Organizations implementing change may find that the comfort level of some individuals within will be compromised, bringing about possible resistance. If not understood and carefully dealt with, the resistance may cause a fair amount of tension and conflict, undermining any positive outcome.
The purposes and production in life revolve around three major needs: to be respected, to be vie-peopled as competent, and to belong. These needs are the motivators which affect the decision to accept or resist change. The decision is then made through examining facts, looking at the belief system, and deciding how is felt about the change. (Ball, 2004)

This thinking process involving facts, beliefs and values, helps to evaluate what is important. Ask two people about their perception of an incident and you may get two different points of view. Facts can be distorted, because people act on the perception of reality rather than on the reality itself. Holding to the perception that their beliefs are indeed facts will make it difficult for people to see the issue in a true light. While beliefs are subjective and cannot be proven, facts are objective and can be proven. (Roche, 2002)

Creation of Readiness for Change
Most large-scale change efforts do not achieve their objectives. Important changes are either aborted before implementation, go awry just as they begin, or never develop the expected business results. But, the few who succeed at change experience a huge competitive advantage.

As people guide organizations through major changes, people find confusion about the nature of change, how to enroll people in the effort, and how to create an internal climate for collaboration. (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003)
Most changes desired today are breakthrough, radical, or revolutionary changes. They affect all parts of the organization. The process must be coordinated and integrated. Several activities must occur at each phase and level during a transformational change effort. Leaders must not only get change started, they must create internal processes to sustain and build on their initiatives. To succeed, leaders must also anticipate and initiate what must be done. These change leaders mobilize their organizations. Change leadership is a stream of activities designed to build commitment to change. Leaders initiate these activities to: Focus attention on the need to change, and what can be done; develop change capacity skills in people; mobilize commitment of people to a change initiative; and create processes to generate, sustain and integrate multiple changes. (Katz et al, 2002)

What Organizations Need to Change
Usually the idea for a change arises from one visionary person or group. The capability of the leaders to consider new ways is the first element of change. However, saying "yes" to change means very little unless they then set up an infrastructure to accomplish it, including: A persuasive story of why change is necessary, a shared vision of where the organization is going, involvement of every effected person, continual two-way communication, clear policies, investment in the resources to support the transition, training in new roles and skills, support for personal difficulty with change, and transition structures to manage design and implementation.

People change differently than systems. Systems don't talk back, they don't question, and they don't have feelings. The challenge is to cause the people, as well as the system, to change. (Komaki, 2003)
Organizations that struggle with change always wonder: How can people get people to change? How can people get people mobilized so that they understand, accept, and participate in the change? How can people regain commitment and productivity after the change? How can people learn to initiate change?
To sustain change, both people and systems need to change:
• People need to learn to change their expectations, mindsets and assumptions about what is important, and how they get things done before they change their behavior. People need new skills and capabilities to accomplish new tasks.
• The organization needs clear direction, alignment of efforts, and integration of different strands of the change. (Popeoplell, 2002)
To achieve real change, each person, team, and work group must go through a process that leads to an informed, effective, and aligned commitment to the changes and desired outcomes. (Marybeth, 2003)
To develop a committed workforce, certain principles must be observed:
• Change is learning how to learn --developing the capacity to learn and grow as an organization.
• Change is people learning and using new skills and capabilities. Effective change is internal. It shows up in changed relationships, systems, and work processes. Change is rooted in a model of learning and skill development.
• To change, people need both information and relationship. Information engages the rational side of the person, providing the what, why, and how of a change. Relationship engages the emotional side of the person, offering support, participation, and involvement. (Passfield, 2002)
Relationship elements such as trust, credibility, congruence between words and actions, sharing of relevant information, developmental coaching, and teaching of relevant skills form the cornerstone of change management.
• Change must occur at multiple levels. Every organization has a visible level of behavior, structures, policies, and systems, but below this lays the culture, which contains basic values, assumptions, patterns, and expectations. If a change in systems does not also change the culture, the culture will cause the organization to spring back to old ways. To change, employees and managers need to: See why they have to change; let go of old ways; align their values and behavior with the new ways; commit to what needs to be done to make it work; learn new skills and mindsets; and be ready for more change. This won't happen if people are simply told to change. (Ball, 2004)

Introduction of the Change Navigator
Change involves a conscious shift in the roles and established authority of many people. There is no single change leader, but rather, many people in different roles that support change. One's role in change is separate from one's operational role. Usually, a change leader takes on a role in change in addition to other responsibilities.
Effective change processes usually include a change navigator, who may be an internal or external consultant. The navigator makes possible the results desired by the change leader by coaching people with different agendas and perspectives who may support or oppose the change. The change navigator brings these people into alignment around the change.

