Presentation on theme: "READING I: CHAPTER 13 SYSTEMIC CHANGE Fundamental Concepts of Educational Leadership & Management By Taher A. Razik and Austin D. Swanson."— Presentation transcript:
READING I: CHAPTER 13 SYSTEMIC CHANGE Fundamental Concepts of Educational Leadership & Management By Taher A. Razik and Austin D. Swanson
What is a Learning Organization? It is “an organization that is continually expanding its’ capacity to create its’ desired future. For such an organization, it is not enough to merely survive. ‘Survival learning’ or what is more often termed “adaptive learning” is important – indeed it is necessary. But for a learning organization, ‘adaptive learning’ must be joined by ‘generative learning,’ learning that enhances our capacity to create”. Senge (1990), p.14
What is Change? Change in organizations is defined by Hanson (1985)as the altering of “behavior, structures, procedures, purposes, or outputs of some unit within an organization” (p. 286). Extensive organizational change was defined by Smith (2002) as any intentional shift in the way the organization does business as that organization relates to the strategic position of other competing organizations. Change is a process rather than a single adjustment. Kanter, Stein, and Jick (1992) saw organizations as fluid entities that are constantly in motion. Managing change in this context is a matter of “grabbing hold of some aspect of the motion and steering it in a particular direction” (p. 10).
Uh oh! Change is the primary means by which any organization or system remains fit, healthy, and able to cope with new and differing demands. The adaptations produced by change in an organization constitute an evolution of the organization. Those organizations that are able to maintain flexibility and react appropriately to new environmental conditions survive and prosper. Those organizations that cannot become less and less able to serve society. Hence the problem with our schools!!!! Hence the problem with our schools!!!!
Uh oh 2 ! It is the responsibility of the school system to prepare our youth to function in an adult world. To do this, the school system must remain constantly aware of the nature and requirements of that environment. As the environment changes and as new technology, new social structures, and new values develop, school systems must be aware of those changes and be prepared to adjust curriculum, instruction, and organization to remain viable. See a pattern yet?
SOOOOOO, BASED ON THE LAST TWO SLIDES… Compare and Contrast your School with the definitions supplied.
Types of Change Enforced change is the result of needs identified from external forces. It would not have taken place if it were not for the external influence(s) involved. The task of leadership or management is to devise methods to cope with change, to act as a change master. In this sense the organization functions at the whims of those with more authority, influence, or political clout. Examples in the school environment could include state or federal mandates or the impact of community pressure groups. (NCLB, Standards) Expedient change involves meeting immediate concerns and is generally short term or reactionary. Although it can also be internally driven, it is more likely that expedient change in the organization will result from meeting external demands. Examples in the school environment could include last-minute changes in the school budget or storm damage to a school building. (Cultural Influences)
Types of Change Essential change is derived from internal rather than external sources. It is driven by the ability of the system to monitor itself and work toward improved performance. It requires that persons within the system work cooperatively to transform behavior or system components. An example in the school environment could be updating the curriculum. Planned change as defined by Owens (1987), is a deliberate attempt to direct change within a set of predetermined goals and values. It is foreseen and managed. It is brought about by persons directly connected within the system that is changing. Strategic planning in the school district is an example of planned change.
Types of Change Unplanned change is often enforced change, unanticipated, and often forced on a school system or an organization. It generally meets the needs of an external agent rather than the needs of the organization being changed. An example would be a merger of two small but functional school districts that resulted from the budgetary needs of the state rather than any dysfunction in the local districts. Expedient change is generally also unplanned, meeting operational needs as they arise but not causing deep adjustments in the nature or overall activities of the organization. Tucker (2007) addressed three different types of change, saying that each type requires a different approach to achieve successful implementation. The three types were developmental change, which occurs
Three Types of Change - Tucker Developmental Occurs when an organization makes an improvement to current operations Transitional Occurs when new processes or procedures replace those that are current Transformational change, which may involve both developmental and transitional change and results from shifts in the organization sufficiently major that the organization needs to transform itself. (This would be us! Lead by YOU!)
