We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

5,700
Open access books available
140,000
International authors and editors
175M
Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
 Chapter 7

Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case

Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case
Study
Cem Karabal
Cem Karabal
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71578

Abstract

Change for organizations is a necessity. Today’s businesses are aware of the need to keep
up with the environmental changes and change demands. If the change process is not
handled properly in the business, it will bring major problems with it. Every change will
absolutely and definitely face resistance. Similarly, conflicts are considered to be inherent
in organizations. The important thing is to prevent conflicts from taking over organiza-
tional interests. If conflicts arise in situations where personal interests constitute a source,
it is an issue that needs to be discussed seriously. This study is intended to reveal ele-
ments that create a potentially resilient potential, in particular protecting personal inter-
ests. A case study method was utilized in the study. This method is preferred because
it is appropriate to examine in detail the history, current situation and environmental
functioning of a particular person or group and to obtain appropriate information in
order to provide statistical methods. In particular, the case study, which reveals a reflec-
tion of the conflict of interest that is valued as a consequence of the functions of exchange
resistance and as a consequence thereof, reflects the relationship between resistance and
conflict of interest.

Keywords: resistance to change, conflict of interest, change, conflict, organizational

interests

1. Introduction

An important part of organizational life is change. Without change, no business can survive
in today’s competitive environment. Modern managers are faced with permanent progressive
technological change. The most important tasks are to initiate organizational change and to
ensure that a new position is achieved by keeping it under control among existing business

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
© 2018 The
Attribution Author(s).
License Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), under the
which permits terms of the
unrestricted Creative
use, distribution,
Commons
and Attribution
reproduction in any License
medium, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
provided the original work is properly cited. which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
116 Organizational Conflict

structures. If they do not discuss the new methods, equipment and management policies, they
can face with very serious moral and manufacturing problems [1].

The globalization of the markets in the 1980s and 1990s witnessed an unprecedented period
of change, thanks to increased external competition and rapid technological movements.
Strategic initiatives, mergers, acquisitions and operational initiatives have gained momen-
tum in this process; applications such as just-in-time production, total quality management,
process innovation and MRP have contributed to the change process. New requests coming
to organizations in the control of these processes, the efforts to bring the performances of the
organizations to the upper levels and new designs have provided the development of change
management [2].

Organizational change efforts are often met with strength by people. Although managers
are aware of this resistance, they do not make too much effort to understand why and how
they will be handled. One of the most important problems encountered in making changes in
organizations is to manage resistance to change and handle it correctly. Resistance to change
emerges in different and unexpected ways [3]. Resistance to change is like a pain. It does not
say exactly where the error is, but it allows you to understand that it is a problem [4]. However,
the resistance to change must be perceived as reasonable. This is natural, and a change that is
essentially not encountered with resistance should not be considered as natural [5].

Similarly, conflicts are considered to be inherent in organizations. The important thing is

to prevent conflicts from taking over organizational interests. If conflicts arise in situations
where personal interests constitute a source, it is an issue that needs to be discussed seriously.
This study includes a relationship between resistance to change and conflict of interest. The
main goal of the research is to see how these two parameters will interact in the change pro-
cess. I believe that conflict of interest is a very important issue but we could not see it in the
literature as a scale or in relation with other factors. From this point, the aim of this study is
to draw attention to the issue.

2. Resistance to change

Why do people show resistance to change? According to Caruth et al. [1], the reason for resist-
ing the changes made to employees’ work conditions is due to a variety of reasons, such as
their individual personality. While some respond positively, others may get angry. Starting
from this, resistance to change submitted by the administration, the resistance shown by
the nature of mankind (generally people do not like change) and resistance about fears and
threats (fear of unknown, reduced job security, suffering economic loss, reduced job status,
change in work-group relationships) have divided the reasons in two main groups [1].

