Changes can always result in problems for the organisation.
Change creates Crises in the System
People in a system are generally status-quoist in nature. The indirect consequence of this is that they resist any kind of change. As the outcome of any change is uncertain.
Due to this, even if the change is for the better, there will be opposition to change.
There are some vested interests in the system who do not want any changes as it will disturb the equilibrium in the society. The type of equilibrium might be benefitting the people who have these vested interests.
Example: Farm Bills were good policies. But they had to be withdrawn due to resistance from Punjab and Haryana farmers (MSP benefit)
Agneepath Scheme → Certain reports said that coaching Institutions sponsored the agitations
The introduction of e-Governance has been strongly opposed due to the fear of job loss.
In 1991 when India opted for LPG, there was strong opposition from the capitalists who benefitted from the Quota system.
Solutions to the above challenges:
Changes can be successful when they are proactive in nature and not reactive.
Change can be successful when there is broad-based consensus.
Proper training must be given to people to implement these changes.
Leadership has a crucial role to make the change successful. Eg: When America opted for the New right philosophy and broke the monopoly of PSEs, it was the Charismatic personality of Ronald Regan (USA) and Margaret Thatcher (UK) that ensured that these changes were successful.
The above points have explained how a change can lead to a crisis. But is this only uni-directional? Or can there be a possibility for a crisis to lead to a change?