Change Often Creates Emotional Tension Change should be viewed as not only an intellectual process but a psychological process as well. Psychologically, change may be resisted because of interference with self-esteem needs, social status, and relationship fulfillment. The most obvious sources of personal resistance to change originate in the person’s fear of the unknown. Organizational and individual routines have a high degree of certainty and are not easily altered without some opposition from an individual’s or a group’s concern about the innovation’s applicability, perceptions of their own abilities, concerns about other changes taking place at the same time, and the support that they are provided. People will resist change if they fear it will reduce their power and influence or make their knowledge and skills obsolete.
Why have educational reforms failed? Current Reality Problems, Issues Shared Vision Problems, Issues Emotional Tension We typically play here
How can educational reforms succeed? Current Reality Problems, Issues Shared Vision Problems, Issues Creative Tension We should play here R R
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Wah, wah, wah! Shut up and learn. Then, shut up and lead!!!
Current Culture Awareness & Sensitivity RelationshipsRitualsPractices Legal & Governance Constructs Performance Data ABBA’s Current Systemic Capacity
Telltale Signs That Your School Has a “Learning Disability” “I am my position!” “The enemy is out there” “The illusion of taking charge” “The fixation on events” The Parable of the Boiled Frog The Delusion of Learning from Experience The Myth of the Management Team The Dance of Change, ( 1999) Senge et.al., pp.334-341
Describe the culture of your present organization What is your organization’s genetic code? What aspects stay constant amid the flux of people, info, and work? What values, ways of acting, or habitual beliefs reinforce your identity as “us”? Who belongs? Which people truly belong? Do they know they belong? Have they chosen to belong? What is the purpose? What wants to happen in your organization? Is it a desirable future? Is there a “shared vision” among all stakeholders? The Dance of Change, ( 1999) Senge et.al., pp.334-341
Describe the culture of your present organization How aware is your organization of itself and its environment? Use artifacts/rituals of your culture to justify all of your observations. The Dance of Change, ( 1999) Senge et.al., pp.334-341
Narrowing the path to espoused vs. actual culture How does your culture define truth? What does your culture believe about human capability? What does your culture believe about human nature? What does your culture believe about social organization? The Dance of Change, ( 1999) Senge et.al., pp.334-341
Resistance to Change Change efforts may be long awaited by some and strike fear in others. In any system, including educational systems, there is a built- in inertia that tends to maintain the stability of the organization. (Systems tend to create equilibrium) Kowalski and Reitzug (1993) noted that educational systems, as all social systems, resist change. A function of such organizations is to provide a framework for values, beliefs, and practices that allow people to function effectively. In schools, policy, regulation, and curricula provide a meaningful environment for the work of teachers, students, and staff. Change may threaten this framework of meaning and produce anxiety and resistance.
Resistance to Change Resistance can be manifest in overt or covert behaviors. Stanislao and Stanislao (1983) outlined eight reasons for employee resistance 1. Surprise and fear of the unknown. This emerges when radically innovative changes are introduced without warning or official announcement. The rumor mill creates its own informal sources of information. 2. Climate of mistrust. Mistrust can come from pre-change organizational climates as well as from climates arising from the change process. The best-conceived changes can be doomed by mutual mistrust—mistrust perpetuates mistrust. Both leaders and followers suffer as the motivation necessary to change is absent. 3. Fear of failure. Self-doubt and lack of confidence drain growth and development when change participants are not allowed to prepare for change by participating in decision making or retraining.
Resistance to Change Stanislao and Stanislao (1983) outlined eight reasons for employee resistance: 4. Loss of status and/or job security. Resistance can quickly be triggered by real or perceived changes in power bases, loss of jobs, and loss of status due to administrative and technological changes. 5. Peer pressure. Resistance can arise not only in those directly affected by the proposed change but also in those who anticipate negative effects on peers, colleagues, or friends. 6. Disruption of cultural traditions and/or group relationships. If it is believed that the human element is the backbone of the organization, any modifications in work or personal relationships caused by transfers, promotions, or reassignments alter group dynamics and create disequilibrium. 7. Personality conflicts. The personality of the change agent can breed resistance if adversarial relationships develop between the change agent, the change-inducing system, and the target system. 8. Lack of tact or poor planning. The system’s readiness is a key ingredient in successful change. A good idea may fall flat not on its own merits but because of poor timing or a poor manner of introduction.