Change is considered an annoying phenomenon because of the necessity of departing from

known with the deterioration of the status quo and anticipation to give up; resistance to
change can be assimilated to friction in physics. As it is necessary to apply more force without
friction to move an object, it is necessary to apply force to change with regard to people [6].
Managers and employees detect the change in different ways. While senior executives see
 Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study 117
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71578

change as an opportunity to overcome problems and improve their careers in a positive sense,
middle-level managers do not welcome well the change very much. Change is destructive
and unexpected for them, and this can disrupt the balances [7]. Resistance resulting against
change can be assessable as a destructive force working in the interests of competing firms
[8]. Kotter and Schlesinger stated that managers should be aware of four common situations
in which people are motivated to show resistance to change. These are [9]: narrow interest,
misunderstanding and lack of trust, different evaluations and low tolerance for change.
Caruth et al. [1] suggested that people with varying degrees of resistance would show it
in three different ways. These are carried out directly as attacks, secret attacks and passive
behaviors [1]. Resistance to change can be realized individually or organizationally. The signs
of individual resistance are usually complaints, mistakes, anger, indifference, withdrawal,
absenteeism to work due to health reasons and stubbornness. As for that, organizational resis-
tance is work accidents, increase in compensation claims of employees, increasing absentee-
ism, sabotage, increase in expenditures due to health and decreasing productivity, and these
are only some common signs [10].
Koçel lists the events that cause people to show resistance to change in reasons regarding to
the business, due to personal reasons and for social reasons [6].

2.1. Function of resistance to change

While resistance to change is performed individually or in groups, it can also appear in open
or hidden forms. What is important here is the fact that there are individuals at the beginning
of resistance. Even the emerging resistance in groups is realized as formal or informal struc-
tures strengthened by the gathering of individuals.
When the causes of change resistance, which are revealed by various researchers and partly
seen as a repetition of each other, are considered together, the factors that constitute resistance
to change are mainly expressed under six headings. They are personality traits of individuals,
which are emerging as uncertainties about whether they will bring change or take it, inse-
curity against oneself or those who perform change, an interest appraisal resulting from the
changes that will take place between the current situation and the future situation, commit-
ment to past experiences and group-effect result.

2.1.1. Personality

Individual differences, known as personality, are defined as how individuals think and behave
in different situations [11]. Personality traits usually tend to be based on the emergence of per-
sonal hostilities, being disturbed on being guided, seeing as being excluded and on the edge
of being thrown away with change, characteristic stupor, anger, personal conflicts, ignorance,
lack of interest and the emergence of personal hostilities against those who make the change.

2.1.2. Uncertainty

One of the most important elements in the individual dynamics of changing resistance is
uncertainty. People are afraid of unknowns and uncertainties [12]. The fact that those who
118 Organizational Conflict

perform the change are not sufficiently clear, that the change is not fully explained and the
uncertainties that occur with them can be listed as fear from the unknown, loss of control and
concerns about the future and business.

2.1.3. Insecurity

In situations where the safety of individuals is threatened, sabotages occur [5]. Trust-minded
thoughts such as insecurity, not being self-confident, being afraid of failure and misunder-
standing against those who manage change or those who are part of it come under the heading
of insecurity.

2.1.4. Loyalty to the past

Many studies pointed out that the mistakes in the institutional change process stem from the
fact that past knowledge has not been abandoned [13]. Markets are places where experience is
gained, but lessons are changed frequently. We must learn from the past all the time, but we do
not need to worship it [14]. It is required that they should not be tied tight to the past for orga-
nizations to survive. Before the organizations try out new ideas, they need to discover that their
old ones are inadequate and get rid of them [15]. To give up knowledge of the past requires that
you come from above the change barriers and that you re-evaluate the cognitive organizational
competencies, circumferences, threats, opportunities, strategies and old ways of achieving suc-
cess [16]. A culture of resistance to change developed with frustrations from the past during
the change process, low tolerance for change, the difficulty of giving up on habits, the dif-
ficulty of learning new things, the disruption of well-known comforts, close-mindedness, old
experiences, past performances and past mistakes can be counted as the causes of resistance to
change, which can be ranked under the framework of commitment to the past.

