Ayudas internas para la interpretación del pensamiento

51

The approach to the management of change process is or has to be influenced by the situation and context in which change is perceived and implemented. The elements of culture, structures and the people and their interactions determine the reality of the situation (Priestly, 2011a). In this section, the element of people is elaborated on with reference to their reaction to change as their reaction has implications for the success and effectiveness of the change process.

Change creates stress and strain both for those who support change (through overwork, the challenge of leading change in an uncertain world, the pressure of dealing with other, often anxious people, the inherent uncertainties all are subject to in some degree and so on) and for those who are either indifferent, opposed or fearful of change. (Carnall, 1999, p 13)

Reaction to educational change varies from distrust and resistance to acceptance and adjustment. ‘Resistance is natural’ (Lumby, 1998, p 195) and initially people are apprehensive of change because they want to retain the present circumstances as ‘there is something very attractive and reassuring about stability and continuity’ (Oliver, 1996, p 3).

Deal (2007) has also supported some of these propositions about the reaction to change: that routine work is comfortable for people, they prefer the status quo, change may affect the culture to create stress and change may result in changes in power structures as well to create conflict. These explicit and implicit barriers to the adoption of change originate from various sources. Dalin (1993) mentions four such barriers to change: value barriers, power barriers, psychological barriers and practical barriers while Leigh (1988) has used different categories for the sources of resistance to change namely cultural, social, organisational and psychological factors. These factors or barriers can be grouped into two broader categories:

the technical and attitudinal/behavioural. The technical factors are comparatively easy to handle as appropriate training and practice can address them while change in values, beliefs and behaviours is hard to realise and becomes a sensitive issue. Unfortunately, seemingly quickly achieved results of equipping people with required skills and technical expertise to go along the process of change create a false impression of a successful change initiative, but these outcomes are only transient and superficial.

52

Carnall (2007, p 210) suggests ‘the change equation’ which shows the generation of shared vision, knowledge for strategies of change and a dissatisfaction with the present situation combine to create commitment and energy for change. Carnall’s (2007) model illustrates how people experience change and what stages they pass through when confronted with change.

The first stage is denial when people try to deny the need for change and defend their present situation. The length and severity of feelings, which can border on immobilization depends upon the suddenness, scope and effect of a change initiative. Here control of the immediate impact of change to give people time to encounter a changed reality can prove a good strategy. The second stage is the ‘defence stage’, when people see the inevitability of change they go into defensive behaviour and try to convince themselves and others that change is not suitable for them. The third stage is ‘the discarding’, which is the discarding of the past and the beginning of optimism about the future. People start recognizing the new reality and begin adapting accordingly. The fourth stage is ‘the adaptation’ stage. People start experimenting on a new pattern of structures, processes and behaviours. They seek approaches to make the new system work, which needs a lot of energy and sometimes results in frustration or anger when difficulties in coping emerge. Here support and training can help to make people develop ‘skills, understanding and attachments’ (p 243) for the new system.

Then the fifth stage of ‘internalization’ emerges, when people have generated a new set of structures, processes, roles and relationships. Thus, the change becomes the norm and part of the routine. Carnall argues that these stages of the coping process for change do not always come as neatly and sequentially for all people involved and are also affected by the nature of change. Some people may get stuck at any stage, even the first stage of denial, and some may take longer to pass through different stages, which suggests the need for well thought out external support in the form of practical interventions to help people go through these stages and arrive at the internalization stage. The intensity and persistence of resistance to change is linked with the level of disturbance in the culture and power structures (Lumby, 1998).

These theoretical models on the reaction and resistance to change point out a two way process that not only the different reactions to change create demand for a specific approach to the change management process but the nature, intensity and scope of this process also creates different reactions. The knowledge of the possible reactions to change, sources of resistance and conflict, and especially the stages of reaction along with the possible strategies to control resistance as identified in Carnall’s model can add to the understanding of the

53

situation in perceiving and designing the change management process. This awareness can help support approaches to foresee possible sources of resistance and build in the strategies to handle and mitigate them and to build in support.

From this overview of the wide and varying body of research, much attention has been focused on change management with detailed advice on the appropriate models and strategies taking into account various factors and stages involved in the process. Notwithstanding this substantial body of knowledge, the history of large-scale reform is littered with the tales of wide spread failures for a variety of reasons such as: top-down, market driven, approaches which are detached from the practice, are insensitive to the capacity and seek superficial level of change (Levin and Fullan 2008; Lumby 1998; Hargreaves 1997; Harris 2011;

Wendell 2009). Therefore, it is necessary to look into this aspect of educational reform more closely.