Resistance to Change Schuler (2003) expanded this discussion to a list of reasons for change resistance. They included the following: (a) The risk of change is seen as greater than the risk of the status quo. (b) People feel loyal to others who are identified with the old way. (c) Role models for the new way do not yet exist. (d) People perceive their own incompetence under the new way and fear it. (e) People feel overloaded and overwhelmed. (f) People are skeptical and want to be sure of the soundness of the new approach. (g) People fear hidden agendas on the part of the reformers. (h) People see the proposed change as threatening their self-images. (i) People anticipate loss of status or lessened quality of life. (j) People honestly see the proposed change as a bad idea — and they may be right.
Resistance to Change Climate and culture combine to provide a powerful matrix in which people function within the educational system. Because climate and culture are the organizational memory and an action context, they are also a powerfully conservative force within the organization. Therefore, during organizational change attempts that do not address culture and climate are at great risk of failure. Change is resisted if it does not adhere to pre-established norms and values…Norms, a representations of an invisible framework of standard beliefs and values, are valuable to an organization if they have worked well in the past, helped participants interpret daily occurrences, and minimized confusion. Strong norms that project integrity and sensibility in an organization and are shared by the participants across organizational roles are especially difficult to change.
Resistance to Change Additional obstacles that may impede change include resource limitations, or the inability to increase production, augment services, purchase new equipment, or hire staff. In contemporary school districts an additional barrier to change may be collective-bargaining agreements. Sarason (1971) observed that cohesiveness (or lack of it) is an issue in effecting change in schools. Teachers are relatively autonomous, with little to do with one another during the normal school day. “They may identify with each other in terms of role or place of work, and they may have a feeling of loyalty to each other and the school, but it is rare that they feel part of a working group that discusses, plans, and helps make educational decisions” (p. 113).
Resistance to Change Connor and Lake (1988) grouped barriers to change into three general categories: barriers to understanding: not fully understanding what is proposed; barriers to acceptance: those affected will not accept the change; barriers to acting: factors inhibiting implementation. Basom and Crandall (1991) identified seven common barriers that were specific to change in schools: discontinuity of leadership; Managers’ fears that change was unmanageable; Lack of training in management regarding change; Following a top-down model of decision making; Socialization and conditioning of school staff, which leadsto the belief that the system is not the problem; Unresolved competing visions of what schools should be; Inadequate time and resources.
Resistance to Change Research on barriers to change indicates that resistance can be reduced significantly when planning is cognizant of the barriers as described previously. (DUH!!!) Additionally, Fullan (1982) found that four other characteristics enhance the potential for success with regard to change: necessity; clarity of purpose with clear and consistent procedures and objectives; complexity, or whether change is worth the expanded effort; practicality, or the ability to put the change into practice.
Theoretical Implications of Change Social thinking about change takes two different approaches. 1. The first emphasizes a historical–deterministic thread that often reduces change to inexorable laws. 2. In a second perspective, the human component is given center stage. Recognizing that greater knowledge and greater self-awareness lead to progressive improvement, 3. The third approach appears to have spearheaded the “widespread acceptance of change as a natural process and the equally widespread desire to mold that change in one direction or another—to imbue social change with human purpose” Warren, 1977, p. 3).
Multiple Stakeholder Viewpoints The contexts of change in organizations are viewed through several frameworks. The first and most prominent practice is through management. Change is seen through the eyes of the change agent since it is the change agents, most often leaders and managers, who dominate decision making in most organizations. In another view, organizational change is assumed to occur from within an organization. Forces within the organization, scanning and responding to the environment, set the change process into motion. In this view change may be merely an adaptation to environmental changes, or it may be a comprehensive and more innovative approach intended to capitalize on opportunities presented from the environment.
