Resistance to Change in Food and Beverage Department

1 foeman to dislodge A ending Study in the Food and drinking Department 2 win over is common in an organization and is initiated due to the need to survive and admit to the changing food market. As switch over is a disruption of routines and what people ar used to, apology to motley is a common reaction of the c aren recipients. People resist assortments because diverges are uncomfortable and require them to adapt to a new way of thinking and doing affairs. Also, people grant trouble en surveying how life leave alone be inter castrateable after qualifyd hence, they tend to pay finish off to the unk nown rather than embracing the unknown.This essay is going to demonst graze wherefore employees resist neuter in the hospitality and gaming organization with around 6000 employees and how the melody agent idler turn their confrontation to advantages. The Food and Beverage department (F&B) is undergoing a falsify in the regimen base hit instruction initiated b y the new F&B conductor. The manager attempts to introduce a new aliment safety give the bouncevass scheme with the objective to enter the food safety standard of the dining outlets. The change recipients, the F&B Kitchen, Service and Stewarding eams, are resisting the change by ignoring the directors requests and refusing to collaborate with him. The change of food safety management creates disruption in the occasional operations of the change recipients. As a result, rather than providing improved services, the snatch of guests complaints and the employee turnover rate of F&B staff accession drastically oneness month after the change has started. The service of change is now stuck at its beginning because of the conflicts amongst the director and the F&B teams. The employees reactions and opponent are so massive that the change The proposed change, which is ow appears to be infeasible to implement. before of a good engrossedion to upgrade the F&B outlets, is ord ain to failure because the change agent the F&B director is so engrossed in his plan that he never tries to check the reasons of resistance to his proposed change. 3 When the change was initiated, the change agent apply a adviser to assist in the plow of change. The consultant clips out a plan of the new food safety practices on what has to be changed and to what expiration these things have to be changed.The use of outsider to teach and give comments to the F&B teams on how things should be done gives them an impression that their experience is non valued and their ways of work are not respect. The assumption in the change recipients minds is that their new boss thinks they have not been delivering a capable performance in food safety so the director has employed an outsider to look for their haywiredoings. Other than the daily operation of the outlets, the change affects the social relationship among the three F&B teams and the food safety audit team.The use of a stri cter audit system means that they have to work harder to comply with the standards. Moreover, flunk the food safety audit will result in disciplinary actions, such as issue of warning letter or temporary suspension of work. Therefore, the social relationship among the three teams changes from cooperating with one some other into shuffling the blame of food safety standard non-conformance off to one another. In addition, in the past, the F&B teams worked closely with the food safety audit team in upholding the agreed standard.However, because of the devotion for failing the higher food safety standard, the F&B teams have beat hostile to the audit team and are always trying to press with the audit team on the result of audit. Another reason of resistance to change is that the director has put too much pressure on his teams in upholding the high standards and meeting the targets of continuous increase in restaurants income and reduction in operating cost. These unrealistic objec tives lead to a huge workload and pressure and cause the teams overload. 4 Conflicts among the teams emerge, leading to frustrations and anger of the employees and finally, high turnover rate.The shortage of manpower in the restaurants contributes to the unsatisfying customer service and increase in guests complaints. Besides, the pressure of the restaurant managers and chefs to fulfill the objectives creates panic and murkiness in the operating level. In order to save cost, chefs tend not to nurture the food safety standards that request them to throw away unused food items. On the contrary, the food audit team and the outlet managers hold the This confusion in employees to comply strictly with the food safety standards. peration and food safety practices leads to employees frustration, high turnover rate, and, consequently, shortage of labor in the restaurants, especially when the unemployment rate of the economy is so low that it is very well for the employees to get another job. In addition, the change agent fails to listen to the employees when he is implementing the changes. The outlet managers and chefs have already told him that the high food safety standard is unrealistic and impossible to attain. The neglect of the employees frustrations has led to the employees chronic resistance and persistent hostility towards the change agent.As a result, that particular change and other beneficial changes introduced by the director do not work as planned and are all in all rejected by the change recipients. Without the cooperation of the change recipients, the project is in lento progress because they try to fool around with the consultant and the director and recall to cooperate. As the resistance of change persists, the change appears to fail sooner or later. The main reason of failure is that the change agent perceives the resistance as the enemy 5 of change because of the belief that a change summons with only minimal resistance is a good change (Wadd ell and Amrik, 1998).In fact, resistance, like pain, reflects that What something is wrong in the process, but not that the change itself is wrong. causes the resistance is how the change is implemented instead of what has to be changed. change. Resistance, when managed carefully, can be used as an advantage to assist In fact, resistance is an important form of feedback, enceinte the change agent some valuable inputs on what have kaput(p) wrong in the implementation of change. Therefore, the director should look into the resistance, try to understand it and use it to refine the change effort.In order to reduce resistance, it is essential to get up a guiding coalition with the restaurant managers and chefs. In order to score the coalition, the director should abandon the idea that he is doing the right and proper thing while the change recipients are throwing up unreasonable obstacles or barriers intent on doing in or screwing up the change (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). Furthermore, the change agent should always communicate with the change recipients and try to understand the uncertainties and