is clearly addressed that no or less change were achieved due to different
reasons. Therefore there is a need for the corporation to make empirical investigation
about the issue at hand if the companies desire is being competitive in the market and
achieve strategic objectives. Accordingly this study aim to fill the gap between the
implementation process of the change efforts, the actual outcome achieved, and
identifying the challenges and prospective of the change. Specifically the study will
reason out why employee resist or accept organizational changes.
Research questions
At the end of the study, the finding is expected to provide answer for the following
research questions;
I.
what are the major challenges in the application of organizational change
II.
Is there a prospective to accept a change?
III.
Who are the resisting individuals and/or groups?
IV.
What are their needs?
V.
VI.
VII.
What beliefs and values do they have?

What are their interests?
What are the mechanisms toward handling employees resistance?
1.3.
Objectives of the study
General objective
The general objective of the study incorporates organizational change efforts and
management at EFFORT Corporation.
Specific ObjectivesWhile considering the research question the following are the Specific objective of the
study.
I.
II.
Identify the major challenges of organizational change practices.

To see how employee accept changes
III.
To identify the group/individual who resist change
IV.
To investigate why employee accepts or resists changes
V.
To assess the practice of organizational change efforts.
VI.
VII.
Assessing employees complaint and appropriate solution.

To examine the opportunities for overcoming resistance to change.
1.4.
Significance of the study
The survey will investigate the corporation over all application of organizational change
efforts (practices) and after the end of this study the survey will significantly important
for
For change agent as well as policy maker the investigation will provide a general
framework on determinant of employee acceptance and resistance.
Unless change agents prepare themselves for it, the goal might not be achieved,
therefore the major challenges of the companys organizational change are
expected to be short listed.
The survey will come out with the finding of opportunities and challenges
toward organizational change.
The paper bridges the gap in understanding on the determinants of acceptance

or resistance for organizational change effort. Moreover, the paper will be used
as a reference for further study.
1.5.
Scope of the study
To make the survey specific and tangible the researcher limits the study on the
following: Organizational change take place different steps that come one after another,
these step are crucial which ingredient to the whole process, simultaneously
resistance to change will take place, but due to availability of in sufficient time to
conduct longitudinal survey the researcher will limit the survey on cross
sectional surveys.
To use scarcity of time efficiently the survey will includes only a companies that
are found at the capital city of the regional state of Tigray, Mekelle city and
employee who are working at head quarter.
Due to the nature of employment, Permanent employees are expected to have
best knowledge for the organizational change practice than contract and
employee under probation period. Therefore to gather reliable data the survey
involves permanent employee of these companies.
1.6.
Limitation of the study
The following are the survey that will expects to face challenges because of limited
scope and dynamic nature of the study.
An organizational change takes long-lasting implementation process, due to this

Longitudinal Surveys were appropriate because Surveys of respondents are
made at different time and allows analysis of continuity and changes over time.
But due to controlled and non controlled elements the researcher will conduct
the survey based on cross sectional survey, survey will be made ones.
The sample survey include an organization which is currently involving in
organizational changes practice namely Kaizen package, this will reduce
representativeness of all employees in the corporation who are experienced out
of Kaizen package.
Since the survey exclude employees who are found out of the head quarters of
the sample companies, this might also affect the surveys reliability.
.
CHAPTER
TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1.
Definition of organizational change
There are controversies on the need for organizational change if people have done their
jobs properly why the need to apply a change. According Dunphy (1996) peoples
failure will hinder the implementation and creation of continues changes. Repetitive
change come after the failure in some sort of organizational change. Un expect result
come after overlapping of one to another such as firstly it was loss, secondly a plan of
change and then there was an implementation. Its outcome will be unexpected results
(Czarniawska, B and Joerges., 1996). According Ford (1994) change is an incident that
happens in time. It is the how people talk about the occasion in which something to
happen, or turn into, something else, when the something else that will occur as a
consequence or outcome.
From the point of view organizational development, change refers to the set of
behavioral science-based theories, strategies, values, and techniques focused at the
already planned change of the organizational work situation for the aim of enhancing
individual growth and improving organizational performance, by the alteration of
organizational members. (Porras JI, Robertson PJ., 1992, p. 719822).
The concepts used to flesh out these definitions have been surprisingly durable over the
years. Lewins (1951) three stages of change Unfreeze, change, and refreeze, continue to
be a generic recipe for organizational development. As Hendry (1996) notes, .Scratch
any account of creating and managing change and the idea that change is a three-stage
process which necessarily begins with a process of unfreezing will not be far below the
surface. Indeed it has been said that the whole theory of change is reducible to this one
idea of (Lewins, 1951, p. 624).
2.1.1. Continuous change

The phrase continuous change Is used to group together organizational changes that
tend to be ongoing, evolving, and cumulative. A common presumption is that change is
emergent, meaning that it is .the realization of a new pattern of organizing in the
absence of explicit a priori intentions, (Orlikowski, 1996). Change is described as
situated and grounded in continuing updates of work processes (Brown JS, Duguid P..l,
1991) And social practices (Tsoukas, 1996). Researchers focus on .accommodations to
and
experiments
with
the
everyday
contingencies,
breakdowns,
exceptions,
opportunities, and unintended consequences. (Orlikowski, 1996, p. 65). As these

accommodations .are repeated, shared, amplified, and sustained, they can, over time,
produce perceptible and striking organizational changes (Orlikowski, 1996, p. 89). The
distinctive quality of continuous change is the idea that small continuous adjustments,
created simultaneously across units, can cumulate and create substantial change. That
scenario presumes tightly coupled interdependencies. When interdependencies loosen,
these same continuous adjustments, now confined to smaller units, remain important as
pockets of innovation that may prove appropriate in future environments.
2.2.
Change management
Change can be a time of exciting opportunity for some and a time of loss, disruption or
threat for others. How such responses to change are managed can be the difference
between surviving and thriving in a work or business environment. Change is an
inherent characteristic of any organization and like it or not, all organizations whether
in the public or private sector must change to remain relevant.
Change can originate from external sources through technological advances, social,
political or economic pressures, or it can come from inside the organization as a
management response to a range of issues such as changing client needs, costs or a
human resource or a performance issue. It can affect one small area or the entire
organization. Nevertheless, all change whether from internal or external sources, large
or small, involves adopting new mindsets, processes, policies, practices and behavior.
Irrespective of the way the change originates, change management is the process of
taking a planned and structured approach to help align an organization with the
change. In its most simple and effective form, change management involves working
with an organizations stakeholder groups to help them understand what the change
means for them, helping them make and sustain the transition and working to
overcome any challenges involved. From a management perspective it involves the
organizational and behavioral adjustments that need to be made to accommodate and
sustain change.
There are numerous models and theories about change management, and it is a topic
subject to more than its fair share of management fads and fashions. Popular
approaches include the linear, step by step methods exemplified by Kurt Lewins1
classic three-phase model of change -- unfreeze, move or change, and refreeze, John
Kotters2 popular 8 step change model, the McKinseys 7-S model3, and the ADKAR
model4. Other approaches such as Rosabeth Moss Kanters5 theories and change
theories based on derivatives of the Kbler-Ross6 model focus on the cultural and
people aspects of change. Each approach has its pros and cons, however no one
framework is "best" in all situations.7 Indeed it is not so much the actual model or
theory that is important, but more that the approach that is taken is relevant to the
circumstances. In fact the best change approaches appear to use and adapt aspects of
various models to suit the culture of the organization and the context of the change.
Fundamentally, the basic goal of all change management is to secure buy-in to the
change, and to align individual behavior and skills with the change.
2.2.1. Why is managing change important?