The action research model of Huse and Cummings (1985) holds broad applicability and is adaptable to fit many different situations. This model places strong emphasis on data collection and diagnosis as well as on careful evaluation of action results. 1.Problem identification. Key organizational members who influence and hold power identify problems that might need attention. 2.Consultation. The change agent and the client begin developing a relationship wherein the change agent, mindful of the assumptions and values of both systems, shares his or her frame of reference with the client. This sharing establishes a beginning, essential atmosphere of openness and collaboration. 3.Data gathering and preliminary diagnosis. This stage takes place in collaboration with the change agent and members of the organization. Four basic data collection tools may be used: interviews, questionnaires, process observations, and organizational performance. Using different data collection tools ensures a more holistic set of data. 4.Feedback. Data gathered must be fed back to the client, usually in a group or work team meeting. The change agent provides the client with all relevant and useful data, which in turn help these groups to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the system or subsystem under study.
The action research model of Huse and Cummings (1985) holds broad applicability and is adaptable to fit many different situations. 5. Joint diagnosis of the problem. To be useful, a diagnosis and recommendation must be understood and accepted. This occurs through an ongoing collaborative process by which data and diagnosis are shared with the group for validation and further diagnosis. Schein (1969) noted that the failure to establish a common frame of reference in the client–consultant relationship may lead to faulty diagnosis or a communication gap whereby the client is sometimes unwilling to accept the diagnosis and recommendations.(push-back) 6. Action. A joint agreement is reached with regard to the action chosen. This is the beginning of the unfreezing process, as the organization moves toward a different state- maintaining equilibrium. 7. Data gathering after action. The cyclic process begins with the recollection of data as they relate to the actions taken. The action is monitored and measured to determine the effects of the action taken. Feedback of the results is communicated to the organization. This, in turn, leads to redefinition of the diagnosis and new action.
CASE STUDY You have been engaged by the superintendent of the Alston Beach School District as a consultant to provide a series of workshops for the district’s teachers. The superintendent has told you that the central issue ofthe series is to be professional development. He has asked that you design the series to include professional development for individual teachers, for grade sets of teachers at the elementary level, and for departments at the junior/senior high school level. You are to present a proposal for the series to him within 60 days. Consider the preceding discussion of models for change. Which of these might be an appropriate base for developing one or more workshops for individual professional development? Which of these might be appropriate for workshops for grade sets of elementary teachers? For junior/senior high school departments? Why?
Models for Planned Change and Their Use Beckhard and Harris (1977) presented a general model of change that encompasses a number of aspects of the planned change process. The general model had six facets: diagnosing the present condition, including the need for change; setting goals and defining the new state or condition after the change; defining the transition state between the present and the future developing strategies and action plans for managing the transition evaluating the change effort; and, stabilizing the new conditions and establishing a balance between stability and flexibility.
Models for Planned Change and Their Use Lipham et al. (1985) identified four models: problem solving, research–development–diffusion–utilization, social interaction, and linkage.
Problem Solving Models Hersey and Blanchard (1988) noted that a problem exists “when there is a discrepancy between what is actually happening (the real) and what you or someone who hired you... would like to be happening (the ideal)” (p. 334). A problem situation in a school setting might involve a high level of absenteeism by students, a significant dropout rate, or poor achievement test scores. (think “GAP”) Most problem-solving models involve the following elements diagnosis: the problem is noticed, identified, and defined; alternative solutions: a variety of possible solutions are developed and the actions necessary to accomplish them outlined; selection and implementation: one possible solution is selected on the basis of its appropriateness and feasibility, and the solution is applied; (most leverage) evaluation: the results of the actions taken are monitored. If the problem has been resolved, action ceases except to consider how to avoid the problem in the future. If the problem is not resolved, further alternative solutions are considered, and the model is recycled as appropriate.
