Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change

The Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre

Guidelines for Promoting& Facilitating Change

�There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous toconduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the leadin an introduction of a new order of things�

Nicolo Machiavelli

�There is nothing in this world which is constant,but inconsistency

Jonathan Swift

�It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the mostintelligent, but the ones most responsive to change�

Charles Darwin

Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change by Professor Gus PenningtonLTSN Generic Centre 1 May 2003

Preface

Welcome to these LTSN Generic Centre Guidelines on Promoting and Facilitating Change. They arepart of a series of resources produced to support those promoting and embedding good practices inhigher education.

Papers on related themes are:

• Dissemination: a change theory approach by Professor Lewis Elton.

• The Evolution of Strategies for Educational Change: the implications for Higher Education byProfessor David Hopkins.

• Guide to Innovation in Learning and Teaching by Professor Andrew Hannan and Professor HaroldSilver.

• Change Thinking, Change Practices by Dr Paul Trowler, Professor Murray Saunders and Dr PeterKnight.

These papers are available in electronic format and the latter, Change Thinking, Change Practices isalso available in hard copy. Further details can be found in the Resources section of the LTSNGeneric Centre website (www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre).

Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change provides practical guidance, including tools,activities and frameworks that can be used in events and programmes by change facilitators.

We hope you find it useful and value any feedback you may have.

Richard BlackwellSenior AdviserLTSN Generic Centre

http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre


Foreword

Promoting and Facilitating Change is a practical resource aimed at supporting colleagues in highereducation as they seek to enhance good practice within their communities. Although underpinned bytheoretical and professional literature, the paper is deliberately not “academic” in style and presentsreaders with what are intended to be practical ideas in a usable and easily accessed format.

As forementioned, these guidelines complement a sister publication, Change Thinking: ChangePractices, published by the LTSN Generic Centre in January 2003. Although each publication has itsown distinctive approach to issues and format, their main themes align and cohere in terms of

- the necessity to understand change as a complex social process

- the imperative of creating a culture in which existing work practices can be critiqued, modifiedand, where appropriate, abandoned

- the need to develop or secure facilitation and change agent skills to initiate, promote and embednew practices.

The annexes which complete these guidelines identify a number of practical tools and techniqueschange agents might employ during the early stages of change initiatives, and checklists to encouragesystematic engagement with key processes underpinning effective change management.

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to Dr. Steve Ketteridge, Director of Educational and Staff Development at Queen Mary,University of London for permission to draw on material from a previously published briefing paper inthe QMUL Management Learning Resources Series for this publication. The original resource wasproduced for Heads of Departments as part of the QMUL Management Development Programme.

Gus PenningtonLTSN Generic Centre Associate


Contents

1 Some starting points

2 Change isn’t one thing

3 Receptivity and resistance to change

4 Delivering successful change

5 Pointers for implementation

6 Why some change efforts fail

7 Practical tools to support a change initiative

8 Learning organisations and change

9 Trying to change in unfavourable circumstances

Postscript

Annex 1 Responsibility Charting

Annex 2 A checklist for managing change

Annex 3 Change practices: the skills of change agents

Suggestions for further reading

4

6

8

10

12

14

15

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

Page No.


1. Some starting points

• Change is a constant and unavoidable feature of personal, professional and organisational life whicharises from successive waves of

• social, economic and political pressures• discovery and technological innovations• new consumer demands• shifts in market patterns• changes in policy, regulations and legal frameworks• environmental disasters.

• Survival is not guaranteed for individuals or institutions and falls to the most adaptable rather than thestrongest. The days have gone when organisations moved in successive stages through periods ofchange into a steady state. This is frequently called ‘first order change’. In this situation our highereducation institutions (HEIs) tended to expand or contract a range of similar activities. Whilst HEIscontinue to face new kinds of challenges, they have to manage these in a context which itself ischanging and destabilising to a point where we can no longer assume that existing structures andprocedures are appropriate. This state is often referred to as ‘second order change’.

• Experience confirms that small changes in the working environment absorbed willingly throughevolutionary growth are readily accommodated by individuals and are often described as

- growth- development- progress- learning.

Change of this kind is generally perceived as positive and stimulating.

• Currently, the majority of change in higher education arises from systemic and organisational sourcesin which there are multiple and contested policy initiatives. The volume, scale and complexity ofcontemporary change create a sense of almost continuous ‘white water’ at all levels within highereducation institutions. Change of this scale cannot be absorbed organically and requires explicit andskilful management. This is particularly true if short lead times are involved and several changeinitiatives are occurring simultaneously on a number of fronts.

• The ability to manage change successfully is a core skill in the present environment and effectivechange management requires the deployment of a wide range of planning, operational,communication and people skills. These skills need developing at all levels within institutions and arenot the prerogative or distinguishing feature of those identified formally as managers or leaders.Widespread competence and confidence to manage a change progress is essential to many qualityimprovement projects and underpins the capacity of staff to make a difference or add value in terms ofcore activities such as teaching and programme level curriculum renewal.