2.1.5. Group effect

The concept of group dynamics refers to the changes and reactions that occur on any part
of the group, the influence and reaction that the group members and the group make on
the structure [17]. The group effect comes from the interactions between individuals and is
shaped by the light of factors above mentioned. However, the relationship between group
members influences strengthening these factors or changing their shape [18].
Groups are units formed in informal and formal structures within the organization. Disagreements
between the aims of change and group norms and similar groups within the organization should
take a negative attitude toward change, the possibility of deterioration of existing relations, the
majority of group members support resistance, the probability of the group losing its disintegra-
tion or status, in short, the idea that change can change social interactions, can be regarded as the
resistance dynamics that the groups to which the individuals belonging are exposed.

2.1.6. Valuation of interest

Every change means losing for someone [5]. In the new situation that the valuation of inter-
est individuals will emerge with change, they are seen to pursue their personal interests and
 Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study 119
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71578

evaluate their possible consequences. Generally, it can be listed as the causes of interest-
based resistance of individuals who think like the expectation of unemployment, the possible
increases in the current work load, the loss of status and the possibility that the material situ-
ation will change in the negative direction, which comes with technological change.

3. Valuation of interest and conflict of interest

Concept of interest is defined as the indirectly obtained profit, gain, benefits or the benefits
that only one person provides for himself. The fact that it is a matter of interest requires that
something related to the subject be requested; the fact that we have called it interest has the
power to abolish even the strongest associations. The presence of such power results leads to
the presence of a conflict.

Conflicts are one of the elements that can reduce or increase the efficiency, effectiveness,
change and development levels of organizations and on the basis of which lies individual
differences [19].

In a rapidly developing and changing world, because we call the invariance of change, non-
homogenous social groups are being formed and it is inevitable that these groups are differ-
entiated from each other. This situation creates a natural ground for conflicts [20].

Even if individuals or groups assume an agreement on the purpose of organization, the differ-
ences in unit-based intentions lead these conflicts to interests or priorities.

Individuals or groups on certain topics may have different interests. Any decision to be taken
or a decision taken by a group may affect the interests of the other party. Along with such
differences, the effort to expand the strengths of the organization’s employees or groups can
also be a major source of conflict [6].
The inevitability of the conflict is due to the three tendencies of the human being [21]:

• People’s attitudes, beliefs, levels of knowledge and life experiences are different between
them.

• These differences cause people to become self-centered and have difficulty in understand-
ing the perspectives of other people.

• People usually tend to protect and bring their own personal interests into the forefront.

With regard to the concept of conflict, it can be said that the negativity state proposed in clas-
sical approaches is inherent in organizational structures together with modern thought. Even
with proper management, conflicts are expected to have a very positive effect on disruptive
outcomes [22]. While constructive conflicts encourage change and innovation, the conflicts
that are being destructive bring out the interests of the parties, the negative situations that are
brought about by the purposes of the organization [23]. In organizations where there are no
conflicts, it is observed that the members of the organization are closed to change and innova-
tion because of indifference and monotony [24].
120 Organizational Conflict

Concerning the concept of conflict, it can be said that the negativity state which is proposed
in the classical approaches is inherent in organizational structures together with modern
thought. The encounter with resistance of a change process is considered as a sign of the
beginning of change. Just as it cannot normally be mentioned from a change without resis-
tance, it would not be right to talk about an organization that does not have a clash. However,
the fact that the clerk has personal interests and elements that can prevent the company’s
objectives would have a negative impact on the change process and no contribution to corpo-
rate interests. Here, the moral and ethical dimension of work is prominent.
According to an international survey conducted in 300 large companies in 1987, it emerged
that at the beginning, of the moral problems encountered in enterprises, employees think it is
a conflict of interest [25].
Businesses have important principles to follow about their own behavior. One of them con-
stitutes the basis of this principle that those who find themselves able to give themselves the
image of a conflict of interest in relation to themselves or close family members, to declare it
and to exclude themselves if there is really a conflict. A similar situation is declared by authors
during academic studies.
Another element of conflict can be expressed as approaches against innovation and change.
J. March and H. Simon, who analytically examined the causes of conflict in organizations,
expressed one of the causes of the sources of conflict in organizations as conflicts arising from
differences in perception. The source of this conflict is the source of information and opin-
ions required by the innovations. In consequence of these, disagreements and conflicts arise
because organizations are constantly open to innovations and exchanges, and the informa-
tion, however, experience and flexibility required for performing changes are not perceived
by some former administrators [17].
One of the stages of the conflict process is intentions. Intentions are among people’s percep-
tions, emotions and open behaviors. Decisions of intent are decisions to behave in a certain
way. In order to be able to respond to the behavior of the person, his intent must be determined.
Many conflicts are growing by increasing the severity of the parties because one of them has
attributed bad faith to the behavior of the other. There is often a difference between intentions
and behaviors, so behavior does not accurately reflect the intent of the individual. Different
structures of behavior depending on intentions are listed as competitive, collaborative, avoid-
ant, harmonious and compromising. The way of behavior, which takes the form of competitive
intentions, is expressed as the effort of one person to satisfy his interests without considering
others [26]. The new qualities predicted by changing circumstances and the necessity of peo-
ple playing different roles can cause conflicts. In particular, change-specific situations such as
restructuring studies and transfer of undertaking are capable of generating significant conflicts.
It is a strategy that targets the personal interests that have no cooperation and have a destruc-
tive effect based on a win-lose approach and is maintained in a competitive environment.
The application of the strategy of domination in conflict may cause aggressive behavior and
sabotage by increasing tension between the parties. Instead of questioning the cause of the
conflict, one side to applying domination to the other side to turn the situation into its own is
the opponent’s loss approach. People make an interest appraisal in the process of change. If
the change that will take place is against their own interests, they can adopt a course of action,
 Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study 121
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71578