Meeting milestones is not the primary determinant of the success of a change project.
Successful change also involves ensuring employees capacity to adapt to and work
effectively and efficiently in the new environment.
The underlying basis of change management is that peoples capacity to change can be
influenced by how change is presented to them. Their capacity to adapt to change can
shrink if they misunderstand or resist the change, causing barriers and ongoing issues.
The rationale is that if people understand the benefits of change, they are more likely to
participate in the change and see that it is successfully carried out, which in turn means
minimal disruption to the organization.
2.3.
Organizational Climate
More than half a century ago, Kurt Lewin and his associates argued that different
leadership styles create social climates that affect productivity in different ways.
Their research showed that people were nearly equally productive under democratic
and authoritarian leadership styles, but that they worked much more harmoniously and
were more satisfied under a democratic leader. Lewins early work resulted in
numerous applications of the climate concept to business and industry. For example,
Douglas McGregor used the concept of climate in his now classic book The Human Side
of Enterprise. He asserted that managers create a climate that reflects their beliefs about
workers. If they believe that workers need to be cajoled into working, work only for
money, or are not to be trusted to make important decisions, managers create a Theory
X climate. If they believe in the inherent maturity and creativity of employees and
trust their capacity to make decisions in the interest of the firm, they create a Theory
Y climate. In McGregors view, beliefs shape how organizations function. Others have
studied climates with regard to the goals organizations pursue, i.e., the climates that
result when the organization pursues a goal of safety, or service, or innovation, and so
forth. Taken together, this research helps to identify four key climate dimensions, the
first three related to function, the fourth to goals:
2.3.1. The nature of interpersonal relationships.

Is there mutual sharing and trust or conflict and mistrust? Are relationships between
functional units (e.g., between production and sales) cooperative or competitive? Does
the organization support socialization of newcomers or a sink-or-swim approach? Do
people feel that their personal welfare is important to those around them and to top
management?
2.3.2.
The nature of the hierarchy. Are decisions affecting work and the
workplace
made only by top management or are they made with participation from those affected
by the decision? Is the organization characterized by a team approach to work or strictly
an individualistic competitive approach? Does management have special perquisites
that separate them from their subordinates? Such as special parking or dining facilities?
2.3.3.
The nature of work. Is the work challenging or boring? Are jobs

adaptable
By the people performing them, or are they rigidly defined so that everyone must do
them the same way? Does the organization provide workers with the necessary
resources (tools, supplies, information) to get the work done?
2.3.4. The focus of support and rewards. Are the goals of work and the
standards
Of excellence widely known and shared? What gets supported: being warm and
friendly to customers or being fast? Is getting the work done (quantity) or getting the
work right (quality) rewarded? On what bases are people hired? To what goals and
standards are they trained? What facets of performance are appraised and rewarded?
Obviously, then, researchers have included a wide range of issues in the study of
climate, because climate encompasses the prevailing conditions across diverse
organizational activities. Because of this diversity and the habitual nature of many
elements, the climate of an organization is very difficult to change. Regardless of the
focus of an organizations goals for change, the probability of actually having the
change take root is enhanced when people feel their work is challenging, when they can
participate in decisions regarding how the change will be achieved, and when their
interpersonal relationships are characterized by mutual trust. In brief, how
organizations function for their members determines the degree to which change in the
focus of peoples energies and competencies will be sustained. An organization cant
just alter a reward system and produce sustainable changes in behavior. It also cant just
make boring jobs into challenging ones, or just improves the nature of interpersonal
relationships, or just implement participatory decision making. It must do all of these
things. Only by attending to the full range of these concerns will the psychology or feel
of the organization be altered and the change takes root.
2.4.
Organizational Culture
Because organizational culture concerns the firmly implanted beliefs and values of
organizational members, it resides at a deeper level of peoples psychology than does
climate. Culture captures a less conscious, more subtle psychology of the workplace.
Whereas climates policies, practices, and rewards are observable, the beliefs and values
of culture are not so directly visible. For example, AT&Ts culture prior to divestiture
might have been described as customer-focused. People there might have said things
like, we stand for providing universal service to all customers. By we stand for,
they would have meant we value and we believe in service first and service at all
cost. As evidence of these beliefs, emergency crews stood by in case some storm or
construction project might disrupt service, and managers gave special recognition to
employees for creativity in solving customer problems. At the old GM, an assembly line
mentality set the tone. Plant managers looked to new technology to speed up the line
and were rewarded for the number of cars pushed out of the building each day.
Conversations with plant managers and assembly line workers about what it was like to
work there might have yielded comments like, They dont care about quality or people
here; they bring in these robots to get rid of people and churn out more product. The
they here is top management; what top management believes is a large part of what
constitutes the culture of an organization. To change this kind of culture, GM
established the Saturn model in which people and technology are combined to produce
quality. Now, a Saturn plant manager or worker might say something like, they think
quality is crucial. Even I have been convinced by the actions they have taken. Here we
see the connection between climate and culture. The actions they have taken refers to
changes in practices (recalling the first one thousand cars shipped immediately upon
discovering a problem) and the kind of behavior that is rewarded (a worker positively
recognized for halting the assembly line to repair a faulty power screwdriver). In
addition, annual bonuses are based in part on quality. These kinds of practices and
rewards (climate) make people believe that management values quality (culture).
Writings about culture place great emphasis on the values and beliefs that appear to
have guided the founder or founders of an organization. Strong cultureswhere
there is a pervasive sharing of the values that govern behaviorappear to have had
strong founders. Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and J. C. Penney are often cited as examples of
how a strong founder leaves a legacy in terms of organizational behaviora particular
style, characterized by specific policies, practices, and procedures identifiable as the
founders imprint.
2.5.
Defining resistance to change
Change is part of the day today business environment, organizational resistance will
cripple the organization itself, the following definition will set clear the terms.
According Zander (1950,pp 9-11) the definition of resistance lies to when a behavior
defend someone from the influence of a change. Folger & Skarlicki (1999) also define
resistance the behavior of employee which is ready for the dialogue and power,
challenge and disrupt the current status quo.
Chawla & Kelloway (2004) underline the angle of resistance to attitudinal and
behavioral responses of change. Slowing, delaying and hindering the overall process
and obstructing the implementation are the some of the resistance that face in any
organization, which lead to rise its costs (Ansoff I. H., 1990). People resist the outcome
of the change such as loss of comfort, position and compensation (Dent, E., & Goldberg,
S., 1999, pp. 25-41). Zander (1950) Offered six primary reasons for resistance to surface
if:
I.
II.
Stake holders are not clear with the change efforts of the company.
Change efforts are subjected to speculation.
III.
Employee develop sense of discouraging
IV.
Target employee feel as decision recipients rather part of decision making
V.
VI.
Personal issue are prioritized in the change effort and

Existing institution have given less intension
According piderits definition to resistance as a unconstructive attitudes, emotional

(affective), cognitive and behavioral component. There are three out come that express
the components in the mind of individual by judging an situation (McGuire, 1985, pp.
233 346). The emotional (affective) consider the felling toward changes, rather
cognitive component perceive (think) about an object whether it is important,
behavioral component apply action against changes it could be complain against the
change and attracting others intention by their criticism or discourage people no
change will come. All the three components are dependent one to another. Peoples
feeling, thought and behavioral intension to ward change are compatible one to another
even though the components reflect a resistance separately.
2.5.1. Why change fail