• A large proportion of change initiatives fail or are only partially successful. Raising awareness of theneed for change is relatively easy, gaining commitment, uptake and widespread embedding of a newinitiative is more difficult. Structures, procedures, attitudes and behaviours underpinning the status quohave often taken years to lay down and are not susceptible to overnight transformations. For thisreason the introduction and management of change should be conceived as a rolling processrequiring subtle and persistent choreography rather than a defined event occurring at a particularmoment. It’s often easier to know that change has taken place rather than it is presently happening.Overt changes in practice occur after the shifts in attitude which precede and generate them.


• A degree of resistance to change is normal and should always be expected. Organisational politics areheightened and amplified during a change process as individuals and groups perceive shifts in power,authority, influence and territory. For this reason successful change requires not just technicalcompetence from ‘managers’, but also sensitivity to political and human dimensions of organisationallife. Failure to engage with, and resolve, these latter elements during the transitional processfrequently leads to ‘cosmetic’ or ‘surface’ change and compliant behaviour lacking in authenticity.Commitment to self-identified and self-initiated change is always greater than change deemednecessary by others or imposed from external sources. It is useful to remember the following.

‘Organisations are dynamically conservative, that is to say, they fight like mad to remain thesame. Only when an organisation can’t repel, ignore, contain or transform a threat does itrespond.’

Donald Schon

2. Change isn’t one thing

‘It’s impossible to really change unless you can deal with all aspects of a problem. If you canonly deal with yolks or whites, it’s pretty hard to make an omelette.

Gene Amodahl

• Change is not a simple or single phenomenon. It comes in many forms, and although there aregeneric skills for its effective management, these have to be tailored to particular circumstances.Organisational contexts can vary in a number of significant ways and can involve

- growth and expansion (more of the same, scaled up and spread wider)

- diversification (all or some of the existing activities plus new elements)

- contraction (a reduction in both the scale and character of current agenda)

- discontinuity (ceasing to do some or all of existing activities)

- innovation (doing something completely new to complement or replace existing activities).

In the current climate higher education frequently finds itself responsible for undertaking a number ofthese processes simultaneously with activity on a variety of fronts. This is not easy!

• Along the above dimensions the changes being proposed can be placed upon two further scales:radical – incremental and core – peripheral. Plotting the character of a proposed change alongthese scales can provide a sense of how difficult the introduction of any particular initiative might beand how much ‘disturbance’ to the status quo it might generate. Radical changes to an institution’s ordepartment’s core business will normally generate high levels of disturbance; incremental changes toperipheral activities are often considered to be unexceptional and can be accommodated as a matterof course, especially if the group involved has a successful past record of continuous improvement.

• Using the following diagram as a planning tool can often inform prior thinking about how to present aproposed change and the degree of initial disturbance, anxiety and risk it may cause.

Radical

High Disturbance Moderate Disturbance High Risk Lowish Risk

Core Peripheral

Moderate Disturbance Low Disturbance Moderate Risk Low Risk

Incremental



• As a general rule, professionals and technical staff will tend to resist changes which are perceived tothreaten their core values and practices, and which have a negative impact on individuals and whichdiminish group autonomy.

Managing change in higher education also has to take account of cultural features such as

- The sector’s general commitment to collegiality

- fuzzy lines of accountability, particularly for academic staff

- a general lack of extrinsic rewards to shape behaviour

- well developed subject sub-cultures

- rotating management/leadership responsibilities (in some contexts).

Certain implications for the management of change in HEI’s arise from these features, namely

- the ability to influence is as important as the authority to control

- managing tends to be by consent and incrementalism

- decisions tend to be committee-based and generally consensual

- the status of potential change agents is often derived from personal credibility and their standingin a subject community

- high value is placed on dialogue and the legitimacy of critique.


3. Receptivity and resistance to change

‘Reformers have the idea that change can be achieved by brute sanity’

George Bernard Shaw

• Individuals and groups react differently to specific changes and it’s normal to find enthusiasts, neutralsand sceptics in the same functional group at the beginning of a change process. People typicallydisplay a range of behaviours when confronted with an imminent or unavoidable change. They can be

defensive – combative

excited – positively challenged – passive

cynical – dismissive

frustrated – stressed – fearful

uncertain – confused – ill informed

shocked – offended – angry

• On the ground these feelings are likely to be identified by expressions such as:

- we’ve never done it that way before ….…..

- we don’t have the people, money, time …..….

- it’s not in the budget, departmental business plan ……...

- fine in theory, but not in practice ………

- if it’s such a good idea why hasn’t it been done before …..….

- we’re too big/small/specialist for this………

- things are working well, why disturb them ………

- it won’t work here ………… you’ll never sell it to ……….

• In the early stages of orientation to a transformation, time and opportunities have to be found toexplore the nature of a proposed change and to consider fully its implications for, and impact on,individuals and groups. Rigorous defence of the status quo frequently occurs at this point and shouldnot be considered inconvenient or obstructive. Handled in a constructive way the defender role canhelp to test and refine initial ideas. Accepting the need for change is an important component ofunfreezing aspects of current thinking and practice. Spending time thinking collectively about ‘what arewe trying to do and why is this necessary?’ is rarely wasted. Where change processes have failed, thechange agents have frequently rushed over these questions and pushed ahead too quickly withoperational issues, such as ‘how do we do it?’. It’s an obvious point, but clarity about the rationale andobjectives of a change should lead and shape the practicalities of future activities and newprocedures and structures.

