Resistance To Change, Communication Barriers, And Sources Of Power In A Law Firm

Read the Case Study base on Open Plan: By Roy Smollan, Auckland University Of Technology, New Zealand and answer the following questions:

1. a. Identify the reasons for employees resisting the change to an open-plan officeapproach.
b. Explain what the partners might have done better to have minimised the resistance.

2. a. Analyse the barriers to communication (‘noise’) that appear to exist in the law firm.

b. Discuss how they could be overcome.

3. a. Discuss the sources of power the partners and others appear to have and the impact this may have on other employees.
b. What influence tactics have been used by some of the partners and employees and how effective might they have been?

Reasons for Resisting Change

As mentioned in the case, Employees are resisting change in the plan of the interiors given to the new office. The new office is predominantly following an open plan. Cubicles and cabins are only assigned to the Partners of the firm and rest everyone shares a common seating space. This was done to improvise communication, enforce team work and, reduce cost of making cubicles and create a relaxed and vibrant working environment (Hongisto, 2016). According to Lewin’s model also every change will have driving forces as well as restraining forces and the agenda of the top management should be to reduce the impact of these restraining forces (Burke, 2017). It has been noticed that this new plan is receiving mixed responses. Few reasons mentioned to resist this are as below:

i. No privacy: A few ladies complained about not being able to talk to their boyfriends during work hours as everyone can hear their communication. Also certain lawyers felt that they could not discuss classified information with their clients because of the open plan. Meeting rooms were assigned but the online system for booking the meeting room is inefficient and hence people faced troubles specifically due to a lack of privacy in their working space.

ii. Reduced focus: The senior partners of the firm believe that the new relaxed environment of the firm is making its employees more lethargic and hence reducing their focus on work. They mentioned that people waste a lot of time chatting and loafing around which they would have rather spend in working. They are therefore not comfortable with the relaxed working culture.

iii. Partial behavior: Few senior employees who earlier had personal cabins, have felt that they are not as respected and they have lost their status in this open plan. Employees have also noticed that both the partners have a well-designed cabin with a great view but they are forced to sit in open. This implies a partial behavior and the employees find it unfair (Anicich, 2015).

Every time there is any kind of change in the organization, there is resistance from employees. Certain employees will be in favor and certain will not be. However these mixed responses are only natural and efforts must be put in by the top management to reduce the level of resistance shown by the employees. In this case, Cathy and Mark could have done the following:

i. Take Suggestions: Since the number of employees is 30, a meeting could have been conducted where employees would have given feedbacks on the new office plan. They could have put in their suggestions as this way the employees would have felt more connected and associated with the new office plan. Although it is understandable that every employee’s every suggestion cannot be implied but if such a meeting was conducted, they would have felt that at least they were asked (Weibel, 2016).

ii. Online booking system: Since the privacy is one of the biggest issues faced by the employees, the online meeting room booking system should have been efficient and in place. The employees are very new this open structure and if the meeting rooms also cannot be booked, employees will develop a sense of frustration. This online booking system should have been checked after installation and the top management should have ensure that it was working properly.

Recommendations for Partners to Minimize Resistance

iii. Bigger spaces for senior employees: Since the senior employees were given cabins before, certain demarcation becomes imperative as currently they feel they have lost their status. This is a very demotivating factor for such senior employees. They should not be given personal cabins as that spoils the whole purpose of an open structure hence they should be in the same area but they should be given bigger spaces as compared to the rest of the employees.

iv. Partners should spend more time: As the Lewin’s model suggests that restraining forces can take many forms including absenteeism (Shirey, 2013). After the implementation of the new structure, it was noticed that both the partners did not come to office regularly, Jack only came in the afternoons and Owen was barely present. Every time a change is introduced to the organization, first and foremost the partners and the senior management must make peace with it only then can other employees accept and appreciate it. This is important otherwise employees feel like they have been forced to follow something while no such obligation is on the partners and this is a strongly demotivating factor.

i. No privacy: Many employees feel that their privacy is getting compromised. Ladies found it increasingly difficult to speak with their boyfriends and one of the employees was frowned upon the usage of social networking website Facebook (Voinea, 2015). It has been noted in the case that since the online meeting room allocating system is not in place, employees could not even discuss confidential information with their clients. This will affect their performance.  

ii. No transparency: Transparency was another major issue faced by the employees. One of the incidence mentions that an employee was offered a mere 2% raise and was told that his reports had a lot of mistakes. When asked about the mistakes, no clear answer was provided to him. This lack of transparency leads to frustration among employees and also hinders their performance (Salazar, 2017). No clear idea about their mistakes makes it difficult for them to improve upon their performance.