Change leadership involves a partner-ship between the change navigator and the leaders and employees to develop change processes and capabilities.
• Change navigators help develop new skills, and offer a broad experience of overcoming change-related challenges.
Change leaders get the ear of their people, develop commitment, and create plans that fit the culture. (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003)
The navigator works through relationships to design learning processes and systems that enable people to design, implement and sustain changes that produce desired results, solve unexpected problems, and develop the capability for initiating future changes.

Because different people have different understandings, interests, roles and information about a change, the navigator has to re-sell and re-define what is being done. This demands partnership, and an ability to change course, refine the direction, envision the outcome, say difficult and unpopular things to the leaders, and bring unpleasant realities to light. If the navigator is defensive, closed, unavailable or arrogant, people may reject his or her help.
Change navigators are also learners who listen to feedback and learn to question assumptions. They explore their own personal beliefs, attitudes, biases, blinders, and limitations. They look at their own values, mission, and vision as a leader, and how these inner orientations affect their motivation, capability and performance. (Katz et al, 2002)

To offset such resistance, senior managers should become more actively involved in the change process. They need to communicate openly with employees, make change manageable, and put past actions in a positive light. They should also supply adequate training to employees to help them cope with change.
How employees perceive change may be more important than the change itself. Change is not perceived as negative because of its unwanted effects as much as because of inability to predict or control it. Employees view change as negative when they are unable to foresee it, when they dislike its implications, and when they feel unprepared for its effects. (Komaki, 2003)

Ways to overcome Resistance
Every successful change program is fraught with its own set of problems. To overcome the natural resistance to new ways, leaders need to have a clear understanding of the effect of change on the organization.

Motivation
When people resist change, it is often because they associate it with negative experiences. In addition, some people have a hard time letting go of the comfort that comes with the status quo. Other people lack the motivation to change because the reasons for change have not been communicated properly. It's crucial to explore different ideas, solicit input from employees, and communicate the rewards associated with change.

Resources
Managers should not announce plans for change until they are sure change is feasible. Managers must secure adequate financial backing and form teams of talented people to help them implement the change. It is also crucial for managers to gather feedback on plans from key personnel, customers, and suppliers. This information will help focus the plan on truly feasible goals and opportunities.

Planning
Each phase during the change process must be planned and coordinated to reach goals. These plans should be written, not spoken, to avoid misunderstandings. Managers must help the change management team visualize specific plan steps. (Katz et al, 2002)

Paradigm pioneers
Change protagonists are paradigm shifters. They challenge the contemporary enterprise practices and habit patterns. Paradigm shifters are categorized as typically belonging to the following groups:
Fresh out of training

This paradigm shifter has studied the existing paradigm but has never practiced it. This person is probably an entrepreneurial type.

The maverick
Usually an insider, the maverick understands that the present paradigm will not work. This person is knowledgeable about the paradigm but not captured by it. Paul Galvin, founder of Motorola, first developed car radios. His son, Robert, took the company out of consumer electronics and into integrated chips.