a resistance decision, to create protection against it. They enter a conflict with a competitive
intent and struggle for their own interests. The conflict that comes with the resistance decision
will allow the conflict of interest to be staged in a visible way.
When we look at the literature, we could not find a study related to conflict of interest and resis-
tance to change together. Resistance to change had used a lot of researches but literature hasn’t
got a scale of the conflict of interest. Therefore, the case study method is used in this study.

4. Method

The research has also been carried out in Istanbul, a company operating in the construction
sector. Observes had taken record by assistant of the general manager and it includes a 1-year
period. The case study method was utilized in the study. This method is preferred because
it is appropriate to examine in detail the history, current situation and environmental func-
tioning of a particular person or group and to obtain appropriate information in order to
provide statistical methods. The event was dealt with by an observation technique and the
most important feature of this technique is that the individuals who are observing are in
their natural environment. Many behaviors can be identified and assessed in their actual state
as long as the individual is in a natural environment; in other studies, it is known that the
individuals studied do not behave as they are but rather behave or reply in a frame that they
want to be, that the community wants to be or as they can be accepted by their surroundings.
This issue stands out as one of the common problems of non-observational study techniques.
Observations were made in a participatory manner and all the information was recorded in
a systematic manner during the process by taking part in the event throughout the process.
The actual names of the person subject to the case study and of the company are indicated by
symbols on the specific requests of the persons.

The main questions to be answered in the sample case prior to study are mentioned below:
Q1: Do self-interests prevent the interests of the organization?
Q2: Do self-interests return to conflict between individuals or groups?
Q3: When individuals who make valuation of interests show resistance to change, does
resistance to change be open or implicit?
Q4: Is it possible to break the resistance of people who have the potential of resistance
through communication?

5. Case study

5.1. General information about the case study

XYZ Engineering Inc. is one of the well-known, recognized and trusted companies operating
in the construction sector in Istanbul/Turkey. It has 30 years of history. In this process, hun-
dreds of successful projects have been carried out and have created added value by employing
122 Organizational Conflict

hundreds of people. On the basis of the sector/industry, the market demand is continuous,
and an opinion and the work of the company show a positive trend. In parallel to these, the
human resource has also increased.

Constructively, it is a family-owned business. Company partners are family members but

soon, with the public offering, there will be a conversion to a structure that is now traded in the
stock market. Company employees now constitute the professionals who are out of the family
predominantly. The annual turnover of the company is 80 million dollars and it has 160 staff.