Here according Kotter (2000, pp 60-67) the definition of resistance there is high degree
of complexity picture that were not disclose before. Based on the examination on
antecedents and consequences. In addition to certain component associated with
antecedent and consequences, whereas other not peoples feeling about change have
different results.
Why do so many transformation efforts produce only middling results? One

overarching reason is that leaders typically fail to acknowledge that large-scale change
can take years. Moreover, a successful change process goes through a series of eight
distinct stages. These stages should be worked through in sequence. Skipping steps to
try to accelerate the process invariably causes problems. And since the success of a
given stage depends on the work done in prior stages, a critical mistake in any of the
stages can have a devastating impact for each of the stages in a change process, there is
a corresponding pitfall.
2.5.1.1.
Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency.
Half of all change efforts fail at the start. When is the urgency rate high enough? When
75% of management is genuinely convinced that the status quo is, in the words of the
CEO of a European company, more dangerous than launching into the unknown.
2.5.1.2.
Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition.
In successful transformation efforts, the chairman or president or general manager of

the division, plus another five to 50 othersincluding many, but not all, of the most
influential people in the unit develop a shared commitment to renewal.
2.5.1.3.
Lacking a vision.
Without a coherent and sensible vision, a change effort dissolves into a list of confusing
and incompatible projects. If you can't communicate the vision in five minutes or less
and get a reaction that indicates both understanding and interest, your work in this
stage isnt done.
2.5.1.4.
Under communicating the vision by a factor of ten.
Use every existing communication vehicle to get the vision out. Incorporate the vision
into routine discussions about business problems.
2.5.1.5.
Not removing obstacles to the new vision.
Renewal requires the removal of obstacles systemic or humanto the vision. One
companys transformation ground to a halt because the executive in charge of the
largest division didnt change his own behavior, didnt reward the unconventional
ideas called for in the vision, and left the human resource systems intact even though
they were incompatible with the new ideals.
2.5.1.6.
Not systematically planning for and creating short-term

wins.
Clearly recognizable victories within the first year or two of a change effort help
convince doubters that the change effort is going to be worth all the trouble.
2.5.1.7.
Declaring victory too soon.
At this stage, its fine to celebrate a short-term win, but its catastrophic to declare the
war over.
2.5.1.8.
Not anchoring changes in the corporations culture.
If they are to stick, new behaviors must be rooted in the social norms and shared values
of a corporation. To accomplish this, make a conscious attempt to show people that the
new behaviors and approaches have improved performance. Also, make sure that the
next generation of top management embodies the new approach.
2.6.
Strategies for Overcoming Resistance
There are two strategies to introduce a change such as unfreezing and maintaining the
status quo, unfreezing the status quo used better than maintaining the status quo when
there is a need to show or describe a proposed change even though unfreezing is not
enough for a change that have already planned. Moreover change is unavoidable that
we cant stop it, if a change is required to be fast and effective and timely a change
agent should understand no more a status quo.
2.6.1. Fast and Effective Change Management
Change management never expects a slow acceptance to their changes. Due to this
reason overall operation of the company will interrupt by poor performance followed
by accumulate grievances of employees.
To consider about a change initiating, Flexibility is crucial ingredients when thinking to
overcome a resistance for the sake of implementing a change with best performance,
having best performance also results when change implementing as the same time
envisioning activity have been performed.
Majority change initiatives expect to enhance performance. But rare to achieve, those
goals enhance quality, improve customer satisfaction and other dimensions formerly
vision were forgotten. After the introduction of the change decision made immediately
change sponsors worry shift from justification to the implementation and the promise
of better performance to making sure the targets of change understand what the
requested changes are and will comply. Indeed change management and improved
performance go side by side, change shouldnt be for granted, change manager have to
begin with unfreezing the status quo and immediately encouraging already assessed
behavior, then spotlight will be on driving performance higher by improving flexible
effort. That is fast and effective change management (Ash, 2009).
2.7. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
Independent
variable
Dependent
Variable
The fear of losing

power
fear of change routine

based
Fear of not being able

to implement the
change
Resistance to change
Not feeling the benefits

of the change
Increased workload
Figure1. The Conceptual Framework of the Research
Figure 1indicates the search form for this study. This framework considered that the
five reasons for the resistance to change are "the fear of losing power, insecurity and
fear of change routine based, fear of not being able to implement the change and not
feeling the benefits of the change, the increased workload. In fact, the main objective of
this study is to identify the reasons that lead to resistance to change.
2.7.1. Theoretical Back Ground

Concept of resistance to change
In order to understand the concept of employee resistance, it is critical to define what is
meant by the term resistance. As stated in Dent and Goldberg (1999p:34), an early
researcher on the subject, defined resistance to change as "behavior which is intended to
protect an individual from the effects of real or imagined change."
Zaltman and Duncan (1977) define resistance as "any conduct that serves to maintain
the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo".
Ansoff (1984:p388) defines resistance to change as "... a multi-faceted phenomenon,

which introduces unanticipated delays, costs and instabilities into the process of
strategic change."
Folger and Skarlicki (1999:p36) defines resistance as "employee behavior that seeks to
challenge, disrupt, or invert prevailing assumptions, discourses, and power relations"
Piderit (2000:p784) believes that the definition of the term resistance must incorporate a
much broader scope. She states that "a review of past empirical research reveals three
different emphases in conceptualizations of resistance: as a cognitive state, as an
emotional state, and as a behavior."
Reasons for Resistance to Change

We can say that resistance to change springs from different reasons which can be
summed up as follows:
1. Personal reasons: - that include social, economic or emotional ones. An

individual is inclined by nature to build social relations with other persons to
satisfy some of his needs. A change may constitute a threat to such social
relations (French W, Bell C, 1990). The economic reasons come out of the fear that
the change may negatively affect the employees' acquired rights. Emotionally,
employees usually have concerns about the unknown.
2. Organizational reasons: - emanating from the fear of employees that the

proposed change is not satisfied by the proper organizational preparedness and
from the feeling that the required skills needed to implement the change are not
available (Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R, 1977). Also, they may have concerns about
the organizational disorder that may be brought about by the change in the
positions existing in the organization; employees resist the change if they find
that it threatens their authorities and influence. A weak communications system
in the organization is considered to be one of the obstacles on the way of the
implementing the change (Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R, 1977). Kotter and
Schesinger (1999) affirm that the inability to apprehend the importance of the
change may be a result of the weak coordination between the persons
responsible for the change and those who implement it. Lack of trust between the
Administration and employees leads to misunderstanding and does not help
employees to understand the needs for the change.
3. Cognitive reasons: - which mean Lack of perception of the process of change

and its importance on the part of employees and absence of the feeling that they
need it are obstacles that prevent bringing about the required change. Affirms
that the lack of sufficient knowledge on the part `of employees pertinent to why,
when, and how the change can be implemented is considered to be a reason for
resisting it. Employees refuse the change out of their belief that their acceptance
of it implies that what they were doing was wrong, and therefore they resist the
change out of their care to maintain their dignity (kamel, 2012).
4. Moral and cultural reasons:- which come out of the expectation that the change
may be accompanied with a new culture introduced into the organization, a fact
that may bring about critical changes in its values, postulates and basic
principles.
Take organizational resistance to change many forms, some directly and some
indirectly, according Kamel (2012) has identified in the following points
The large number of complaints and grumbling.
Attacking proposals and new ideas and criticism in a negative way.
Lack of participation in active for change.
The spread of rumors.
Non-compliance with the rules and work procedures.
High labor turnover.
High rates of absence without reason.
Low productivity rate.
Increasing organizational conflicts.
Individual insists that the change is not fair.
Reduces the individual of the importance of the need for change.
Individual tries to influence others to stay on the current situation is better than
change.
CHAPTER THREE
Research Methodology
3.1.
Data Type and Source
Primary data: - Will be collected through questionnaire and interview that will distribute and
conduct with employee and management of two sister companies of EFFORT Corporation,
namely Messobo cement factory, and Bruh Tesfa irrigation and water technology plc.
Secondary data: - Are incorporated as a source of data, Reports, manuals, internal

publications, and data base systems are expected to be a part of secondary data.
Qualitative and Quantitative: - The researcher will use both quantitative and qualitative
data type simultaneously through Primary and secondary data, and Data will be collected with
questionnaires and interview as part of a survey feedback, questionnaire will distribute to
sample respondent and interview will held mainly with human resource at each sister company
and with management of the EEFORT corporation, because all management are primary
responsible for introduction and implementation of organizational changes.
3.2.
Research Strategy and Design
Sampling and Sampling Procedure

