Change is an essential and inevitable component of any process. Whether it is evident or innocuous, certain differences will always transpire. It is especially true of organizations, which encompass numerous people and processes, all of which are susceptible to change. However, the appearance of differences does not always presuppose that these innovations are ethically appropriate. Overall, two major concerns can be associated with organizational change – its necessity and potential resistance to it.
The first concern is the veracity of the necessity of a certain innovation. For the change to be successful, it has to result from a natural process (Suddaby & Foster, 2017). It is not uncommon for the management to implement new and unnecessary regulations. The most frequent example is reducing the workforce to optimize costs, which results in an unethical increase in the volume of duties on the remaining personnel.
The second concern is potential resistance to organizational change. Some managerial innovations may not be welcomed by the subordinate staff. Although the management has the authority to impose certain rules and restrictions, employees may view them as unethical. To prevent potential staff turnover, the managers have to ensure that the personnel realizes the necessity of a certain change. Once employees understand that a certain decision is justified, they will be less inclined to resist.
Altogether, the ethics of organizational change are directly related to its necessity and potential resistance. The more employees are certain that a new regulation or decision is appropriate and natural, the less they are likely to object and protest. Once the managers and subordinates agree on the importance of a certain innovation, its ethics is not questioned. Ultimately, organizational change is deeply rooted in the psychology of collective relations.
Reference
Suddaby, R., & Foster, W. M. (2017). History and organizational change. Journal of Management, 43(1), 19-38.