Operating functions are vertical organizational structures that are integrated with each other.
It is involved in the case study; it includes the general manager of the company, the operation
director, the purchasing manager (PM) and the finance manager (FM).
The abbreviations and explanations used in the case study are as follows:

• XYZ Engineering Inc. Case Study Company

• FM: Finance/Accounting Manager

• OM: Operations Director
• PM: Purchasing Manager
• GM: General Manager

5.2. History of case study

The company, which has been handling the stages of institutionalization more professionally
since 2004, in order to be able to execute processes that are more integrated and manage all
flows with a single software, decided to switch to a new ERP software in 2016.
In the present case, no integrated software was being used. While the finance department
used its own software, the procurement department also carried out its activities with an
autonomous computer program. As for that, the operation department has run processes
from the proprietary software, with forms that are required by business-building methods
and procedures.
Thanks to the software, project costs, procurement status, stocks, accounting records, commu-
nication between field staff, reporting and many more possibilities would be put into practice
on a single platform, with all the business involved, including the relationships.
GM has pursued the study and demonstration of the related software himself and he/she was
convinced that he/she would get all the flows he wanted, thanks to this software. Purchasing
contracts for the software are over and an opening kick-off is applied. He/she did not want to
think about the possibility of software failure; however, in parts where the employees cannot
be involved in the process, the investment made would be a significant loss, and GM would
not be able to give it to himself.
There had never been a similar study previously done in the company. GM knew that the
process demanded change management and that change had given him the task of leader-
ship Thus, he/she believed that it would make it easier to identify resistance and remove the
obstacles.
 Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study 123
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71578

GM gathered all the responsible persons before the software developers arrived to the com-
pany and held an informative meeting on the subject. By persuading meeting attendees to
require a new writing transition and aimed to create a guidance coalition to support everyone
to take over the project and get the best result for the company as soon as possible.
The shortcomings of the current situation during the meeting, the new situation, the conve-
nience, the negative side of the software used. Everyone asked the participants to support
the process and the purpose of the meeting was complete. It was then time to invite the ERP
company to start the process.
The software was installed and the training process started. Integrations were created and
new processes were established with separate participation of the departments. Everything
went well in sight. All the employees had taken the directives and it appeared that they were
doing their job. Nobody showed any sign of dissatisfaction. After 3 months passed, some
reports from software developers were pointing to negative situations. Information from the
finance department was experiencing delays.
The requested information was not given in time, the entries that needed to be done were not
completed in time and the chronic records were constantly entered in the created records.
Even simple information was prepared and delivered to the software for weeks. GM assem-
bled a meeting to tackle the situation and asked FM to make a statement on the topic. The
description is classic. Unit workers had begun to voice that the old software is more useful
in informal meetings, and they defended the new writing. Even though he was aware of the
FM situation that could not manage the process properly. The workers acted slowly, the work
went on systematically and the FM did not wish to increase resistance by intervention.
GM, in consultation with FM, has reached the following result: He/she did not want to engage
in combat with the FM team. GM gave some directives to him. He/she wanted to find out why
his subordinates showed resistance. Under this resistance, he wanted to determine whether
there was a situation that could directly affect his personal interests, such as fear of failure,
not to give up on habits and to spend more labor in the adaptation process, and he wanted
him to report the situation.
Similar problems began to emerge in the purchasing department. Since he/she used different
software in this department before, he/she started to set new and old benchmarks, and this
led to constant conflict with the software group. They were doing it easily in the old software
but they could not do it in the software, and the discourse was intense and made an important
intervention compulsory. In short, the purchasing department resisted.
GM also held a similar meeting with PM. Acting as if the issues are the same, PM was being
stimulated like FM, and various directives were transferred to him. But there was a difference.
GM noticed that the PM had taken the lead of this resistance and had channeled his own team
in this direction. By making the implication that PM will directly increase their workload, that
he/she spent time working on the negative side of the new software and was doing it clearly.
Even under normal conditions, some activities carried out by FM would walk through the
PM in the new process and this was not really in the interest of the PM. Moreover, this shift in
the business division and the workload shifting from the FM to the PM have caused serious
conflicts between the two units, and these two units, which had to work in co-ordination, had
almost begun to enter the process on their own.
124 Organizational Conflict

With regard to the operation side, there was another resistance profile. OM and its team
did not use the standard software in the normal situation. They were running a process
in the form of manual forms. Many times, they terminated the processes without filling
these forms and then filling them backwards and leaving them open in the system. The new
software did not give chance this comfort. All transactions had to be recorded via software
when they were instant and when needed. OM and the team were not very keen on this
issue as integration of new software restricted their activities in full liberty and it would
require time to run this software. In addition, the necessity of opening purchase requisitions
through the software emerged but the fact that they did not do it in a healthy way also cre-
ated an atmosphere of conflict between the PM and OM. They also made choices and began
to resist. But the resistance on the OM side is cryptic. It had not expressed clearly the utility
of the software that is being made, as if it is being defended from the background and the
software sabotaged.