possible problems, caused by the change, faced by change recipients.He should too present his vision and the comp each goals clearly so that the change recipients can align their objectives with that of the change agent and the company. Moreover, Spreitzer and Quinn state that change agents contribute to the occurrence of what they call yucky behaviors and communications through their own actions and inactions, owing to their own ignorance, incompetence, or misdirection (1996). The director, instead of trying to understand the difficulties his employees are facing in their operation, uses fear management and exerts pressure on the outlet 6 anagers and chefs to change because he believes that this particular change is good and necessary for the company. However, as Hultman (1979) comments that it is a hallucination to consider the change itself to be inherently good because change can only be evaluated by its consequences. This belief cannot be proved with any certainty until the change effort has been completed and sufficient time has passed. The change agent should, rather than getting an outsider the consultant to initiate the change, terminate interlocking from the teams and respected their opinions regarding the routines of the restaurants.Besides, the change agent should create a great sense of urgency in that particular change, for example, whether it is government requirement or market driven (Ford et al. 2008). Without explaining the need and urgency of change, the change recipients In fact, the change are unable to relate the change with the objective reality. proposed by the director is driven by the government food safety policy which will be put into practice next year, the highly competitive market and the increase in customers demand of high quality food and services.Therefore, thither is an urgent need for the company to co ntinuously improve and meet the demand of the customers in order to maintain profits and market share. It is fairly easy for the change agent to scapegoat the change recipients for the failure of change because of the uncooperative and hostile attitude of the change recipients. However, the change agent should understand that change is a situation that interrupts the normal patterns of organization and calls for participants to enact new patterns. This process involves the interplay of deliberate and emergent processes that can be highly ambiguous (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985).Change is an fracture of normal operation and implies an increase in workload, at least during the flowing of 7 change implementation. It is not difficult to imagine that the change recipients are reluctant to accept change right at the beginning, especially when they cannot foresee any immediate or long-term benefits. Therefore, the process of change should be carefully planned and well-communicated in ord er to get the participation and tide over of the change recipients. On the other hand, participations of the change recipients should be valued respectfully.Participation is a feeling on the part of people to be involved in a process but not just being called in to take part in discussions. People are more presumable to respond to the way they are customarily treated and whose opinions are respected rather than being asked some carefully calculated questions about their opinions (Lawrence, 1969). The wrong way to elicit participation by overselling the positive and underselling the negative that the change will bring about will be perceived by the change recipients as intentional misrepresentation, injustice and violation of trust between the recipients and the agent (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985).Consequently, the change recipients will be more defensive to change and may even intentionally deliver bad performance in order to prove that the change is a failure. In fact, resistance is a resource that can be fully utilized when it is acknowledged and understood. Change agents have to be aware of the problems caused by change because these problems are constructed from novel, discrepant, or problematic situations that are puzzling, troubling, or uncertain to the participants of change (Weick, 1995).The emergence of problems demonstrates the effectiveness obstacles that These problems, when will be encountered on the way to a successful change. managed carefully, can become advantages that greatly assist the process of change. Resistance is a form of conflict that strengthens and improves not only the quality of 8 decisions, but also the participants commitment to the implementation of those decisions (Amason, 1996). Hence, the F&B director should realize that he has to e-introduce the change as the benefits to the department and the company as a whole, and try to regain the trust of the F&B teams by inducing their participation with respect, taking more respons ibilities in the occurrence of resistance and empowering the teams in the process of change. As a result, the process of change will be fine and will ultimately succeed with the emergence of resistance. 9 Bibliography AMASON, A. C. (1996) Distinguishing the effects of running(a) and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making firmness a paradox for top management teams. Academy of heed diary, 39, pp. 23-148. BUCHANAN, D. A. and HUCZYNSKI, A. A. (2010) organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. England Pearson Education Limited. DENT, E. B. and GOLDBERG, S. G. (1999) Challenging resistance to change. Journal of use behavioral Science, 35, pp. 25-41. FORD, J. D. et al. (2008) Resistance to change the rest of the story. Academy of instruction Review, 33 (2), pp. 362-377. HULTMAN, K. (1979) The Path of Least Resistance. TX, Denton Learning Concepts. LAWRENCE, P. R. (1969) How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 1, pp. 49-57. MALTZ, M and BASLER, F. (1997) Portable Conference on Change care.Hiam HRD Press. MINTZBERG, H. and WATERS, J. (1985) Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp. 257-272. PARDO DEL VAL, M. et al. (2003) Resistance to change a literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41 (2), pp. 148-170. SHAPIRO, D. L. , and KIRKMAN, B. L. (1999) Employees reaction to the change to work teams the influence of anticipatory injustice. Journal of governingal Change Management, 12(1), pp. 51-66. SPREITZER, G. M. and QUINN, R. E. (1996) Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, pp. 37-261. 10 TORMALA, Z. L. , and PETTY, R. E. (2004) Resisting persuasion and attitude certainty a meta-cognitive analysis. In KNOWLES, E. S. and LINN, J. A. , (eds. ) Resistance and Persuasion. Mahwah , NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 65-82. TRADER-LEIGH, K. E. (2002) Case study identifying resistance in managing change. Journal of Organizati on Change Management, 15(2), pp. 138-155. WADDELL, D. and AMRIK, S. S. (1998) Resistance a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36 (8), pp. 543-548. WEICK, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA Sage.