A non-random sampling technique will be implementing at this study. Mekelle city is
purposely selected out of all cities from Tigray regional state. Two companies were also
purposely selected through Judgmental sampling method namely Messobo cement factory and
Bruh Tesfa irrigation and water technology plc, by using two criteria, messobo is selected
because of its large number of population, this huge number of population can increase a
representativeness of the sample, Bruh Tesfa is also selected by the researcher due to long term
of exposure between the researcher and the company.
Different researcher take different sample size 5%,10%,15% and 20% of a population under
investigation there is no hard and fast rule of presenting the sample size (Andersen, 1990) . The
researcher however, determines the samples for employee of both companies, using non random sampling techniques through judgmental sampling that built the sample frame. As per
the data obtained from claim department of the company, the total number of employee is 1471.
1350 employee are from Messobo cement factory and 121 from Bruh tesfa. Accordingly the
researcher deliberately select sample from the total of these one thousand four hundred seventy
one (1471) employees. Due to the sample respondent of the organization required to permanent
or non contract employee and employee who are not in probation period and employee who
are not in the position with janitor service, guard and cafeteria service There for to full fill the
gap the sample respondent should have an experience of greater than 45 days, these employee
must be discriminated from the total population of the organization in time of distributing a
questioner, because employee who is legible to the criteria are expected to be familiar with
change effort of the corporation and Easley comprehend the questionnaire. Furthermore all
human resources are included in the sample frame. The total number of human resource of the
company is three (3), the researcher deliberately select 181 members taking a confidence level
93% and an error limit of 0.07 using Yamane (1967) provided a simplified formula to calculate
sample sizes.
n= __ N .__
1+N(C)2
= __1471_____
1+1471(0.07) ^2
=178+3= 181
3.3.
Data Collection and Instrument
The survey will include various types of data such as demographic, education level, attitude
and level of resistance. The goals of the survey will to assess the change practices, barriers to
change, management of a change in the organization and to discuss these barriers with different
stakeholders in order to see the prospective and challenges of the changes. The study collects
primary and secondary data through different instrument. It will use an instrument for the
collection of crucial data open ended and closed questionnaire, interview and literature review.
Questionnaire: - is first instrument that constitute of closed and open ended questions. It will
be designed to solicit relevant information from employee about the overall application of
change efforts, factors that affect change efforts, level of acceptance and resistance, employees
belief and value, and their interest. Questionnaires are pervasive in nature that reaches to
sample respondent of the total population at short time and with minimum cost.
Interview: - it is the second instrument used in the study to collect information from human
resource of the companies. An interview with human resource is designed to collect data that
will assess the practice of organizational change efforts, while interviewing top management
are also time saving, and more convenient than other methods. It reduces inconvenience, to
bring top manage together for focus group discussion or other techniques.
Data Collection; - The researcher will administer the questionnaire and interview. After
questionnaire are distributed and gathered, interview will held with human resource of these
companies. Accordingly as sample size 181 questionnaire will conveniently distributed to
employee of the companies based on the criteria of the researcher, under close supervision of
the researcher in collaboration with management of the companies. Furthermore to add value to
the survey structured interview also held with the management of these companies at their
convenient time, it is expected to conduct at the working hours.
3.4.
Data Processing and Analysis
The main emphasis of this study was to identify and analyze the factors challenging the
corporations change efforts within sister companies. Hence the studys unit of analysis is
employees of these companies specifically Bruh Tesfa and Messobo, although the unit of
analysis are employees. The data will be collected from employee themselves.
Employees questionnaire were coded and entered into SPSS software program for analyzing.
The open ended questions will be manipulated and used as they are. The data gathered through
quantitative and qualitative methods were triangulated and analyzed using percentage, figures,
graphs and tables i.e. a descriptive analysis will be implemented.
The researcher will edit the data on field and in house to minimize respondent error. Coding
the primary data and analysis will be with the support of SPSS version 20 soft ware.
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.1. Introduction
The purpose of this study is to assess the practices of organizational change at Endowment
Fund for Rehabilitation of Tigray (EFFORT) Mekelle city sister companies. The respondent of
this study were employee and human resource of two companies namely Messobo cement
factory and Bruh Tesfa irrigation and water technology plc. A total of 181 sample respondents.
The sample of the study was selected using judgmental sampling for the two sister companies
and the sample respondents were also selected through simple random sampling. In this section
the result of the questionnaire in frequency, percentage, mean and median were analyzed and
interpreted. In addition interview was conducted with human resource management of at each
company. The collected data analyzed using SPSS IBM version 20.
Part one
Demographic questions
Table 1 Gender, Age and educational status of respondents
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Mean
Percent
Age
Sex
18-25
19
10.5
10.5
10.5
26-35
104
57.5
57.5
68.0
36-40
42
23.2
23.2
91.2
Above 40 years
16
8.8
8.8
100.0
Total
181
100.0
100.0
male
125
69.1
69.1
69.1
Female
56
30.9
30.9
100.0
Total
181
100.0
100.0
67
37.0
37.0
37.0
107
59.1
59.1
96.1
3.9
3.9
100.0
181
100.0
100.0
Diploma
E. status Degree
Masters
Total
Std.
Range
deviation
1.3039
0.77563
3.00
0.3094
0.46353
1.00
0.6685
0.54828
2.00
Source: own survey of 2013
Out of 181 respondent 69.1% are male, in case of age group 57.5% are young between 26 to 35
years old. Degree holders account 59.1 % the rest 37 and 3.9 percent are diploma and master
holders respectively.
The above table implies majority of employee are young between the age of 26 to 36 which is
active age group, and with different skill and back ground such as degree, diploma and masters
respectively. But in case of gender the company dominated by male specially in blue-collar
workers. Gender inequality is lower in case of white-collars but due to manufacturing nature of
these company most of employee are blue-collars.
Part two
Organizational change instrument related
question
Table 2 change efforts of the company
Question 1 Which
of the following changes practices are you practicing?

Frequency
Mass mobilization
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.1
1.1
1.1
178
98.3
98.3
99.4
BSC
BPR
If any other
0.6
0.6
100.0
181
100.0
100.0
Kaizen package
Total
Mean
Std.
Range
deviation
1.0055
0.24714
4.00
Question 2 What were the major changes required?

Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
System change
28
15.5
15.5
15.5
Process change
23
12.7
12.7
28.2
Cost reduction
43
23.8
23.8
51.9
Cultural change
65
35.9
35.9
87.8
Org. restructure
22
12.2
12.2
100.0
Total
181
100.0
100.0
Mean
Std.
Range
deviation
2.1657
1.25394
4.00
Source: own survey 2013

Kaizen package is introduced at the company according to a dominant respondent which
account 98.3, and 1.1 % have said mass mobilization. 35.9 % respondent believes the change
required to make a change in the culture of the organization, 23.8% said cost reduction. Even
though currently kaizen package is well known as a change instrument, few years ago as
respondent tried to mark, mass mobilization were introduced before Kaizen taking place .
Table 3 training exposure of respondent

Question 4. Do
you take any training which is related to Change efforts?