• Building a critical mass to support change is vital for its ongoing management and success. It’s worthinvesting time in analysing the levels and strength of commitment existing in the group involved in thechange by identifying who is ready to

- positively make change happen

- support the general direction of travel

- allow it to happen

- passively resist changes

- actively resist changes by blocking or undermining them.


It’s not always easy to work out who is for and against a change in its early stages. We all engage indefensive behaviour to some extent (particularly if the outcomes are risky or of high significance). Anadded difficulty is sorting out the differences between individual’s espoused theories and their actualtheories-in use. Negotiation and alliance building is an essential activity at this stage and has to beundertaken as part of the process of creating the conditions in which later change can progress.

• Formal and informal strategies have to be developed for harnessing and managing individuals in all ofthe above categories. Creating the preconditions in which change can occur is a key facilitation skill;reducing individual resistance to change through informal discussion and dialogue is as important asformal, public advocacy. Increasing the pressure for change is a less effective strategy to stimulateprogress in HE departments/organisations where power is diffuse and essentially sapiential ratherthan positional.

• During the process of change, change agents will typically find themselves working with three kinds ofgroupings:

Rational adopters (individuals who respond to new ideas by analysis, discussion andevaluation).

Pragmatic sceptics (individuals who remain unconvinced that what is being proposed will bebetter than that which presently exists. Such people need proof of benefits, often throughseeing successful practice in other similar contexts).

Resisters/Defenders (individuals who are unconvinced about the merits of change, havestrong commitments to the status quo and who will work actively to prevent the changes beingadopted and embedded).

Responding appropriately to each of these groupings is demanding and has to be undertaken inparallel with the objective of simultaneously reducing resistance and increasing receptivity.

• Strategies for dealing with ‘resistance’ include

- information giving, education and targeted communication

- creating increased opportunities for participation and involvement (for example; working parties,task groups)

- facilitation and training support to build confidence and competence

- persuasion and negotiation to establish common ground

- limited amounts of catharsis and direct encounter/challenges.

Some commentators would also add coercion and unilateral action to the above list, but changeagents should be sensitive to issues raised in Section 2 above before employing means which appearto be effective in other employment sectors. In reality, coercion rarely works as people quickly findcovert ways to ensure the change is thwarted or seriously diluted. Nobody enjoys being bounced intoa change…. even if the majority thinks it will do them good.


4. Delivering successful change

‘The major energies of organisations go into maintaining and supporting the existing systemsrather than doing new things. Most of the energies of managers go into maintaining the routineoperations of the system and this only leaves a fraction for development activities’

Mike Miles

• Certain minimal preconditions are necessary for a successful change initiative

- the proposed changes must be seen as relevant to the group(s) affected

- there must be sufficient confidence that the changes once established will result in majorbenefits for all the stakeholders

- the character of the changes and their implications must be understood by all participants

- the underlying values and justifications for the new situation must fit with those of the mainparticipants

- the change must be feasible in terms of the resources available (time, people, expertise,materials, space, equipment, set-up and on-going costs).

• These pre-conditions for success are fairly self-evident but can be used to check whether theenvironmental conditions are conducive to unfreezing and reforming existing practices. If each of theconditions is met progress is possible. The literature of change emphasises the importance ofassessing the climate or readiness for change in individuals, groups and organisations before firmproposals are made explicit.

• For change to be possible and commitment to occur, there has to be enough dissatisfaction with thecurrent state of affairs to mobilise energy towards change. There also has to be some fairly clearconception of what the future state of affairs would be if and when the change were to be successful.

David Gleicher’s formula is useful for determining readiness here:

C = ( D V F) > X

Where C = change, D = the level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, V = the quality and clarity of thevision about the desired future state, F = the feasibility of the proposal and X = the cost of changing(this includes the psychological costs as well as more conventional elements such as time, money andmaterials).

• There are also some clear messages be drawn from experience and research about the practicalitiesof managing change. These can be summarised as follows:

Be clear about what kind of change is requiredFor example, is it a major shake-up or a moderate process improvement? will it involve a slow or arapid roll-out? Remember, each has different implications for the organisation/team/individual; decidewhich is best from a ‘customer’, ‘stakeholder’ and corporate viewpoint.

Plan, plan, planSchedule the steps that must occur throughout the process, setting out clearly defined objectives andresponsibilities; focus on the detail as well as the ‘big picture’ – keep relating each to the other.

Try to pre-empt resistanceAs emphasised previously, change agents need to respond to ‘resistance’; meeting objections openlyand constructively often proves effective; deal overtly with what people have got to gain or lose bychanging and talk these through. Some objections will be perfectly reasonable, acknowledge this anduse these positively to improve the substance and process of change.


Don’t forget to identify short term goalsWhere do we want to be in two-four week’s time? Change will only be accomplished by individualshaving a sense that they are making progress; try to ‘reward’ progress and if goals aren’t met, focus

onimprovement and learning, not fault-finding.