Research–Development–Diffusion– Utilization Models Like the problem-solving models, research–development–diffusion– utilization (RDDU) is a rational–empirical approach providing a systematic framework for managing planned change. The RDDU model involves the following elements: Research: research leads to the discovery or invention of new knowledge, products, or techniques; Development: the new knowledge, product, or technique is validated through pilot testing and experimentation and then modified as appropriate for practical use; Diffusion: the new knowledge, product, or technique is packaged appropriately and marketed; Utilization: if it is supported, encouraged, and accepted, the new knowledge, product, or technique becomes a new element in the overall system. This model is most applicable when there are cooperative arrangements among developers, users, and distributors; when research products are perceived as legitimate solutions to real-world problems; and when there is political support and leadership that encourages the use of research.
Social Interaction Models Social interaction models are also a rational approach to change. These models assess the need for change based on communication and information from outside the system and involve members of the change system in planning and implementation. Active participation in the process by the members of the system is the norm, unlike the passive role that members played in the RDDU models.
Social Interaction Models Social interaction models typically include four stages 1. knowledge: leaders and/or members of the system have information about a proposed innovation; 2. persuasion: members of the system are provided with information leading to positive (or negative) attitudes about the innovation proposed; 3. decision: members of the system can accept or reject the proposed innovation; and 4. confirmation: there is confirmation from peers that the decision to adopt or reject was appropriate.
Linkage Models Linkage models encompass elements of the problem solving, RDDU, and social interaction models. An agent within the system has an interest both within and outside the system, thereby serving as a link. Stages involved in linkage models include the following: identification: a problem is identified and defined; communication: communication channels linking the system to outside resources are established; research: external information and/or skills bearing on the problem defined are sought out and acquired; solution: with the assistance of the external resource, a solution to the problem is identified or designed; implementation: the solution is applied; and evaluation: the applied solution is monitored, often in collaboration with the external resource, and appropriate action follows if necessary. Linkage models offer the best of all worlds in that they encompass many of the parameters of other models.
The Ladder: A Tool For Change? Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data What I See What I Select What I Add What I Assume What I Conclude I Adopt Beliefs I Take Action Advocacy Inquiry
LEADERSHIP & CHANGE Change is to Leadership as Soup is to Sandwich BTW: Your capacity to implement change successfully will be your measure of success – in life and on the NYSTCE!
Leadership and Change Throughout this book, leadership and management have been defined, and leadership has been contrasted with management. Leadership is a process whereby leaders and followers intend mutually agreed-on changes, whereas Management involves an authority relationship between a manager and at least one subordinate that is intended to meet a specific goal. Leadership may be a requisite factor to create and spearhead change, whereas management is necessary to maintain the stability of that change.
Leadership and Change The classical approach often uses leadership and management interchangeably. Similarly, change strategies in this arena are rational. Participative leadership models, in contrast, view the organization as a democratic network having as its goal establishment of an environment that addresses the needs of its members and those functionally related to it (Lorsch & Trooboff, 1989). Supportive leadership, group decision making, and open channels of communication and information flow contribute to the maintenance of a healthy organization. This model suggests that key people be made a part of the change process. “According to participative designers, change should start by altering the most influential causal variables affecting what needs to be changed. Then there should be systematic plans prepared to modify all other affected parts of the organization in carefully coordinated steps” (Lorsch & Trooboff, 1989, p. 74). Authority may be present, but there is a sharing of power. Both group decision making and group problem solving reflect the participative approach to change.
Leadership and Change The Human Resource Model Vroom and Yetton (1973) provided an example. They advocated that leaders be open, sharers, listeners, coaches, and participants in working with others. Empowerment of others in producing change is a major goal for such a leader. Organizations, particularly educational organizations, are essentially bureaucratic in design and highly rational. However, leadership within the bureaucratic structure is a decidedly social concept, “for it automatically presumes an interactive condition between leaders and followers” (Monahan & Hengst, 1982, p. 220). (RRR) Leaders do not exist in a vacuum; leadership is a group phenomenon. Much of the literature on leadership focuses on how the leader views him- or herself in relation to followers or subordinates. The leader may assume an autocratic or democratic stance or employ an interactional or situational approach to leadership and change.