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Yes
103
56.9
56,9
56.9
No
78
43.1
43.1
100.0
Total
181
100
Question 5. If your answer is yes for previous question No 4 how much the
training was helpful to your job?
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Much helpful
30
29.12
29.12
Helpful
51
49.51
49.51
78.63
Neither helpful or harmful
22
21.35
21.35
100.0
Harmful
103
100.0
100.0
Total
29.12
Question 6. What is your evaluation of the interaction of yours with other

collogues after the application of change efforts?
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
complement each other very well
43
23.8
23.8
23.8
complement each other well
69
38.1
38.1
61.9
no observable relationship
64
35.4
35.4
97.2
2.8
2.8
100.0
181
100.0
100.0
i couldn't say
Total
Around half of respondent (56%.9) took training that complement with their job much helpful
29.12 % and helpful 49.51 %, neither helpful nor harmful were 21.35 %. Respondent become
well complement each other 38.1 % after the change effort took place in the organization, there
are also 35% respondent see no observable relationship even change instrument implemented.
Table 3 shows even though trained employee are much more than non trained but number of
non trained employee are numerous. In addition the training were helpful to the practical world
that employee are expected to solve challenges in their day to day activity.
Table 4 employees expectation

Question 7. What do managers do in order to develop employee's awareness
toward change efforts?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
Valid
being transparent
47
26.0
26.0
26.0
being fair
78
43.1
43.1
69.1
Being participatory
50
27.6
27.6
96.7
i don't know
2.8
2.8
99.4
satisfied
0.6
0.6
100.0
181
100.0
100.0
Total
Indeed respondent are highly expects being fair 43%, being participatory 27.6 % and 26% being
transparent leaders on the day to day interaction of manager visa vise subordinate. The table
also shows a few or no one satisfied with the of management of the organization.
Table 5 part of change instrument

Question 8. Which one do you know best in your organization
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Mean
Percent
reengineering
Valid
2.8
2.8
2.8
171
94.5
94.5
97.2
lean production
2.2
2.2
99.4
if any other
.6
.6
100.0
181
100.0
100.0
Total
Range
deviation
quality circle
Std.
1.0055
0.26868
3.00
Respondents are well known with quality circle 94.5%, lean production 2.2% and reengineering
2.8%. Quality circle is kind of a meeting held among group of workers who are working
together with similar objects, most of time it is held once a week some times daily. The purpose
of the meeting is to tackle a problem that hinder in production which brings wastes,
unnecessary delay. While the issue of the meeting (quality circle) only related to job. Therefore
employee with different background are expected to provide solution, new idea and detailed
technical remedy. Moreover radical change is not expected rather incremental change, because
the philosophy by itself deal with continues changes, nothing will come overnight.
Table 6 mechanism for minimizing inefficiency
Question 9. What are the mechanisms for minimizing inefficiency?

Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Mean
Std.
Percent
96
53
53.0
43
23.8
23.8
40
22.1
22.1
1.1
1.1
181
100.0
100.0
Through quality circle

Through continues
meeting
Through experience
If any other
Total
53.0
76.8
Range
deviation
0.7127
0.84676
3.00
98.9
100.0
Question 10. If your answer for Q 9 is A, How often you participate in quality circle
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Mean
Percent
Daily
36
19.9
19.9
Weekly
135
74.6
74.6
Monthly
5.0
5.0
If any other
181
100.0
100.0
Total
Std.
Range
deviation
19.9
94.5
0.8619
0.50303
99.4
100.0
3.00
Question 11 If your answer for Q 10 is A or B or C, Are you all participate in quality circle?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Mean
Percent
yes
100
55.24
55.24
55.24
no
69
38.1
38.1
93.4
i don't know
12
6.6
6.6
100.0
Total
181
100.0
100.0
Std.
Range
deviation

According 53 % of respondent quality circle is a mechanism to minimize inefficiency, while
continues meeting and experience are a mechanism to deal with minimizing inefficiency 23.8%
and 22.1 % respectively. Quality circle held weekly 74.6 % and most of employee 55.24 % are
participating in the meeting.
The table indicates majority of employee have a belief in quality circle to come out with
solutions and better idea but still numerous number are boycotted from participating there.
Table 7 employee issue and decision making

Question 12. Do you agree that your idea have been considered in time of decision making?
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Strongly agree
13
7.2
7.2
7.2
Agree
82
45.3
45.3
52.5
Neither
14
7.7
7.7
60.2
Disagree
64
35.4
35.4
95.6
4.4
4.4
100.0
181
100.0
100.0
Strongly disagree
Total
Mean
Std.
Range
Deviation
1.8453
1.11969
4.00

45.3% respondent agree their idea have been considered in time of decision making, unlike this
35.4% disagree their idea were not considered in time of decision making, while 7.7 % neither
agree or disagree, 7.2% also strongly agree .
The survey shows significant number of employee are believe they have contribute in decision
making because they believe their idea have been considered in time of decision making , but
there are also many respondent go against it, because their idea have not considered in time of
decision making .
Table 8
5s of Kaizen
Question 12. Do you
5s
believe 5s are practically applied at your organization?
Standardize
Sort
Shining
Setting in order
Sustaining
Percent
9.9
5.5
21.5
9.4
Mean
2.6740
2.4309
2.5414
2.2873
2.2707
Std. deviation
1.05348
1.36298
1.18072
1.47772
1.28178
14.4
19.3
13.3
6.6
22.7
Mean
2.6740
2.4309
2.5414
2.2873
2.2707
Std. deviation
1.05348
1.36298
1.18072
1.47772
1.28178
Definitely Not
Probably Not
Percent
Seldom
Percent
33.7
19.3
29.8
20.4
20.4
Mean
2.6740
2.4309
2.5414
2.2873
2.2707
Std. deviation
1.05348
1.36298
1.18072
1.47772
1.28178
Percent
22.1
20.4
24.3
24.3
26.5
Mean
2.6740
2.4309
2.5414
2.2873
2.2707
Std. deviation
1.05348
1.36298
1.18072
1.47772
1.28178
Percent
29.8
30.9
27.1
27.1
21.0
Mean
2.6740
2.4309
2.5414
2.2873
2.2707
Std. deviation
1.05348
1.36298
1.18072
1.47772
1.28178
Sometime
Definitely
Source: owned survey 2013
The above table deal with five s (5 s) explicitly standardize, sort, shining, setting in order and
sustaining with five scale of measuring, from most negative to most positive. In case of
standardize it is applied seldom according 33.7 % of respondent, definitely applied to 29 % and
sometimes 22.1% said. Sorting is definitely applied with 30.9%, sometime applied go with 20.4
% and seldom 19.3%. on the other hand shining applied seldom based on respondent accounts
29.8 %, sometime 24.3% and definitely consist of 27.1%. In case of setting in order it is
distributed uniform with definitely, sometime, seldom, definitely not with 27.1%, 24.3%, 20.4%,
21.5% respectively. Like setting in order sustaining goes uniform with definitely 21.0%,
sometime 26.5%, seldom 20.4, and probably not 22.7 %.
The above table clearly shows most respondent have different experience in the application of
5s. It seems to be different department with one company have not exercising the package
synonyms.
Table 9
7 wastes
Question 13. Are you minimizing the following 7 wastes?
Overproduction
Inventory
Defects
Motion
Processing
Waiting
Transportation
Percent
1.1
29.8
17.7
7.7
32.0
1.1
Mean
2,4751
1.9558
2.1989
2.1547
2.1768
1.7127
2.0552
1.24975
1.48632
1.34751
1.29458
1.21642
1.40052
1.09911
34.8
6.1
12.2
35.9
44.2
10.5
40.3
2,4751
1.9558
2.1989
2.1547
2.1768
1.7127
2.0552
1.24975
1.48632
1.34751
1.29458
1.21642
1.40052
1.09911
6.6
19.3
19.9
7.2
12.7
21.0
24.3
2,4751
1.9558
2.1989
2.1547
2.1768
1.7127
2.0552
1.24975
1.48632
1.34751
1.29458
1.21642
1.40052
1.09911
30.4
28.2
33.1
31.5
22.1
27.1
20.4
7 Wastes
Definitely Not
Std. deviation
Probably Not
Percent
Mean
Std. deviation
Seldom
Percent
Mean
Std. deviation
Sometime
Percent
Mean
2,4751
1.9558
2.1989
2.1547
2.1768
1.7127
2.0552
Std. deviation
1.24975
1.48632
1.34751
1.29458
1.21642
1.40052
1.09911
Percent
27.1
16.6
17.1
17.7
20.4
9.4
13.8
Mean
2,4751
1.9558
2.1989
2.1547
2.1768
1.7127
2.0552
1.24975
1.48632
1.34751
1.29458
1.21642
1.40052
1.09911
Definitely
Std. deviation
7 wastes are part of inefficiency that can be explained with low performance in every
part and parcel of a company manly in production, engineering, purchasing, and
marketing and so on. Wastes can occur by over production, holding inventory,
producing defects, unnecessary motion, over processing, waiting and transportation
wastes. Accordingly 34.8 % of respondent said their chance of minimizing wastes is
probably not, 30.4 % said sometime and 27.1% also can definitely minimize wastes.
Holding inventory also definitely cant be minimized (29.8), but sometime it is under
control or minimized holding 28.2% of respondent. 33.1 % of respondent can minimize
Producing defect product sometimes, 19.9% seldom and 17.7% are definitely
minimizing it. Motion probably not, sometime and definitely possible to minimize with
respect of 35.9%, 31.5% and 17.7% of respondents feedback respectively. Minimizing
Processing is probably not based on the feedback of respondent that account 44.2%,
there is possibility to minimize it sometime 22.1% and definitely can be minimized
20.4%.waiting is cumbersome to minimize it, lion share of respondent marks definitely
not 32.0%, but there is possibility to minimized un necessary waiting with possibility
seldom 27.1% and 21.0% sometime. A waste in transportation probably not minimized
40.3% respondent reply, but there is a time seldom 24.3% and sometime 20.4%.
Part three
Attitude toward change efforts
Table 10 attitude questions one
The following questions are to be answered using the number
scale listed.
Strong
Agree
(%)
Agre
Neither
agree
(%)
(%)
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
(%)
mean
(%)
1 Do you understand the need for the current changes in the