Prepare participantsTackle training and development needs prior to initiating the change programme in order to giveparticipants the confidence and ability to clear new or raised hurdles.

Communicate frequentlyKeep everyone informed. Ensure communication is two way; for example, establish briefing andfeedback sessions, anonymous comment or suggestions slips, encourage open dialogue; identify howinformation can be cascaded.

All hands on deckRecognise that people are much more inclined to support what they help to create, and tend to resistwhat is forced upon them. Involve individuals and groups at all stages. Whilst ‘ends’ may be non-negotiable, the means of achieving them may be more flexible and open to creative solutions fromwithin the group.

Avoid complacencyCreate an environment in which people recognise specific defects of the status quo but are also clearabout what is working well. Where rapid change is required, create urgency and momentum – but notof the magnitude which causes destabilisation.

Set your sights on specific milestones and targetsUse a SMART approach – specific, measurable, achievable, realistic targets within a reasonabletimeframe. Describing inputs and take-up are important measures, but try hard to identify output andimpact measures as well.

Prepare for the unpredictableContinued adjustment and adaptation is a necessity; an institution or department prepared foruncertainty is better placed to optimise the opportunities which change creates. Have a defined ‘fallback’ position if later conditions force the change process to be modified. Virtually all change

processesgenerate unexpected and unintended outcomes; be on the look out for these and distrust/be critical ofthe superficiality implied by rational-linear models.


5. Pointers for implementation

• Theorists differ as to whether change is or should be a relatively controlled and orderly process, andthose admit it is often piecemeal and fragmented. Although numerous models of change processesabound, the majority are similar and agree about core elements. Differences and dilemmas inimplementation seem to be linked to the temperaments and maturity of the key individuals responsiblefor making the change happen. Leaders of change will differ in relation to:

• Despite the warning above, models can be useful as a way of thinking about the change processholistically. Kotter (1996) outlines an eight step process for leaders of change

- establish a sense of urgency

- form a powerful guiding coalition

- create a compelling vision

- communicate the vision and explore its implications

- encourage others to act on the vision

- plan and create short-term wins/gains

- consolidate and build

- anchor change in the culture

• Nadler (1989) identifies three key phases in the management of change

- Shaping up the political dynamics through activities such as creating a senior planning group,increasing the visibility of the change leader, demonstrating ‘top level’ support for the change,articulating a vision, creating a critical mass of support.

- Motivating constructive behaviour by preparing people for the future, giving information aboutthe impact and benefits of change, encouraging participation in the designing andimplementation of activities, ‘rewarding’ those who disengage from the past.

- Managing the transition by defining short incremental phases, increasing two-waycommunication, ensuring resources, providing back-up systems.

Nadler makes the obvious point that it’s just as important to define what will not change during atransition as to engage with new activities. If a change agent is seen to be introducing flux anddisturbance, equilibrium and stability are also needed in some apsects of people’s work.

• Hersey and Blanchard (1988) suggest a practical educative approach to participative change whichseems particularly relevant to higher education as it is based on a proven model of learning. It can berepresented as follows:

Their need to get it right Their capacity and tolerancethe first time for experimentation

Use of rationality Use of intuition andand logic creativity

Their need for clarity Their tolerance of ambiguityand simplicity and complexity

Their ability to Their ability to manage intomanage the present the future


Stages in a change process

The model acknowledges that changing collective practices and group behaviour takes time and isdifficult. In a typical situation the practices being subjected to change have often taken years to laydown and are not susceptible to rapid reforming. The model also reinforces the idea that changewillingly undertaken by intelligent, mature adults must be based on information and understanding,and that genuine changes in behaviour only occur in line with corresponding shifts in attitude.Although this is a ‘behavioural - developmental’ model of change, it is relatively easy to identify whatmanagers/change agents might profitably be doing at different points in the transition by reference toother sections of this document.

• The Hersey and Blanchard model aligns well with work by Mink (1991) who states:

The organisation of the future will be based on the principle of adaptability rather than predictability. Itwill be an open organisation that considers process more important than structure, and free humaninteraction more effective than impersonal, chain of command hierarchy. It will be an intelligent,adaptable, learning organisation – one that can respond to shifts in a changing social environment. Itwill require that every individual who works in the organisation be receptive and willing to learn and tohelp others learn.

Providing new information

Developing new understandings

Modifying existing attitudes

Developing new individual behaviours

Changing group behaviours & embedding these as normal practiceHigh

Level ofDifficulty

Low

Short Time Involved Long


6. Why some change efforts fail

The causes of failure for change efforts are, of course, varied. The vast majority can be traced back tosources within the organisation itself or arise from deficits in the change process and key individualsmanaging it. The causes of failure are not the exact reciprocals of elements identified in section four.Lack of success is frequently rooted in combinations of the following factors:

• Lack of planning and preparation Some change agents suffer from ‘tunnel vision’, looking only to the end result, oblivious to the steps

required to get there. Structures and sequences are needed to guide and monitor the direction oftravel.