Leadership and Change Contingency and situational approaches recognize that position is not enough to ensure commitment or compliance. However, compliance may be enhanced through interpersonal interactions. The situational approach suggests that leadership in organizations is more dependent on its members and the nature of the circumstances that confront the organization. “The leadership task within this context is to relate specific behaviors to effective group performance and satisfaction” (Monahan & Hengst, 1982, p. 248). Change in this environment tends toward a rational and re-educative stance.
Leadership and Change Senge (1990) proposed that leadership in a learning organization involves three roles: designer, teacher, and steward. As designer, the leader creates a vision and establishes the core values and principles of the organization. As teacher, the leader helps others examine and restructure their views of organizational reality. As steward, the leader demonstrates commitment to the people being led and to the larger purposes of the organization. Through these roles, the leader functions as a change agent.
How does change occur? The following are Principles of Change by Gene Hall and Shirley Hord Change is a process, not an event Developing and implementing an innovation are different things (patience, humor and creativity are needed) An organization does not change until individuals within it do Innovations come in different sizes Interventions are the actions and events that are key to the success of the change process Top-down and bottom-up are fine, but horizontal is best Administrator leadership is essential to long-term change success (institutionalize the innovation so that it survives when the developers leave-and when you leave) Mandates can work (It is a strategy with a clear priority and the expectation that it will be implemented) The school is the primary unit for change FACILITATING change is a TEAM EFFORT Appropriate interventions reduce the challenges of change The context of the school influences the process of change
CHANGE AGENTS Who is going to get it done? YOU!
Characteristics of Effective Change Agents Effective change agents know about the task at hand, understand the cultural context in which the task must be performed, know their followers, and know themselves, according to Hodgkinson (1991). They are generally leaders who see a need for change, visualize what can be done, and move toward the strategies necessary to accomplish their ends. Effective leaders (change agents) possess high intellect, high initiative, strong orientation to both people and goal accomplishment, and a clear vision of what the organization can be (Lashway, Mazarella & Grundy,1988; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1981).
Framework for Strategic Leadership Deep Learning Cycle Domain of Strategic Architecture ABBA’s Skills and Capabilities (ppk) Awareness and Sensibilities Guiding Ideas Innovations in Infrastructures T, M, & Tools Evidence Relationships Practices PDSA
Functions of Effective Change Agents Change agents perform three functions in establishing an effective change-inducing system. These are recruitment, development, and control. Since the change agent working alone is unlikely to be successful in seeking change, one necessary function is recruitment of like-minded persons or subsystems. Warren (1977) pointed out that the larger and more complex the system, the more likely it is that there will be others either actively seeking change or predisposed toward it. Development of a change-inducing system may involve creating a coalition or mobilizing already existing change- minded individuals or groups to take control of assets they did not control previously.
As the process develops three issues arise… One is to balance inclusion with coherence. That is, the more individuals or subgroups who are involved in the change effort the better, as long as the original purposes remain clear and coherent. Guiding Ideas Anyone? Second is to balance the original goals with the interests and positions of new members of the change group and not to be diverted toward other and sometimes private ends. Laser-like focus on the mission! Third, the change-inducing system should exist not for its own sake but in order to accomplish a clearly defined end. If resources are diverted to maintain the change-inducing system for its own sake rather than meeting the original goals, that perverts the process. Don’t change simply for the sake of change!
The change agent’s ability to balance control of the change process and share control when appropriate is the third function to consider. Once the change system is established, the change agent will begin to lose sole control of the process. Sharing of control is necessary to broaden the base of the effort. Ideally, shared values among the members of the change system will lead to shared understandings and effective decisions made by consensus. Fombrun (1992) considered the ability of the leader to recognize the need for change and the ability to gain consensus in that vision to be fundamental to success. Another concern for the change agent is the appropriate degree of change to be undertaken. This issue leads to incremental change, planning for change in stages with careful checks at intermediate points. This may lead to reducing the difficulty of the change objective while increasing the likelihood of success. Given these concerns, the change agent needs to be sensitive to what is possible as well as to what is desirable. Viewing the task in this way will lead the successful change agent to the development of allies, access to additional resources and sources of power when appropriate, and development of long-range multilevel plans that have an improved chance of success. Create a succession of small, quick wins!