iii. No clarity: Lack of clarity in communication is clearly evident in the case. One of the employees was promised a high raise for a good performance however despite her performance, she was offered just a 4% raise. It must be understood that ‘high’, ‘good’, ‘poor’, these are all relative terms. Bonus and incentive structures of organizations must be clearly specified. Quantifying such details becomes imperative to avoid miscommunication leading to an entirely wrong expectation setting in the organization.

iv. False promises: Making false promises by the employer or employee is one the most dangerous communication barrier that can be seen in organizations today. Employees tend to over promise while their recruiting process and vice versa. The case mentions that the account was promised that his tuition fee would be compensated but the management refused to do that owing to a higher than expected fees charged by the university. These kind of false promises make the employees feel cheated (Hafner, 2017). Employers must make sure that they live up to the promises that they make to the employees.  

Barriers to Communication

v. Biasness: Employees also feel that there is a lot of biasness towards white men in the organization. This is why the minority of the organization often feels left out. This is also a communication barrier as cultural differences are not taken into consideration. Someone laughed the food that Anand bought at the picnic. This is a clear insult to an Indian colleague and such a behavior must not be promoted in office space (Gaertner, 2014).

i. Transparent reviews:Reviews given by employers to employees must be transparent and absolutely clear. One of one review meetings must be conducted monthly or quarterly and an honest feedback must be given to employees about their performance. Every manager must keep a sincere track of employee’s performance and in case of any issues or mistakes, the employee must be informed on the spot.  A good feedback session keeps employees motivated and on the right track. They understand their mistakes and can improve their performance upon receiving genuine feedbacks (Bernstien, 2017). This is beneficial for the organization as well as the employee’s personal growth.

ii. Discuss before promising: As we saw in the case of the accountant that he was promised a compensation of his tuition fee. Had there been a proper discussion before making such a promise, both the parties could have a reached a consensus without any miscommunication. Therefore before making any kind of promises to employees, management must make sure that they know exactly what will they be able to deliver. Making false promises or over promising only leads to employees feeling cheated and frustrated.

iii. Meeting rooms: online system to allocate meeting room must be efficient. In an organization where most members are complaining about a lack of privacy, it is important that the meeting rooms should be well functional so that employees can discuss confidential matters with clients. It was noticed in the case that a few ladies complained about not being able to speak to their boyfriends. It must be kept in mind that the usage of these meeting rooms must be restricted to business conversations only. Personal communications can take place during lunch hours outside the office area. But for every other important personal communication with clients or between peers must be done in meeting rooms. Performance reviews should also be conducted on a one to one basis.

iv. Anonymous feedbacks: The firm should be open to receiving feedbacks anonymously. Many times employees are scared to give feedbacks when asked in open with the fear of creating any kind of biasness. This is why organizations must encourage anonymous feedbacks from everyone. This can be done by installing suggestion boxes at different spots in the office (Detert, 2016).

v. Open door policy: Open door policy is an extremely efficient way creating better communication. In this policy the senior management of the firm keeps their doors open at all times implying that anyone can come and discuss any issues as they may deem necessary (Fox Business, 2015). This policy encourages employees to directly communicate with the top management in case of an issue rather than getting frustrated about it or gossiping with their peers about the same (Cibis, 2017).

Ways to Overcome Communication Barriers

vi. Respecting privacy: When employees were in their cubicles, no one could see what they were doing. Now that employees have moved to an open space, it must be the responsibility of the top management to not unnecessarily interfere into employee’s work. As long as they are delivering targets, incessantly keeping a check on their computers and noticing the websites they surf will surely create frustration among employees and will even reduce performance efficiency. If an employee feels that in between work, they need a breather for a few minutes, they should be able to take it without any negative reaction from the management.   

There are five sources of power that makes every individual experience a possession of authority and influence over others. These five sources are legitimate, reward, coercive, referent and expert. Let us look at incidences where these sources have been used:

Legitimate: This power comes from an individual’s position or designation in an organization. The partners have using their legitimate power (Riasi, 2016). They made their personal cabins in an open plan organization structure. In one of the incidences, Jack has mentioned to Owen that most people are “Not like us”, this clearly implies that they feel superior to the others and are not even comfortable with everyone treated equally in the firm.