The tinkerer
A tinkerer runs into a special problem with the current paradigm and devises an innovative solution. Almond B. Strowger, a Kansas City undertaker, lost business because the local telephone operator's husband was a competitor; she routed all the calls for an undertaker to her spouse. Out of frustration with this circumstance, he developed and patented the automatic switching system that took the operator out of the loop in directing calls. (Ball, 2004)

Resistance to new paradigms comes from those who have the most to lose. New paradigms put everyone practicing the old paradigm at great risk. The higher one's position the greater the risk. The better you are at your paradigm, the more you have invested in it, and the more you have to lose by changing it.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for any change catalyst is dealing with the inevitable proponents for the status quo. No matter how well motivated and activated, radical change exposes status quo agents who cannot be converted. Their interests are directly threatened. For them, yielding to the pressure to change is much less attractive than resisting. (Mowday & Colwell, 2003)
The wave of motivation and excitement created by successful change during the initial phases of the change process can be dashed on the rocks of this submerged resistance. But by using the suggestions above, managers can navigate around resistance and steer a course toward organizational change. (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003)

What are the Developments in Work Motivation?
However, by the 1990s, intellectual interest in work motivation theory --at least as measured by journal publications--seemed to decline precipitously. As evidence of this, consider the number of theoretical (as opposed to empirical) articles published in leading behavioral science journals over the past decade (Mitchell & Daniels, 2002). While clearly helpful, this hardly leads to breakthrough developments in our understanding of the principles underlying work motivation. At the same time, a review of the most recent editions of textbooks in the field of management and organizational behavior reveals that most of the theories discussed date from the 1960s and 1970s, with only fleeting references to more recent work. In short, while other fields of management research (e.g., leadership, decision making, negotiations, groups and teams, and organization design) continue to develop conceptually, substantive theoretical developments focusing on work motivation have not kept pace. (Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, 2003)

An outside observer might conclude from this situation that either people have lost interest in the subject of work motivation (perhaps because it is no longer a pressing issue in organizations) or that people solved the work motivation problem long ago, thereby eliminating the need for additional work. Neither of these conclusions seems very plausible. On the contrary, in the new economy, replete with its dotcoms, e-commerce, and increased globalization (as well as the more traditional manufacturing and service firms), a motivated workforce is frequently cited as a hallmark of competitive advantage. Indeed, a motivated workforce becomes a critical strategic asset in such competition. Why, then, has there been so little intellectual activity focusing on this important topic? Perhaps people have yet to develop the breakthrough ideas that can push us to the next level of understanding. ((Marybeth, 2003)

While theoretical developments on work motivation may have declined in recent years, the world of work has changed dramatically. Indeed, one can argue that the past decade has witnessed greater workplace changes than any other decade in memory. Companies are both downsizing and expanding (often at the same time, in different divisions or levels of the hierarchy). The workforce is characterized by increased diversity with highly divergent needs and demands. Information technology has frequently changed both the manner and location of work activities. New organizational forms (such as those found in e-commerce) are now commonplace. Teams are redefining the notion of hierarchy, as well as traditional power distributions. The use of contingent workers is on the rise. Managing knowledge workers continues to perplex experienced managers across divergent industries. And globalization and the challenges of managing across borders are now the norm instead of the exception. (Ball, 2004)

Some Myths about Change in Organization
MYTH: With the right change strategy, budget, and motivation of the staff, successful change effort is ensured.
TRUTH: If people lack the right people, people change efforts will be fatally flawed. A) Players can make change happen when placed in key positions; B) players provide support for a change program and can handle some new challenges; C) players are only comfortable with changes within their limited area of expertise; D) players resist change and may even sabotage a change program.
MYTH: Performance appraisals and promotability measures predict personal change capacity.
TRUTH: Over-reliance on performance ratings and promotability data is common, especially when it comes to choosing change leaders. Such information can actually deflect away from change and focus attention on secondary issues such as skill sets, selection, capacity and compensation. People may have strong skills in a given area and exceed performance objectives but have great difficulty adapting to a new system or taking on unfamiliar responsibilities. It is better to solicit the opinion of team members and arrive at a consensus than be restricted by the biases of performance appraisals.
MYTH: Older people are more resistant to change, and people at the top of the organization are very versatile.
TRUTH: Many people are tremendously resistant to change and many top executives rigidly reject new and expanded assignments. People assessment of an individual should not be biased for or against based on age, title, organization level, area of expertise, tenure, or any other factor.
MYTH: In order to assess a person's change capacity, it is important to prepare psychological studies on each person, and there must be information on the strengths or deficiencies of each individual.