5.3. Analysis of case study

GM has analyzed the whole situation and was aware of his attitude. There were organiza-
tional problems that could be clearly diagnosed medially. The most important of these is
resistance to change. The others were negative conflicts among the groups. The worst of all
told all units how important this software is for the organization. However, unit managers
and/or subordinates put their personal interests in front of their interests.
GM has worked on identifying resistance sources and what they need to do to combat them.
The drawing that emerges in the coming point and schematizes the conflict situation is shown
in Figure 1.
FM and PM are in conflict because of the shift in workload. OM and PM are in conflict due
to the same reason. This situation is a conflict of interest originating from intentions and it is
following a competitive course among the managers. There is no strong conflict among OM
and FM. In addition to these, they are criticizing the new software by highlighting the past
software in order not to disturb FM and PM habits. OM wants to maintain the comfort of the
old software. Also, in FM employees, by not learning the new software, there is also a sense of
insecurity to themselves that arises from failure.
By acting as an example, the answers of the study questions are as follows.

A1: People usually tend to protect and bring their own personal interests into the forefront
[21]. Self-interests get ahead of the interests of the organization. The interest appraisal has
been conducted by PM, FM and OM and they have not considered the GM’s share of the
software’s interest in the organization’s interest.
A2: Self-interests have become conflicts between individuals or groups. The result of the
evaluation of interest between FM and PM and OM and PM has come to an end.
A3: Recardo characterized overt and covert forms of resistance to change [27]. If the indi-
viduals making the valuation of interest show resistance to change, resistance to change
 Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study 125
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71578

Figure 1. Conflict situation of XYZ Engineering Inc.

can manifest itself in open or implicit forms. In the case of the example, when PM acts in
open resistance, OM shows implicit resistance because the PM is actually reacting to a
workload not on the decline. This situation can be made explicit because it is seen as an
injustice to her/him. However, OM will have to work harder by losing his/her comfortable
position. He/she does not want to react by expressing it in terms of the moral dimension
of work.

A4: Smollan emphasized the importance of communication [28]. Persons have potential
resistance through communication that can be broken but since the sample event is at the
beginning of the change process, it will not be very accurate to comment on this issue.
Continuity of communication can solve this situation. The other source of insecurity and
distrust of the past can be removed from this point.

6. Conclusion

Change for organizations is a necessity. Today’s businesses are aware of the need to keep
up with the environmental changes and change demands. If the change process is not han-
dled properly in the business, it will bring major problems with it. Every change will abso-
lutely and definitely face resistance: sometimes at the beginning, sometimes in the middle
and sometimes in the last period, but the resistance must be handled and managed properly
throughout the entire process. Determination of the functions that constitute the resistance
of change the approach to the issue of the problem to be done in this direction, will facilitate
126 Organizational Conflict

