Change is constant and inevitable. There are not many variables in any industry that remains the same over time. The economy, the workforce, consumer interests, rules and regulations are a few factors that cause corporations to alter. In business, it is survival of the fittest. A company’s ability to adapt and overcome determines its position and existence in the current marketplace. Skepticism and criticism comes along with modifications of any kind. The most resistance can be attributed to the workforce itself. Nelson (2005) states that, “expert’s say that for employees to succeed in today’s workplace, they must learn to cope with change” (p.11). Anytime workers have to alter routines and strategies, it will cause a certain amount of stress. It is a manager’s responsibility to ensure everyone adheres to the changes and to reduce the amount of stress in the office. Businesses that lag in innovation and creativity will have difficulty maintaining current position in the market. Change affects individuals; the level of stress can have dire consequences for stubborn organizations.
Successful organizations anticipate backlash from employees in their reaction to change. Companies now have to make everything mandatory in order for employees to comply. Reprimands also have to be implemented to ensure policy and procedures are maintained. The most common attitude from a worker/employee would simply be, not completing the assigned task or not performing it at all. Usually it is the tenured workers that put up the most resistance. Nelson (2005) discovered that the number one human resources concern is the employee’s resistance to change. This statistic highlights the immense disdain employees feel when changes must be made.
D. Anat and F. Anat (2007) believe “team commitment mediated the relationships between stress and structuring and team effectiveness” (p. 423). It is difficult for many employees to adjust to the idea of working without a traditional boss or supervisor after so many years of dependence (Anonymous, 1995). After some executive changes, Larson, Haerem, and Sjober (2004) stated that, “a strict following of the ordinary chain of command was impractical; roles are delegated to different departments and leaders” (p. 23). They also can be in disagreement with the organization. As a resolution, Nelson (2005) argues that, “instead of viewing change as disruptive; consider it as an opportunity to expand their job description; employees need to find ways to grow and develop with the organization” (p.11).
Zeffane and McLoughlin (2006) agree that the main arguments are, “that stress can be attributed to a number of causes, the most important are the characteristics of the work, the organizational context/environment and the psychological/behavioral characteristics of the individual” (p.618). Businesses require employees to perform tasks not in the original job description. All of these factors increases stress levels already raised by changes in corporation industries. Management and employees must be on the same page.
Hunter and Thatcher (2007) suggest that “consideration of the stress-performance relationship is important both theoretically and practically” (953). Zeffane and McLoughlin (2006) have statistical analyses that show that job satisfaction and positive communication with managers is strong predictor of feelings of stress and perceived cooperation. Management attitudes, cultures and styles have been found to have significant impact on levels of stress. Management of self-managed teams requires the ability to listen, change views, empathize and change basic behavior patterns (Anonymous, 1995). Employees themselves also play an important role in coping with stress. Workers must be flexible and open-minded on the job. Stress can take a toll on a person physically and mentally. Too much stress can render some people work ethnic, such as, unable to work at the normal capacity they