• The change programme has no clear vision If you don’t know where you’re going, how can you expect to get there? Even if the journey is through

unknown territory there needs to be a strong sense of the ‘future state’.

• Goals are set, but too far in the future Enthusiasm cannot be expected for a three year plan. ‘Bite-size’ targets and significant ‘milestones’

are needed. Wherever possible these should align with normal work patterns and planning onresourcing cycles.

• Going for the quick-fix option Change means more than a quality poster, t-shirt, coffee mug, half-day seminar or management

message in the regular newsletter. We can all be seduced by the appearance of surface and cosmeticfeatures. (cf. the distinction made between ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ learning).

• Poor communication People need lots of information throughout. Develop a communication strategy which provides regular

and reliable information about what’s happening, who is involved and what progress is being made.

• The legacy of previous change Years of unsatisfactory and previously poorly managed attempts to change may create a ‘risk-averse’

culture incompatible with a ‘we can do this’ approach.

• The way we do things around here Many staff are reluctant to give up familiar procedures and structures – even when they are

acknowledged to be inefficient or ineffective. Nostalgia for a previous golden age is frequently justnostalgia.

• Participant’s resistanceAs indicated previously people will respond differently. Some will welcome the change (rationaladopters), others may adopt a ‘wait and see’ attitude (pragmatic sceptics); a small number may beactively hostile (obstructionists). See section three. Where change attempts fail people have often notthought through strategies to deal with the range of forms resistance takes.

• Disregarding a domino effect Change in one part of a system almost always creates implications/an impact elsewhere. Systems

thinking and ‘mapping’ can avoid much of this ‘unintended fallout’ and situations where ‘the baby goesout with the bathwater’.

• Ill-prepared individuals Typically, organisations raise the hurdles, but fail to provide the training or skills necessary to clear

them. Change agents have to empower and encourage individuals to adjust to change and providethem with supported opportunities to increase their confidence and competence in activities central tothe changes proposed.


7. Practical tools to support a change initiative

• In the early stages of introducing change, experienced facilitators/change agents tend to use anumber of simple ‘tools’ to encourage reflection amongst the group involved in the process. Thesetechniques are intended to analyse features of the status quo, ‘unfreeze’ existing perceptions,generate data about current effectiveness and provide an opportunity for participants to collectivelyshare views and ideas. Approaches include:

SWOT analysis (an identification and analysis of current Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities andThreats)

Discrepancy Checks (investigations aimed at identifying gaps between formal statements of intentand practice on the ground). Typical questions for this kind of exercise are:

do we know what’s happening in practice?

do we know it’s consistent?

do we do what we say?

do we know that it works?

• After an initial intelligence gathering or ‘opening up’ phase, subsequent activities might include apreliminary ‘mapping’ exercise aimed at identifying a general direction of travel. Situational analysisof this kind is a precursor to more detailed planning and provides participants with an opportunity toshare ideas about ends – means relationships and possible options. Typical questions are

where are we now in relation to ……………. ?

where do we want to be in twelve months/two years?

wow will we get there?

• As a next step, Force Field Analysis might enable participants to think about the nature and relativestrength of drivers/influences in the current situation which are helping or hindering the achievement oftheir goals. Force-field analysis derives from work by Kurt Lewin and is based on the view that groupbehaviour in a given context is a function of both the people and the environment. Within theenvironment there will be driving forces which initiate, promote and sustain change, and resistingforces which prevent, undermine, subvert and dissipate change. The aim of the analysis is to identifyboth forces.

• In this kind of exercise participants initially work as individuals to identify and draw the ‘forces’ theybelieve are acting positively and negatively to maintain the status quo and inhibit forward movement.Individual perceptions are then shared with other participants in a process which encourages‘blockages’ to be drawn into the open and discussed. A diagrammatic representation of group’sperceptions might look like the following:

LTSN Generic C

• Self-audits alsparticular practdevelopment aof change. For

- Consolidnot main

- Expansi

- Enhance

- Innovati

- Remova

This kind of stoproceed can beFor a case studPennington in G

• Once planningCharting is usactions (see Anteam working,

• Checklists aresense of the rathree simple cathan a linear se

Forcessupportingchange

Forceshinderingchange

HighAccreditation &

Regulations

Physicalfacilities

Health &SafetyCode

StaffExpertise

Unions

5

4

3

2

Current State

1

2

3

4

5

1

Ma

Students

High

Guidelines for Promoting andentre

o enable a group to get a cices. Audits of curriculum pctivities which enable acad example

ation of activities which astream and which are avail

on of existing activities in o

ment of activities already

on whereby new activities

l of practices which inhibit

cktaking not only helps to e taken, but also identifies wy of how this approach infray (1995).

for change has started someful as it helps to clarify whnex One). This kind of act

decision making and comm

useful as prompts for mannge of issues they should btegories to order activities,quence of questions like th

Topnagement

Facilitating C 1

ollective senractice for eemic staff to

lthough presable only to

rder to prov

in place by i

and new lea

or prevent s

stablish a bhat is alrea

ormed a ma

e managero is responsivity provideunication; a

agers to plae attending

although it is might sug

FundingPolicy

hange by Professo6

se of the operatixample, frequentl make informed d

ent to some degr some students.

ide more, or grea

mproving their qu

rning processes a

tudents achieving

aseline from whicdy working well ajor university chan

s/change agents ible for particular s a simple but effell important eleme

n and review acti to. The example should be borne igest!