the solution of the issue. People show resistance for different reasons in case of change. This
study is intended to reveal elements that create a potentially resilient potential, in particular
protecting personal interests. During the course of the case study, different situations were
encountered, and based on conflict of interest, they found their place in this study.
As it is seen and confirmed in the case study, people carry their own personal interests
unfortunately in front of their organizational interests. This situation can be thought of as
a reflection of professional life as well as lack of organizational commitment or organiza-
tional citizenship feelings. Businesses may take some measures to prevent employees from
engaging in conflicts of interest. First of all, institutional citizenship may have a potential to
overcome this situation. In addition, by establishing a more self-sacrificing culture within
the organization, motivation for the people’s support for organizational interests rather than
their own interests can be provided. People can be encouraged to make their own internal
evaluations in this respect by questioning the moral and ethical aspects of the situation; in this
respect, individuals can reach more objective perspectives when evaluating their interests.
When we look at the individuals in the business, it seems that such conflicts and false posi-
tioning are more common where the ability to make objective assessments is not very strong.
Along with false positioning, more ego and ultimately more interest demands are being
encountered. Such mentality sets out a competitive intention in order to protect their interests
naturally and is creating resistance to this process of change.
In particular, the case study, which reveals a reflection of the conflict of interest that is valued
as a consequence of the functions of exchange resistance and as a consequence thereof, reflects
the relationship between resistance and conflict of interest. In the further study point, by per-
forming field studies in which both variables can be measured and analyzed, sample findings
can be supported and/or new findings can be developed. Researchers should look over and
observe other events in different companies and sectors (textile, food or chemistry, etc.). Thus,
the amount of case studies will increase. Moreover, the scale of “conflict of interest” and its
use for qualitative studies should develop.

Author details

Cem Karabal
Address all correspondence to: [email protected]
Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey

References

[1] Caruth D, Middlebrook B, Rachel F. Overcoming resistance to change. Advanced

Management Journal. 1985;50:23

[2] Recardo RF. Overcoming resistance to change. National Productivity Review. 1995;14:5
 Resistance to Change and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study 127
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71578

[3] Atkinson P. Managing resistane to change. Management Services. 2005;49:15

[4] Lawrence PR. How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review. 2009;47:56

[5] Harvey TR, Broyles EA. Resistance to Change, A Guide to Harnessing its Positive Power.
Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Educatio; 2010

[6] Kocel T. Işletme Yoneticiligi. 13th ed. Beta: Istanbul; 2011

[7] Strebel P. Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review. 1996;74:86

[8] Smollan R. Engaging with resistance to change. University of Auckland Business Review.
2011;13:12

[9] Kotter J, Schlesinger L. Choosing strategies for change. Havard Business Review. 2008;57:3

[10] Barutçugil I. Stratejik Insan Kaynaklari Yonetimi. Istanbul: Kariyer; 2004

[11] Nov O, Ye C. Users’ personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries: The case
for resistance to change. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology. 2008;59:847

[12] Jones DJ, Recardo RJ. Leading and Implementing Business Change Management. Lon-
don: Routledge; 2013

[13] Mariotti J. Change requires learning and unlearning. Industry Week. 1999;248:59

[14] Birinyi L. Unlearning old lessons. Forbes. 1999;8:410

[15] Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH. To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Organizational
Dynamics. 1984;12:53

[16] Mezias JM, Grinyer P, Guth WD. Changing collective cognition: A process model for
strategic change. Long Range Planning. 2001;34:76

[17] Eren E. OrgUtsel Davranis. Istanbul: Beta; 2012

[18] Guney S. Sosyal Psikoloji. 3rd ed. Nobel: Istanbul; 2015

[19] Sahin A, Emini F, Unsal O. Catisma Yonetimi Yontemleri ve Hastane Orgutlerinde Bir
Uygulama. Selçuk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi. 2006;15:560

[20] Karip E. Catişma Yonetimi. Pegem: Istanbul; 2000

[21] Campbell J, Gleanson R, Malcolm K. Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personal-

ity development. Journal of Personality. 2005;71:1060

[22] Akkirman AD. Etkin Catisma Yonetimi Ve Mudahale Stratejileri. Dokuz Eylul Univer-
sitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi. 2013;11:3

[23] Sims RR. Managing Organizational Behavior. Quorum Books; 2002

[24] Unguren E. Orgutsel catisma yonetimi uzerine konaklama Işletmelerinde bir Araştirma.
Journal of International Social Research. 2008;1:887
128 Organizational Conflict

[25] Sahin A, Demir MH. Yonetici Ikilemi. Iş Ahlaki: Mugla Universitesi SBE Dergisi; 2000

[26] Sabuncuoglu Z, Tuz MV. Orgutsel Davranis. Aktuel: Bursa; 2013

[27] Recardo RF. Overcoming resistance to change. National Productivity Review. 1995;14:6
[28] Smollan R. Engaging with resistance to change. University of Auckland Business Review.
2011;13:12