Reward: Reward power arises from a person’s ability to offer incentives, bonuses or other such rewards (Baumann, 2016). The partners have this source of power and it has adversely impacted the employees. Most employees are not clear with their reward structures as the partners have made the process very opaque. Reward power comes with a huge sense of responsibility. As seen in the case, Jack and Owen used their reward power to hire the accountant by offering to reimburse his tuition fee but after his joining, they set the limit of reimbursing $6000. This has led to frustration and a feeling of taken advantage of.

Coercive: Coercive power comes from one’s ability to influence someone by threats, punishments and sanctions (Pierro, 2013). One of the instances in the case depicts that when an employee was using Facebook, she was frowned upon. In another instance, an employee was given just a 4% raise without clearly mentioning where and how did she go wrong. Even Anand and Pauline felt that they were consistently overworked and short on staff. All these incidences prove the frustration of employees due to the use of coercive power.

Expert: Expert power comes to play when an individual feels that they have better knowledge than the other. Jack offered a 2% raise to one of the employees and said that it was because he made a lot of mistakes. When asked the details of the mistake, he was shrugged off. When the same employee offered to take up an important case, he was again told that the case was too big to handle for him. This clearly implies that Jack finds himself must superior especially in terms of the knowledge he possesses. This has led to employee feeling demotivated.

Sources of Power and Influence Tactics

Referent: This power comes from one’s interpersonal relationships and is shown by Candy. One of the employees who is over friendly with Jack and hence disregarded her peer when they expressed a concern regarding the new structure. Other employees felt that they are being subjected to partial behavior.

Leadership often requires influencing employees into performing in a certain manner. The following three tactics have been predominantly seen to be practiced in the case:

i. Exchangeinfluencing technique seeks influence through making promises that others will receive rewards or any other benefits (OC, 2013). Partners have promised good raises, larger teams and reimbursement of college tuition in order to join the firm.

ii. Upward appeals seeks approval of those in a higher position by establishing relations with them (Epitropaki, 2013). Candy is seen to be over friendly with jack in the hope of any tangible or intangible reward.

iii. Legitimatinginfluence is seen due to a position of power. Changing the entire office structure without consulting other employees and setting up personal cabins for themselves with a view is a clear implication of legitimating influence.

References

Anicich, E. M., Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27(1), 123-140.

Baumann, O., & Stieglitz, N. (2014). Rewarding value?creating ideas in organizations: The power of low?powered incentives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(3), 358-375.

Bernstein, E. S., & Li, S. (2017, January). Seeing where you stand: From performance feedback to performance transparency. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 14752). Academy of Management.

Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Cibis, M. L., Wackerhagen, C., Müller, S., Lang, U. E., Schmidt, Y., & Heinz, A. (2017). Comparison of aggressive behavior, compulsory medication and absconding behavior between open and closed door policy in an acute psychiatric ward. Psychiatrische Praxis, 44(3), 141-147.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2016). Can Your Employees Really Speak Freely?. Harvard Business Review, 80-87.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of relative leader–member exchanges (RLMX) and perceived organizational support (POS). The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 299-315.

Fox Business, 2015, ‘An open door policy for digital age’, https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2015/06/30/open-door-policy-for-digital-age.html, viewed on 7 October, 2017.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.

Hafner-Burton, E. M., LeVeck, B. L., & Victor, D. G. (2017). No False Promises: How the Prospect of Non-Compliance Affects Elite Preferences for International Cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 136-149.

Hongisto, V., Haapakangas, A., Varjo, J., Helenius, R., & Koskela, H. (2016). Refurbishment of an open-plan office–Environmental and job satisfaction. Journal of environmental psychology, 45, 176-191.

Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919-934.

Pierro, A., Raven, B. H., Amato, C., & Bélanger, J. J. (2013). Bases of social power, leadership styles, and organizational commitment. International Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 1122-1134.

Riasi, A., & Asadzadeh, N. (2016). How coercive and legitimate power relate to different conflict management styles: a case study of Birjand high schools. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(1), 147-159.

Salazar, M. (2017). “Let’s be clear”: Exploring the Role of Transparency Within the Organization.

Shirey, M. R. (2013). Lewin’s theory of planned change as a strategic resource. Journal of Nursing Administration, 43(2), 69-72.

Voinea, D. V., Busu, O. V., Opran, E. R., & Vladutescu, S. (2015). Embarrassments in managerial communication. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 11(2).

Weibel, A., Den Hartog, D. N., Gillespie, N., Searle, R., Six, F., & Skinner, D. (2016). How do controls impact employee trust in the employer?. Human Resource Management, 55(3), 437-462.