Futurebuilding

plans

r Gus Pennington May 2003

on, effectiveness and impact ofy lead to redesign andecisions about different kinds

ee in a course programme, are

ter variety of opportunities.

ality and effectiveness.

re introduced.

learning outcomes.

h decisions about how tond hence will be maintained.ge programme see

find that Responsibilityelements of decisions andctive technique for improvingnts in any change process.

vities and to develop an overallprovided in Annex Two usesn mind that ‘reality’ is messier


8. Learning Organisations and Change

• Every organisation is unique and has its own identity manifested in its culture, structures andprocedures. These features develop and change over time as experiences and conditions impactupon established practices. In order to survive, the organisation and its people must be capable oflearning and managing waves of successive change. The more competent and confident people are inmanaging these changes, the easier and more efficiently they engage with transformation.

• Some institutions have deliberately set out to become more effective in managing change and havedeveloped structures, policies and attitudes in their employees to positively support continuousimprovement. In the literature these institutions are known as ‘Learning Organisations’ and areidentified as having:

- a climate in which individual members are encouraged to learn and to develop their full potential.

- extending this learning culture to include customers, suppliers and other significantstakeholders.

- a human resource development strategy central to business policy.

- capabilities to engage in a continuous process of organisational transformation.

Creating genuine learning organisations is not easy and it should be noted that:

Being a member of a learning organisation is not necessarily an easy role. In fact it can bedistinctly uncomfortable, depending on the individual views of the world. To those who areexcited by learning and development, who actively seek change and growth, the notion ofcontinuous learning is very attractive……………..to others, the opposite may be true. The ideaof change and challenge can be repulsive to those who prefer continuity and routine.

Pedler et al quoted in Dale 1994


9. Trying to change in unfavourable circumstances

• Substantive change initiatives may not be possible in certain organisational contexts. Whereinstitutional decline, turmoil, demoralisation, lack of commitment and loss of effective communicationare persistent features of the work environment, leaders/managers of change will experienceconsiderable difficulty in introducing new ventures. In these contexts, change agents tend toexperience both general hospitality to their proposals and explicit forms of personal resistance interms of denial, delay, social division, dismissal and the discrediting of them as individuals.

• Much has been said already about creating a favourable climate for change and we know aconsiderable amount about the factors which contribute to the management of a successful transition(see sections 4 and 5). Where such a climate and circumstances do not exist, however, there may bea need for more fundamental organisational development with a skilled consultant to explore and (ifpossible) transcend deep rooted organisational pathologies (see Francis 1989, French and Bell 1990,Buchanan and Boddy 1992).

• Change is not always possible and the educational world is littered with worthy but, ultimately, heroicfailures. An organisation or a sub unit within it will have problems managing change if it

- is unclear about its mission and strategic direction,- has managers that operate on unclear and/or inconsistent values,- has forms of leadership which fail to nurture and give direction to the organisation or sub unit,- lacks a competent management group,- has inappropriate structures for its purposes and tasks,- has people, structures and systems that are not controlled and co-ordinated,- selects employees who are unable to perform to the required standards of competence,- has individuals/groups who fail to learn skills, acquire relevant knowledge and develop

necessary attitudes,- has staff who have stagnated and who lack challenge in their jobs,- has inadequate communication within and external to the organisation,- has people who fail to work together effectively in groups,- is characterised by lack of energy, commitment and creativity,- has low morale and lacks individual reward systems.

• To improve any or each of the above conditions forms a major change project in itself; and toundertake such an initiative individuals would need to deploy all the skills and understandingsidentified in sections which precede this concluding one. Realistically, some changes, howeverdesirable, are beyond the capacity of the most skilful individuals or groups and have to be left untilconditions or people are more receptive. This is not to counsel passivity or procrastination, but merelyto note pragmatically that on occasions innovators/change agents are in no position to affect anythinguntil circumstances alter. Sometimes, even the most competent and resilient have to take a long view,and console themselves with the thought that:

‘There is no such thing as the avant-garde; only people lagging behind’

Felix Feneon


Postscript

Despite some negative external views about the management and leadership capabilities of the HEsector, institutions, subject groupings, project teams and individuals have successfully accomplished awide variety of change initiatives over the last decade. Even a cursory survey demonstrates:widespread curriculum redesign, adoption and development of I.T. based pedagogies, modifiedteaching practices to accommodate significant expansion of numbers, the opening of opportunities togroups traditionally underrepresented in higher education, major quality initiatives, the creation of newcommercial ventures and the forging of strategic partnerships at national, regional and local levels.Larger national policy-led initiatives in the area of equality, human resource management, governanceand infrastructure (to name a few) have been complemented at a local level by more focused projectsbringing enhancement, redirection and innovation to teaching and learning.

