HRMG 4202 Week 8 Resistance to Change Analysis Example

"They Hired Me to Work a Desk, Not Chase Strangers": A Resistance Analysis of the Guest Host Change at Larkfield Hotels, Sorting One Objection Into Four Strands and Naming What Training Cannot Answer

Student Name

Walden University

HRMG 4202: Human Resource Development and Change

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

"They Hired Me to Work a Desk, Not Chase Strangers": A Resistance Analysis of the Guest Host Change at Larkfield Hotels, Sorting One Objection Into Four Strands and Naming What Training Cannot Answer

The Objection at Full Strength

Composed from the eight host interviews at Larkfield Hotels, a made-up Ohio group whose desks gave way to phones and kiosks this year, the objection runs roughly as follows:

"This was never about service. Seven hotels used to need five desk agents each, and now the kiosks do the check-ins, so the next budget will cut hosts and say the machines can handle it. I was hired to work a desk, where guests come to me. Walking up to strangers in a lobby is a different job, and nobody asked whether I wanted it. And we have been here before. The new reservation system two years ago was dropped after six months, and the loyalty tablets at breakfast disappeared after one summer. Why learn this one?"

The objection is strong. It contains a plausible reading of the budget, a real change in the nature of the job and a record of abandoned projects. A response that treats it as fear of technology would miss all three.

Four Strands, Not One

Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) identified four common reasons people resist change: parochial self-interest, misunderstanding and lack of trust, different assessments of the change and low tolerance for change. Their value here is as a sorting tool. The host objection contains strands of each, summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

The Host Objection Sorted Into Kotter and Schlesinger's Four Reasons

Composite organization; strands drawn from interview material.

Self-Interest With a Basis

The staffing fear is reasonable. The rollout memo justified the kiosks partly on labor cost, and the group's published goal is to hold labor cost per occupied room flat while rates rise. A host reading those documents could fairly conclude that headcount is at risk. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) note that people who expect to lose something of value will resist even a change that is good for the organization, and that the response should address the loss directly rather than argue about benefits. Ford et al. (2008) go further, arguing that change agents often contribute to resistance through broken agreements and incomplete explanations; here, the memo's silence on staffing invited the worst reading.

A History of Abandoned Rollouts

Hosts are not wrong that projects have been dropped. The reservation system was replaced after six months when the vendor was sold; the breakfast tablets were removed after guests complained about slow service. Both were reasonable decisions, but neither was explained to staff, who simply saw them disappear. Trust here has a history, and assurance alone will not restore it. What might is evidence of commitment that hosts can check: the kiosks are leased for five years, the app is now how most guests book, and the training plan has a review date in the fall. It would also help to explain, belatedly, why the two earlier projects ended. Hosts who hear that the reservation system went because its vendor was sold, not because management lost interest, have a reason to read the kiosk rollout differently. The explanation costs one staff meeting and addresses the trust strand directly, which no amount of training on error screens can do.

The Different Assessment

Two hosts said approaching guests feels pushy. This is a real difference in how they see good service, built over years at a desk where guests chose when to approach. It is not a misunderstanding to be corrected. Training can help by giving hosts a defined way to approach and a defined way to step back, and peer coaches can show that guests usually welcome help at a stalled kiosk. Oreg (2003) showed that the tendency to resist change varies from one person to the next, which suggests some hosts will need more time and practice than others rather than more persuasion.

What Training Cannot Answer

Training can answer the different-assessment strand and soften low tolerance for change. It cannot answer the staffing fear. No session on kiosk errors will persuade a host that their job is safe. Only a written commitment from the operations director, for example that host headcount will not be reduced for at least eighteen months and that any later changes will be made through attrition, can address that strand. Without it, the training is likely to be attended but not used, since a host who expects to be cut has little reason to become good at a job that may disappear.

References

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106-114.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680