organization
17.7
35.4
28.2
17.7
1.1
2.5083
24.3
63.5
2.8
7.2
2.2
3.0055
3 Do you think your needs are considered before change is

implemented
6.6
24.3
9.9
39.8
19.3
1.5912
4 How do you agree with the current changes being

implemented have clear business results in mind?
18.8
28.2
7.7
29.3
16.0
2.0442
5 Can we say The organization shares a strong sense of

urgency to implement change?
11.0
25.4
11.0
23.8
28.7
1.6630
6 Do you think you are enjoying by going to work every day?
16.0
28.2
30.4
7.2
18.2
2.1657
7 Do you believe Senior management has a vision for the

future?
8.8
42.5
27.1
11.0
10.5
2.2818
8 Does Management motivate all employees to be involved in
4.4
26.0
9.9
37.0
22.7
1.5249
Do you feel optimistic for the change effort of the

company
change?
9 I feel uncertain about my job when change is implemented.
26.0
44.8
9.9
13.3
6.1
1.2873
Majority of employees feel optimistic for the future change effort of the company and well
understood why it is applied , according respondents responses 63.5% and 35.3% respectively.
28.2% of employees said agree because they are enjoying by going work every day. Respondent
believe senior management being a visionary and feels uncertain about their job due to change
implementation 42.5% and 44.8% respectively.
Table 11 attitude questions two

The following questions are to be answered using the number
scale listed.
Strong
Agree
(%)
10
What is your agreement
toward feeling like crucial
63.5
Agre
Neither
agree
(%)
(%)
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
(%)
mean
(%)
13.8
19.9
1.7
1.1
3.3702
38.7
32.0
12.7
7.2
2.3039
person to the organization?

11
Being innovative and looking for solutions is 9.4

encouraged?
12
There are effective levels of communication among 5.0

the organization.
49.7
26.5
13.8
5.0
2.3591
13
Do you think any progress can come out through 25.4

quality circle
61.9
3.9
7.2
1.7
3.0221
14
People say quality circle is made for granted
12.2
8.3
60.2
11.0
2.5359
8.3
15
Do you have the chance to come up with new way of

doing business
9.9
22.1
12.7
26.0
29.3
1.5746
16
Do you feel sense of organizational ownership
62.4
33.7
1.7
.6
1.7
3.5470
17
Have you ever seen when employee rewarded
18.8
27.1
32.0
6.6
15.5
2.2707
18
Do you thing supervisors able to make remedy for 3.3

challenges
19.9
13.3
24.3
39.2
1.2376
19
Can we say evaluations are process oriented than 17.7

individual oriented
16.6
9.4
24.9
31.5
1.6409
The companies motivate employee to be innovative and solution finder which accounts 38.7 %
of respondent. Employee expect change /progress/ can come out through quality circle 61.9%.
And 39.2 % didnt think supervisor able to provide remedy for challenges.
Part four
Resistance related questions
Question 1. How often do appear the following short list problems during the implementation stage
of change efforts?
S/n
Always
Some
Seldom
Rare
Never
Mean
times
1.1
No harmony between departments
26.0 %
21.5%
24.9%
21.5%
6.1%
2.3978
1.2
Not enough support from supervisor
29.3%
47.5%
13.3%
7.7%
2.2%
2.9392
1.3
Resistance of employee to change
7.7%
21.0%
18.8%
30.9%
21.5%
1.6243
1.4
lack of enough resources
51.9%
29.3%
13.3%
3.9%
1.7%
3.2597
1.5
Because of higher bureaucracy
18.8%
20.4%
28.7%
25.4%
6.6%
2.1934
1.6
Limited technological knowhow
31.5%
38.7%
22.1%
7.7%
2.9392
1.7
No clear vision
29.3%
31.5%
15.5%
16.0%
7.7%
2.5856
1.8
No
14.9%
22.1%
30.4%
26.0%
6.6%
2.1271
recognition
for
model
achievements
1.9
Lack fairness
35.9%
37.6%
18.8%
6.1%
1.7%
3.0000
1.10
Ignoring employee request
37.6%
39.8%
16.6%
5.0%
1.1%
3.0773
1.11
No confidence on Kaizen
7.2%
24.3%
36.5%
26.5%
5.5%
2.0387
1.12
Lack organizational ownership
23.8%
28.7%
26.0%
16.0%
5.5%
2.4917
Table 12 resistance to change

No harmony among departments occurs, seldom 24.9%, always 26.0 %. Subordinate do

not get enough support from supervisor sometimes 47.5% and 29.3% always. Lack of
enough resources is happening always and sometimes 51.9% and 29.3% said
respondent respectively. Employees resistance to change is rarely 30.9% happening.
Limited technological knowhow have had 38.7%. Lack of fairness occurs always 35.9%
and also ignoring employees request occurs sometimes 39.8%.
The above table shows what matter their degree of frequency is, source of resistance to
change is taking place at these companies.
Table 12 Exposure of resistance to change

2.
Have you ever seen when employees
Frequency
Percent
resist the change programs?
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Yes
89
49.17
49.17
49.17
No
78
43.09
43.09
92.3
I dont know
14
7.7
7.7
100.0
Total
181
100
100
Source:- own survey of 2013
49.17% of respondent see when employee resist to change the rest 43.09% did not see
such situation and 7.7 they dont know.
4.2 Result of open ended questions