The HE sector can and does manage change successfully, but there is a wider and growingappreciation that change management needs to be engaged with more effectively and in ways that areless damaging of people and more efficient of other resources. If change is to be a permanent featureof our future, the creation of ‘learning organisations’ comfortable with managing multiple projects, is ameans of ensuring that maintenance and renewal takes place in a coherent and synergistic way.Change, development and learning belong to the same family of concepts; as such, staff in highereducation might properly have a professional interest in their relationship and in acquiring skills topurposely change the activities and contexts in which they operate. The important point is that welearn these skills ourselves and we continue to refine them through reflection on self-managed action.


Annex 1 - Responsibility Charting

Responsibility Charting helps to clarify who is responsible for what with respect to various decisions andactions. It is a simple, relevant and effective technique for improving team functioning and ensuring clarity ofresponsibilities during a change process. Richard Beckhard and Rueben Harris (1977) explain thetechnique as follows:

“The first step is to construct a grid; the types of decisions and classes of actions that need to be takenin the total area of work under discussion are listed along the left-hand side of the gird, and the actorswho might play some part in decision making on those issues are identified across the top of thegrid… the process, then, is one of assigning behaviours to each of the actors opposite each of theissues. In most change situations, there are four main types of behaviour:

1. Responsibility (R) – the responsibility to initiate action to ensure that activities/decisions arecarried out. For example, it would be a department head’s responsibility (R) to initiate preparationof the departmental budget or a significant change in academic direction.

2. Approval required or the right to veto (A-V) – the particular item must be reviewed by theparticular role occupant, and this person has the option of either vetoing or approving it.

3. Support (S) – providing personal or logistical support and resources for the particular item.

4. Inform (I) – must be informed and, by inference, cannot influence”.

Besides the four roles identified above, it is also useful to indicate individual’s non-involvement withdecisions/activities. This fifth ‘behaviour’ is registered on the chart by a dash (-). One type of responsibilitychart is given on the next page.

Responsibility charting is usually done in a work team context. Each decision or activity is discussed andresponsibility is assigned. Next, ‘approval-veto’, ‘support’, and ‘inform’ functions are assigned.

Beckhard and Harris offer some guidelines for making the technique more effective:

• assign responsibility to only one person. That person initiates and then is responsible and accountable forthat activity or task.

• avoid having too many people with an approval-veto function on any single item. This will slow down taskcompletion or will negate it altogether.

• if one person has approval-veto involvement on most decisions, that person could create a bottleneck whichinhibits progress.

• the support function is critical. A person with a support role has to provide resources or produce somethingthat is then used by the person responsible for the task. This support role and its specific demands must beclarified and clearly assigned.

• at times the assignment of functions (letters) to individuals becomes difficult and calls for detaileddiscussion. For example, a person may want to exercise a veto on an item, but not really need it; a personmay not want support responsibility on an item, but should have it; or two persons each want responsibilityon a particular item, but only one can have it.

A responsibility charting session can quickly identify who is to do what in relation to new initiatives, as wellas helping to pinpoint reasons why previous decisions are not being accomplished as desired.Responsibility charting is a good intervention to use to:

a) improve the task performance of a team with their existing work.b) to clarify roles and responsibilities before, during or after a change process.


Etc.

Fais

el

I S R I I

Myr

a

A-V

R I I I

Ali A-V

I I S A-V

Jim

R A-V

S I R

Susa

n

S I I R S

R =

Res

pons

ibilit

y (in

itiat

ion)

A-V

= A

ppro

val o

n rig

ht to

vet

o

S =

Sup

port

I

= T

o be

info

rmed

A

ctor

s D

ecis

ions

Prep

are

visi

onst

atem

ent

Secu

re

new

fund

ing

Brie

f sta

ff

Che

ck

I.T.

plat

form

Dra

ft ne

wm

ater

ials

Etc.

Responsibility ChartSource: Richard Beckhard and Rueben T. Harris, Organisational Transitions: Managing ComplexChange © 1977. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Annex 2 - A checklist for managers of change


Scenario setting : creating momentum

• do we know what we want to change and why?• can we describe the future end state we want to achieve?• what are we aiming for initially and where do we want to get to in (say) six months time?• where are we now in relation to that goal?• what choices do we have? Are these choices equally valid and feasible? • can choices be evaluated in terms of benefits?• are the benefits understood and accepted by key stakeholders?• is there a best option? What criteria are we using to evaluate this?

Involving people: reducing resistance

• who will be affected by the change(s)?• do they know about them? How will they react?• how will people be informed/involved?• how do we build a committed, critical mass?• how will we respond to resistance?• are people clear about their role and contribution during the change process?• do they have the spare capacity to contribute/engage with the process?• how will we motivate and ‘reward’ them?

Managing processes: ensuring coherence

• how will activities be directed and co-ordinated?• what changes do we need to make to existing activities, structures and procedures?• is there an optimum sequence of activities?• how long will the change process take? Is this realistic?• can we identify intermediate milestones?• if the change process is not successful, what’s our fall back position?• how will we know we’ve succeeded?• what will it look/feel like when we’re there?• what are the performance measures/indicators?• how might the end state be acknowledged and celebrated?


