Durlak and DuPre (2008), Finnigan and Daly (2010), Fullan et al. (2005), Hargreaves (2009), Hargreaves and Goodsen (2006), and Morrish (2013) caution that leaders and managers must have a constant awareness of possible inhibitors to change, which are numerous and often the reverse of what facilitates change. Having a constant awareness of the inhibitors of change enables leaders and managers to better deal with change, as briefly discussed below.
3.4.1. Inhibiting Change at the Intrapersonal Level
Hargreaves (2009) asserts that “the most dangerous thing to do during a time of change is to ignore the individual’s personal emotions, fears and anxieties that a required change invokes” (p. 98). At an intrapersonal level, Hargreaves (2009) talks about psychological conflicts that can arise within individuals, resulting in fear, anxiety and uncertainty of the unknown, all of which can cause a major barrier to any suggested change. Fullan (2009) also cautions that there will be an inherent unwillingness to change, particularly when individuals’ values and beliefs feel threatened or undermined by the envisioned change.
44
Fullan (2009) therefore highlights that an individual’s resistance to change is a major barrier to change, and goes further to explain that individuals who have benefitted from entrenched past systems often resist change the most. As explained earlier, Morrish (2013) notes that education, today, exhausts individuals’ energy and thereby limits their opportunities for regular or sustained reflection of their practices. Limited reflection consequently also limits individuals’ belief in the personal benefits of the envisioned change.
3.4.2. Inhibiting Change at the Interpersonal Level
As a result of unresolved personal differences between individuals, there can be no real effective cohesive team. This results in non-existent or disorganised structures, weak leadership and management, non-existent visions, missions that are not implemented as required, no real effective professional cultures or healthy work ethics, and an unhealthy weak professional working environment (Hargreaves, 2009).
According to Fullan (2009), “unresolved personal individual issues can therefore result in weak and often dysfunctional teams, structures, processes, practices and performances. Weak teams, can also create conflict relating to values, un-resolved grudges and grievances resulting in unprofessionalism between team members” (p. 83). This usually results in unhappiness due to the lack of regular, open and clear communication between team members who do not fully understand the redistribution of roles, responsibilities and accountability that required change inevitably brings. This can result in factions developing within teams, pulling team members in different directions (Fullan, 2009). All these factors are disruptive to team cohesiveness as well as meaningful and effective school functionality.
If these disruptive issues are not regularly acknowledged and addressed, they have the ability to create disruptions, disunity and dysfunction in the team and in turn can disrupt the organisation, as any organisation is dependent on the effective functioning of the team. (Hargreaves, 2009, p. 96)
After poor individual interpersonal interactions, poor communication is the main disruptive factor on teamwork in today’s fast-paced world of change. Without regular clear information that is fully understood by all team members regarding their roles and responsibilities, the team will basically function as individuals, resulting in poor performance (Finnigan & Daly, 2010).
45
According to Hargreaves and Goodsen (2006), a team should be regularly and clearly informed about all required changes in order for the team to work towards the negotiated and shared vision and mission of the organisation. “The absence of regular open communication, encouragement, positive feedback from leadership and management through reflection sessions, supportive teamwork and professional cultures and structures result in weakened teamwork and poor quality performance within the organisation” (Hargreaves & Goodsen, 2006, p. 36).
3.4.3. Inhibiting Change at the Organisational Level
Durlak and DuPre (2008) explain that organisational barriers will exist when a team is not operating cohesively. If structures are not flexible to allow or permit experimenting with change, Durlak and DuPre (2008) further state that “undemocratic structures in an organisation can result in tight controls of power, together with a weak flow of inflexible communication practices, which can result in negative patterns of interactions amongst the members” (p. 346).
Hargreaves (2009) expands on the above, stating that change is difficult and most often impossible when only a few individuals in the organisation understand, believe and want to implement the organisation’s vision and mission. When only a few individuals contribute to the development of the organisation’s vision and mission, there is little to no implementation of any change. Hargreaves (2009) goes further to explain that there needs to be a realistic and democratic process that is inclusive and clearly conceptualises and articulates a negotiated and shared vision and mission of any organisation for effective change to be meaningfully implemented. “Power needs, to be distributed fairly to enable the members to give their best to the organisation” (Fullan, 2009, p. 91). Other issues constraining organisations from operating effectively include a student population that is too large, a high rate of staff turnover, absenteeism and a lack of resources. Time pressures and lack of finances or managing finances correctly also challenge organisations to develop to their full capacity to understand, engage, implement and even to anticipate the necessary required change (Fullan, 2009).
Given the demands of living in a knowledge economy, bureaucracy can also smother creativity, flexibility, teamwork, co-operation, collegiality, openness and support. Strict compliance in following policy to the letter can also restrict and stifle the effective implementation of required change (Fullan, 2009). These discouraging factors can limit and restrict organisations from
46
engaging in carefully calculated experimentation and risks that are vitally needed during times of change (Hargreaves, 2009).