3. If your answer for question no2 is yes, why people resist the program?
The following are justifications given by respondent why the reason employee resists
organizational change.
Miss understanding of the change instrument by employee, lack of proper
knowledge and awareness, the change havent proper measurement to rate
employees performance and lack fairness on the implementation stage.
Employees are dissatisfied against the action of leaders (management) and
being paper tiger.
Some employees are not free from old misconception toward the change
instruments, because they believe change will hurts people and it is not
participatory.
Leaders misunderstand and lack awareness toward organizational goal and
their leadership style lack participatory activity.
Leaders implementation the change instruments at the cost of the company
interest, it lacks employees promotion program employee are treated
inadequately.
Many employee are not at the right place or there is a problem in staffing, paid
unfair salary ( for instance experienced and non experienced employee are
receiving similar salary),
4.
Respondent reason out the obstacles for question What are the set up that hinder
you not to accept the change effort?
Due to Faller in implementing the program genuinely.
When implementing the program Leaders lack transparency. They are not ready
to consider employees affair, it creates miss much between management and
employees for treating the change program.
Poor performance of leaders, it creates poor relationship among employee visa
vise management.
Even though restructure were applied, due to Lack of proper staffing system
employee are not found where they are suppose to be found. Employee are
losing a confidence on the change instruments,
Poor follow up of the system, no harmony between departments, time is wasted
in
unnecessary
meeting,
lack
uniformity
on
understanding
toward
organizational goal, management are pessimistic on employees affair and no

motivational package provide to motivate employee, are some of the obstacles
that hinder employee not to accept the change program.
5.
Why employees lack organizational ownership?
Due to Lack of fairness, nepotism (Biasness), employee arent getting proper

compensation,
Due to improper solution for employees demand and unhealthy relationship
between management and employee,
Being faultfinding and giving no recognition for achievements, management

belittles employees achievement, and focusing in unnecessary issues.
Lack of adequate resource.
6.
Do you think the existing culture is favorable to introduce a change?
40% of respondent say yes and 40% also say no the rest 15% and 5 % said
partially and sometimes helpful respectively.
7.
If you have anything unmentioned please specify?
Basically Kaizen, organizational restructure, mass mobilization and other change

instruments are helpful to bring a change but in case of Efforts companies it
faces short coming such as:
The change instrument has much routing paper works.
Consecutive meeting are held to monitor and control employees, but

such activity is creating anxiety, tension and fatigue among
employees, trust also declining. Therefore such activity should be
eliminated and every employee has to be monitored and evaluated
with a criterion resemble the job.
If employees demand were replied properly, definitely change will

take place, because employees start to feel organizational ownership.
Poor performance of labor union is costing employees advantage.

Leaders should work to uphold unions rather to discourage.
4.3. Result of Interview questions

Interview questions have been conducted with management at each company. Eight
questions were part of the discussion asked to human resource, accordingly it is
summarized below:1.
What is the goal to implement a change?
Answer: - according to the respondents EFFORT Corporation are looking to change the
way of doing business on bases of the following
Short term goal:- to increase sales and saving from going to bankruptcy, and to
enhance poor performance of sister companies
The long term goal:- is to increasing competitiveness and to be a pioneer
company at their respective
industry, to change its organizational culture,
helping a company to encourage innovation are some of the reason(goal) why

EFFORT Corporation introduce organizational change instruments.
2. How do you evaluate the success and failure?
Answer: - until now there is no a study conducted on the status of the change
instruments but based on reports, we can conclude that change instruments are
staggering from time to time. There is no uniformity in applying the changes at
company or inside company level, in case of evaluating techniques such as checklist,
scales or other techniques have not applied. Incentives are also a mechanism that
facilitate employees acceptance a change and to evaluate poor or strong performance of

employee as well organization. Due to different reason this essential mechanism were
not used and due consideration were not given.
3. How do you get a feed back and how do you managing the ongoing change
efforts
Answer: - reports are the major feedback came from each departments, services,
sections and divisions of the company, they are reported monthly, quarterly,
semiannually and annually. Later it compiled and send to EFFORT Corporation. While
on this process we tried to manage it.
Chapter five
Conclusion and Recommendation
After data analysis the researchers found the following conclusions.
In case of
employees demography Men who are in the active age group (young) accounts the line
share of the total population at each company, educational status shows majority of
them graduated with first degree. Every employee are well-known with Kaizen
package (it is a type of organizational change instruments) and took training
accordingly. The intention of the change instruments is to minimize cost and changing a
working climate (culture).
Perhaps everyone believes quality circle is a mechanism to prevent inefficiency and

misunderstanding, but there are a lot of compliant in regarding to leadership such as
lack of fairness, transparency and participatory in implementing the program
genuinely. As a result miss much of the right person to the right place (inappropriate
staffing), Poor performance of leaders, being faultfinding, no due consideration for
achievements and focusing on unnecessary issues are dominantly seen.
As a result of Poor follow up by the concerned body the five pillars (5s) of a Kaizen
package namely sorting, shining, standardizing, sustaining and setting in order are
applied sometimes and seldom. Furthermore the seven wastes such as Motion,
Overproduction, Transportation and Wastes in Processing are not probably minimize,
likewise a Waste in Waiting and Inventory are not definitely minimized. Perhaps
producing defects can be minimized sometimes.
Employees attitude toward change instrument indicates positive (optimistic) and no

one is hesitate the importance. But everyone is in dilemma neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied by going to work every day, with regard to leaders motivational skill still it
remain unattractive because employee is expecting to be motivated through financial
or nonfinancial factors. Supervisors are not capable to make remedy for challenges but
communication among the organization remained effective.
Lack of support from supervisor, lack of enough resources, and limited technological
knowhow shows there is neglect of the humanitarian aspects, leading to increase the
proportion of staff resistance to change.
According human resource of at each company suggest that the main reason why
EFFORT introduce a change is in order to enhance a competitiveness of sister company,
to change working culture and encourage innovation, categorizing them into long and
short term goals. While reports are the main mechanize to evaluate the status of the
change instrument, however the need to conduct a study are important but no one have
conduct the study.
Recommendation
Based on the findings the researcher understand why a change fail, resisted and what
are the opportunity remain of the change practice at Mekelle city sister company of
EFFORT Corporation. Therefore to tackle the problem the researcher provides possible
recommendation.
First of all the company should clearly set a criteria or measurement to evaluate
the achievements of the change against the target, later figures will show a
success or failure.
In case of employee resistance to change even though respondent said they are
optimistic of the change, on the other hand they are resisting it through not
practicing the change on the day to day activity. There for the investigator
understand employee are resisting the change on the bases of lack of fairness on
management decision, a problem in transparency including staffing of
manpower, Then the company should evaluate its action weather it
accommodate a criteria of good governance, and also giving due consideration
for employees demand.
Still now there a prospective to accept a change because majority of employees

believe, through change instruments there is a possibility of changes. Therefore if
the Corporation is seriously follow the issue of employee there will be an
opportunity to accept a change.
Finally the investigator recommends that, every change practices shouldnt be

made for granted rather it should bases on scientific studies.
Bibliography
A. E. Reichers and B. Schneider. (1990). Organizational Climate and Culture: Evolution of. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,.
(http://www.effortgroup.org/companies.htm). effortgroup.org/companies. Mekelle.
Albert A Angehrn and Jill E M Atherton. (n.d.). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Development.
Centre for Advanced Learning Technologies, INSEAD , 5.
Albert A Angehrn and Jill E M Atherton. (n.d.). Conceptual Framework for Assessing Development
Programs for Change Agents . Centre for Advanced Learning Technologies, INSEAD Boulevard de
Constance .
Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M., & Al-Mashari, M. ( 2001 ). ERP software implementation:An integrative
framework. European Journal of Information Systems, , 216226.
Andersen, a. N. (1990).
Ansoff, H. I. (1984). Implanting Strategic Management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Ansoff, I. H. (1990). Implanting strategic management. :. London: Prentice-Hall International Ltd.
Ash, P. (2009). Fast and Effective Change Management. Manila.
Barrettm., and B. Luedecke. (1996). What Management Says It Wants in Communicating Change.
Communication World , 20-31.
Benjamin, R.I. and E. Levinson. (1993). Sloan Management Review,. A Framework for Managing ITEnabled Change , 23-33.
Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. M., Werkman, R. A., & Boonstra, J. J. . (2003). The change capacity of
organizations General assessment and five configurations. Applied Psychology: An International Review ,
83-105.
bennebroek. (2003). The changecapacity of organizations: General assessment and five configurations.
Applied Psychology:, 52, . An International Review , 83-105.
Brown JS, Duguid P..l. ( 1991). Organizationa learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified
view of working learningand innovation. . Organ. Sci.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, . Harlow:

Prentice Hall.
Canterucci, J. (1998). Change Project Management SM -. The Next Step. Transition Management
Advisors (http:www.corpchange.com).
Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. The Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal , 485498.
Chuang, Y.-S. (2004). Individual Resistance from Employees to Organizational Change.
Clinton, D. (1997). Building the Capacity to Change. Andersen Consulting Research Programme .
Coch, L., and French, J.R.P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations , 512-532.
Cocherill, A. (1989). The kind of competence for rapid change. Personnel Management. 52-56.
Conner, D. R. (1998). Managing at the speed of change. How resilient managers succeed and prosper
where others fail. Chichester: Wiley.
Connor, P.E. and L.K. Lake. (1994). Managing Organizational Change. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Czarniawska, B and Joerges. (1996). travelers of ideas. 13-48.
Dave Ulrich, Wayne Brockbank,Dani Johnson, & Jon Younger. (2009). Human Resource Competencies.
The RBL Group .
De Wit, B. and Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive.
London: Thomson Learning.
Dent, E. &. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change. l1x Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 25-41.
Dent, E., & Goldberg, S. ( 1999). Challenging resistance to change. . Journal of Applied , 25-41.
Doyle, M. (2002). From change novice to change expert: Issues of learning, development and support,.
PersonnelPersonnel , 465481.
Dunphy D. (1996). Organizational change in corporate setting. Hum. Relat. 49(5): , 54152.
Dunphy, D. (1981). Organizational Change by Choice. Sydney.: McGraw-Hill,.
Edmonstone, J. (1995). Managing change: an emerging consensus. Health Manpower Management , 1619.
EFFORT. (2013). Creating Development Army. Mekelle,Tigray,Ethiopia : EFFORT.
Essick, K. (2005). Innovation Awards Where Are They Now? A Look at Past Winners of Our Innovation
Awards,. Wall Street Journal, .
Folger, R. & Skarlicki, D. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment. Journal
of Organizational Change Management .
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as mistreatment. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, , 3550.
(1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. In Ford. Acad. Manage. Rev.
French W, Bell C. (1990). Organization Development. Behavioural science interventions for organization
improvement .
Gravenhorst, K. M. (2003). A Different View on Resistance to Change. Power Dynamics and
Organizational Change IV .
Guimaraes, T. & Armstrong, C. (1998). Empirically testing the impact of change management
effectiveness on company performance. European Journal of Innovation Management , 7484.
H. M. Trice and J. M. Beyer,. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organizations (Englewood Cliffs,. Englewood
Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. . (1998). Organizational participation. Myth and reality.
Oxford University Press.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through. Hum. Relat , 621
41.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com. Africa/Ethiopia-INDUSTRY. nationsencyclopedia.
Jacobs, M. (1998). A Strategic Approach to a Changing World. Credit Union Magazine , 17-18.
Jick, T. (1993). Managing Change, Cases and Concepts. Boston: Irwin.
John W. Moran and Baird K. Brightman. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counselling Today , 66-74.
kamel, B. (2012). Reasons For Resistance To Chnage in The National Company . International Journal of
Management and Strategy , 5-6.
Kanter, R.M., B.A. Stein and T.D. Jick. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies
Experience It And Leaders Guide It. New York: The Free Press.
Kliem, R. (1996). Managing the People Side of Client/Server Architecture. Journal of Systems
Management , 24-28.
Kliem, R. (1996). Managing the People Side of Client/Server Architecture. Journal of Systems , 24-28.
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Approach-avoidance model of persuasion: Alpha and omega
strategies forchange.Resistance and persuasion. NJ;Mahwah: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Kotter, J. (1996)). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press. , 59-65.

Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review , 59-65.
Kotter, J. P. ( 2000 ). Leading Change:why transformation fail . HBR OnPoint Harvard Business School
Publishing Corporation , 60-67.
Lawler, E. E. ( 1986). High Involvement Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,.
Lewins, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Luecke, R. ). (2003). Managing Change and Transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press .
M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. (1992)). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2nd
ed., Vol. 3. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists .
M. Sashkin and K. J. Kiser,. (1993). Putting Total Quality Management to Work. San Francisco: Berrett-.
Markus, M.L. and R.I. Benjamin. (1997). The Magic Bullet Theory in IT-Enabled Transformation. Sloan
Management Review, .
Marshall J. and D.R. Conner. (1996). Another Reason Why Companies Resist Change. Strategy and
Business. , 4-6.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. New York: Random House.
Mohrman, J. &. (1989). Large-Scale Organizational Change. San Francisco:: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mohrman, Susan Albers, Allan M. Mohrman, Jr. (1993). The New Logic for Managing Complex
Organizations. San Francisco:: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nadler, D.A. and M.L. Tushman. (1997). Implementing New Designs: Managing Organizational.
Managing Strategic Innovation and Change .
Nelson, L. (2003). implications for theory. The Learning Organization , pp. 1830.
Okumus, F. and Hemmington, N. (1998). Barriers and resistance to change in hotel firms. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 283288.
Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation overtime a situated. Inf. Syst. Res , 63
92.
Piderit, S. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of
attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management - .
Porras JI, Robertson PJ. (1992). Organizational development: theory, practice,. Palo Alto, CA:: Consult.
Psychol. Press.
Rieley, J. B. & Clarkson, I. (2001). The impact of change on performance. Journal of Change Management
, pp. 160172.
Robbins, T. L., Summers, T. P., & Miller, J. L. (2000). Intra- and inter-justice relationships. Assessing the
direction Human Relations, , 1329 1355.
Schneider, B. (1985). Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 36, , pp. 573611.
Schroder, H. (1989). Managerial Competence: The Key to Excellence - A new strategy formanagement
development in the information age. Iowa.: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Senior, B. (2002). Organisational Change. london: Prentice Hall .
Spechler, J. W. (1993). Managing Quality in Americas Most Admired Companies. San Francisco: :
Berrett-Kohler.
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach. Strateg.
Manage. J. , 1126.
W. L. French and C. H. Bell. (1984). Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement,3rd
ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, .
Want, J. (1995). Managing Radical Change: Beyond Survival in the New Business Age. New York.: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.,.
Watson, G. (1969). The planning of change . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Yamane, T. ( 1967). Statistics, An IntroductorAnalysis,. New York:: Harper and Row.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York: Wiley.
Zander, A. (1950). Resistance to change: Its analysis and prevention. . Advanced Management , 9 11.

G7-Nega Last Thesis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

G7-Nega Last Thesis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Organizational Change Practices

Tewelde Mezgobo (Asst. Prof.)

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

BY: Nega Tadesse

Approved by Board of examiners:

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

Thank You All Indeed,

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

Background of the study

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

Statement of the Problem

(Gravenhorst, 2003, p. 3).

Beyond the creation of development oriented infrastructures and bringing sustainable

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

what are the major challenges in the application of organizational change

Is there a prospective to accept a change?

Who are the resisting individuals and/or groups?

What are their needs?

What beliefs and values do they have?

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

Objectives of the study

Identify the major challenges of organizational change practices.

To identify the group/individual who resist change

To investigate why employee accepts or resists changes

To assess the practice of organizational change efforts.

Assessing employees complaint and appropriate solution.

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

Significance of the study

The paper bridges the gap in understanding on the determinants of acceptance

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

Scope of the study

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

Limitation of the study

An organizational change takes long-lasting implementation process, due to this

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Definition of organizational change

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company

Organizational Change Practices

2.1.1. Continuous change

opportunities, and unintended consequences. (Orlikowski, 1996, p. 65). As these

A case study on EFFORT Corporation Mekelle city sister company