Even in the best of situations, the change agent may well run into either passive or active resistance. The change agent may use a variety of tactics to reduce that resistance. Lunenberg and Ornstein (1991) stated that change agents use six methods to reduce resistance to change: 1.participation: involvement of those who will be affected by the change to participate in the planning, design, and implementation (participation establishes ownership, builds commitment, and reduces anxiety); 2.communication: employees need to know the purpose of the change and how it will affect them; 3.support: high-level support generates commitment; 4.rewards: resistance will be less if some benefit, tangible or intangible, is seen; 5.planning: well-thought-out infusion processes should be designed; and 6.coercion: although coercion may ensure that change occurs, it may also produce anger and resentment. Six Methods To Reduce Resistance
Several Factors That Aid In Reducing Resistance To Change Huse (1975) cited several factors that aid in reducing resistance to change. a)Any change process needs to take into account the needs, attitudes, and beliefs of the people involved as well as the forces of organization. The individual must perceive some personal benefit to be gained from the change before willingness to participate in the change process will be forthcoming. b)The greater the prestige of the supervisor, the greater the influence that he or she can exert for change. c)Strong pressure for changes in behavior can be established by providing specific information desired by the group about itself and its behavior. The more central, relevant, and meaningful the information, the greater the possibility for change. d)Facts developed by the individual or the group or the involvement and participation by the individual or the group in the planning, gathering, analysis, and interpretation of data highly influence the change process. e)Change that originates from within is much less threatening and creates less opposition than change that is proposed from the outside. f)Information relating to the need for change, plans for change, and consequences of change must be shared by all relevant people in the group
Another Researchers Take… London (1988) also identified several factors that can aid in minimizing resistance to change. a)Evaluate the characteristics of the change. Consider complexity, psychological and financial cost, the extent to which the purpose and intended outcome are clear, and the amount of mutual agreement. b)Consider who and what is affected by the change. Try to determine how the change affects the work that is done and the working and personal relationships of those affected. c)Envision how the change will be implemented. Reduce uncertainty to a minimum. d)Be prepared for multiple interventions. As an example, training staff for new tasks will not necessarily be effective unless the social system and the reward structure reinforce the desirability of implementing the new behavior.
Effective Change Agents Are Systems Thinkers Effective change agents are systems thinkers prepared for and planning for the complexities of multisystem interactions and long-term ripple effects once a change is implemented. Indeed, they should be prepared for such complexities once a change is suggested since the anticipation of change will often produce an impact of its own. Plan for the unintended consequences! Implementing this multisystem interactions perspective by the change agent involves development of clear answers to questions related to the situation, not only for the change agent but also for all involved in the process. Essential questions for condition are the following: What is to be changed? Why is it to be changed? How is it to be changed? When is it to be changed? Who will be involved in the change? What barriers to the change will need to be overcome? What impact can reasonably be expected on individuals, on subsystems, on the overall system, on the external environment? What support for the change can be expected? What will be the costs of the change? What will be the benefits of the change?
Habit Stakers, Habit Makers, Habit Breakers Freeman (2006) recommended considering the personalities of staff members in terms of three constituencies: habit stakers, habit breakers, and habit makers. Habit stakers he defined as people who are preservers of the existing culture, the status quo. If the institutional habits— ways of doing things— are productive, that is all to the good. If they are dysfunctional habits, then they can interfere with the organization’s performance. Habit breakers he defined as those people who want to see change in how things are done. The leader has the problem of separating the thoughtful from the unhelpful, but these people are source of the organization’s change agents if their perspectives can be harnessed to the organization’s goals. Habit makers are the people who institutionalize the new way of doing things. They need to be alert, aware, patient leaders by example at all levels of the organization if the new patterns are to be embedded in the organizational culture.
The Successful Change Causes Alignment Shared Vision The Ideal