Annex 3 Change Practices: the skills of change agents

A. Promoting a change project and facilitating its adoption generally represents an investment ofconsiderable energy. This being the case, it is prudent for change agents to test whether what is beingproposed is worth pursuing and whether their efforts will bear fruit. Kanter (1983) suggests thatchange projects which are received well by their hosts are presented to best effect in ways whichdemonstrate they are:

• Trial-able: that is, capable of being subject to a pilot before going the whole way down thetrack with a full and expensive scheme.

• Reversible: in the sense that what is being proposed can be changed back to the status quoif it fails to deliver the expected benefits, hits major setbacks or falls apart.

• Divisible: can be split into separate elements so that if a single issue causes problems thewhole project doesn’t fail.

• Concrete: in that the change process and its outcomes can be expressed in tangible termsrather than abstract and general concepts. Higher education may well be guilty of this latterapproach?

• Familiar: is expressed in terms and language recognised by the key people involved inmaking the changes.

• Congruent: are seen to fit within the department/organisation and are consistent with existingpolicy and practice.

• Attractive: have a publicity value in terms of the internal politics of thedepartment/organisation and have the capacity to attractive positive comment from otherstakeholders like students, employers and funders.

B. The practical skills of successful change agents not only involve being able to present potentialinitiatives in the above way, but also to identify and facilitate appropriate processes such as

- the timing and sequencing of different kinds of activities and interventions

- raising awareness in the group, amplifying their understandings and commitment andbuilding comfort levels with what is being proposed

- developing consensus and pockets of active support

- training and supporting key participants to undertake necessary tasks

- putting forward trial concepts and generating potential solutions

- managing coalitions and formalising agreed commitments.

This expertise focuses on the ability to shape and influence a situation rather than having the formalpower and authority in a given context. As readers will appreciate these management techniques arenot quite of the textbook variety identified in standard project management. The change agents’ skillis more subtle, less linear and centres on reconciling competing views whilst progressively buildingup a momentum of support for change. Effective change agents are sensitive to the informalprocesses of leadership, vision building and developing groups to create and sustain meaningfulinterventions in their existing (and frequently unexamined) practices.


Suggestions for further reading

Beckhard, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992) Changing the Essence Jossey-Bass.

Bennis, W. et al (1975) The Planning of Change third edition, Holt, Rinehant and Winston.

Buchanan, D. & Boddy, D. (1992) The Expertise of the Change Agent Prentice Hall.

Dale, M. (1994) ‘Learning Organisations’ pp 22-33 in Mabey, C. and Iles, P. (eds) Managing LearningRoutledge/OU.

Drummond, I. et al (1999) Managing Curriculum Change In Higher Education: Realising good practicein key skills development UCoSDA.

Gray, H. (1995) Changing Higher Education: going with the grain SED Salford and UCoSDA.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K (1988) Management of Organisational Behaviour fifth edition. ed. see pp333-363. Prentice Hall.

HEQC (1995) Managing for Quality: Stories and Strategies Higher Education Quality Council.

Kanter, R M (1983) The Change Masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at workGeorge Allen & Unwin

Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change Harvard Business School Press.

Lorance, P. & Nelson, R. (1987) ‘How to recognise and avoid organisational decline’ SloanManagement Review, Spring 1987, pp 41-48.

Mink, O. et al (1991) Open Organisations second edition. Catapult press.

Nadler, D. A. (1989) ‘The Effective Management Of Organisational Change’. pp 358-369 in J WLorsch (ed) Handbook of Organisational Behaviour Prentice Hall.

Nightingale P and O’ Neill, M. (1994) Achieving Quality Learning in Higher Education see especiallychapter seven. Kogan Page.

Richardson, J. (1996) Changing Courses: Strategies for Changing the HE Learning EnvironmentOpen Learning Foundation

Slowey, M. (1995) ed Implementing Change from within Universities and Colleges Kogan Page.

Weil, S. (1994) ed Introducing Change from the top in Universities and Colleges Kogan Page.

Weitzel, W. & Johnson (1989) ‘Decline in Organisations: a literature integration and extension’Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 34, No 11, pp92-109.

LTSN Generic Centre

Assessment, widening participation, e-learning, employability - theseare just some of the issues which concern everyone in highereducation today. No one person or institution has all the answers, andyet plenty of answers are out there. Within the UK�s higher educationinstitutions there are some excellent learning and teaching practices.Many of these practices are common to a number of subjectdisciplines and are easily transferable. The LTSN Generic Centre aimsto broker this expertise and promote effective practices in learning andteaching across all disciplines.

The LTSN Generic Centre team is just one part of the much largerLearning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN). This larger networkincludes 24 Subject Centres whose role it is to address learning andteaching issues specific to their subject areas.

To find out more visit our website at www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre.

Published byLearning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN)The Network Centre, Innovation Close,York Science Park, York YO10 5ZF

For more information, contact theLTSN Generic Centre at the above address orTel: 01904 754555 Fax: 01904 754599Email: [email protected]/genericcentre

Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change

Documents

Transcript of Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change