Did any voter in the recent UK election notice the profound and radical plans for the National Health Service that have just appeared in the coalition government's new White Paper? No, of course not...because these proposals appeared nowhere until they appeared in this form.
No manifesto made mention of these suggestions; no spokesperson made any utterance to indicate that there were proposals to dismantle a huge section of the NHS and transfer responsibility for spending a huge sum of tax-pounds to a group of professionals who have never shown any interest in (or talent for) taking up that challenge. Yet, here we are, looking at costly wholesale changes, with the potential to impact massively on the service and the people who work therein.
It is suggested that this is part of a wider political shift where it is increasingly assumed that the electorate simply "can't handle the truth". No political party could level with us prior to May 6 in terms of discussing the deficit. Now, we can't be trusted to vote sensibly when a radical proposal is table for the reform of the NHS.
But, actually, it's worse than that: Cameron and Lansley actually expressly criticised the permachange process that the NHS has been caught up in since the mid-1970s and which has accelerated massively under New Labour. It's not just that they failed to tell us of their intentions; they actually dissembled when they were expressly asked for their opinion on this matter.
So...here's a textbook example to leaders everywhere of how not (or, depending on their success, I fear) how to manage large-scale change:
First, keep your change proposal shrouded in utter secrecy.
Second, explicitly deny that you have any proposal for change.
Third, launch your proposal for change at a point where such an announcement will do you least harm. (This announcement comes more or less at the beginning of the five-year Parliament, giving plenty of the time for the electorate to forget this sneakiness - or, if it's successful, to forgive it.)
Finally, disregard all essential standards of veracity when then called upon the discuss the provenance of this proposal and the covert way in which it was smuggled into public discourse; where possible, link this with wider contextual issues - in this instance, the question of the deficit.
In the interests of good change management practice, we all have to hope that this subterfuge on the part of the coalition government is exposed and ultimately fails to gain any traction.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The nature of change
Oftentimes, change in an organisational setting is seen to be linked to some initiative or project, invariably instituted at the top of the organisation and then pushed out and through the ranks.
Issues of "change readiness" come into play in such instances. And, linked to that, the notion of resistance is often raised as a sticky element of the programme.
Crucially, of course, change is implicit in the human condition: when I got out of bed today, I was different to how I was the day before. After all, I am a day older, have had a range of new experiences, and feel different about things to the way I did just a short while ago.
Hence, with change hotwired into the way we are, it is difficult to see why organisations find it so difficult to engage their people with the need for change...and, indeed, with the rich resource for change that exists among those same people. Of course, it is argued that it is not change itself that is feared, but the way in which that change is likely to impact on the comfort and sense-making of the people caught up in it.
The resistance to change derives not from an innate resistance to the idea; instead, it invariably originates in the way in which change is introduced. An imposition of change, that is, a change that arrives without prior reference to the people that it will impact, will feel both coercive and disempowering. A change that - in the words of maths teachers everywhere - does not "show working out" is likely to hang heavy over those implicated in it, rather than get easily absorbed by those people.
Similarly, where organisational change is ordinarily packaged and presented in such a fashion, it is unlikely that people will enthuse about identifying things that they wish to see changed at a local level - or about actively seeking to realise those changes.
A change ready organisation needs to: anticipate the need for change; engage its people in thinking about those imperatives...and the responses that might be sensible in such circumstances; and ensure that there is clear explication of the reasons for (and implications of) the change package that is eventually designed and delivered.
If an organisation gets this right, it can be more authentic about giving licence to its people to think differently about how they do things - and, most importantly, to lead their own changes at the local level. (Giving licence to think but not to act is a recipe for paralysis and dissatisfaction.)
Underpinning both of these approaches to change, of course, is the need to encourage both reflection and reflexivity among managers and staff, from top to bottom of the organisation. Thinking about things on the horizon and developing responses to those requires clear critical reflection; at a local level, staff need to be equipped with simple reflective techniques that they can use to identify things that need to be done differently, draw conclusions as to what this might mean in practice, and put those ideas into action, allowing time and space to consider whether they have been effective or not.
Issues of "change readiness" come into play in such instances. And, linked to that, the notion of resistance is often raised as a sticky element of the programme.
Crucially, of course, change is implicit in the human condition: when I got out of bed today, I was different to how I was the day before. After all, I am a day older, have had a range of new experiences, and feel different about things to the way I did just a short while ago.
Hence, with change hotwired into the way we are, it is difficult to see why organisations find it so difficult to engage their people with the need for change...and, indeed, with the rich resource for change that exists among those same people. Of course, it is argued that it is not change itself that is feared, but the way in which that change is likely to impact on the comfort and sense-making of the people caught up in it.
The resistance to change derives not from an innate resistance to the idea; instead, it invariably originates in the way in which change is introduced. An imposition of change, that is, a change that arrives without prior reference to the people that it will impact, will feel both coercive and disempowering. A change that - in the words of maths teachers everywhere - does not "show working out" is likely to hang heavy over those implicated in it, rather than get easily absorbed by those people.
Similarly, where organisational change is ordinarily packaged and presented in such a fashion, it is unlikely that people will enthuse about identifying things that they wish to see changed at a local level - or about actively seeking to realise those changes.
A change ready organisation needs to: anticipate the need for change; engage its people in thinking about those imperatives...and the responses that might be sensible in such circumstances; and ensure that there is clear explication of the reasons for (and implications of) the change package that is eventually designed and delivered.
If an organisation gets this right, it can be more authentic about giving licence to its people to think differently about how they do things - and, most importantly, to lead their own changes at the local level. (Giving licence to think but not to act is a recipe for paralysis and dissatisfaction.)
Underpinning both of these approaches to change, of course, is the need to encourage both reflection and reflexivity among managers and staff, from top to bottom of the organisation. Thinking about things on the horizon and developing responses to those requires clear critical reflection; at a local level, staff need to be equipped with simple reflective techniques that they can use to identify things that need to be done differently, draw conclusions as to what this might mean in practice, and put those ideas into action, allowing time and space to consider whether they have been effective or not.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Reflecting on Reflection
The power of reflection, as a means of accessing learning that is woven into experience, is the pause that it creates in the day to day, wherein the reflector is able to recollect thoroughly, think critically and assess their past - and, crucially, their future - actions.
This is why Borton's "What? So what? Now what?" schema of reflection so throroughly encapsulates what a reflector needs to do in order to reflect effectively and, above all, with purpose.
Reflection, then, is taking the time to look back at recent experience and to ask those three questions, taking time after posing each one to explore one's response in detail. Anything else - such as the sophisticated models, particularly those that are underpinned by shaky notions of "spirituality" - are top-heavy and distracting superstructures built on a simple and effective concept.
Reflection is about learning; how an individual uses their learning thereafter - or what particular shape they give to their learning - is subsidiary to the act of reflection itself.
This is why Borton's "What? So what? Now what?" schema of reflection so throroughly encapsulates what a reflector needs to do in order to reflect effectively and, above all, with purpose.
Reflection, then, is taking the time to look back at recent experience and to ask those three questions, taking time after posing each one to explore one's response in detail. Anything else - such as the sophisticated models, particularly those that are underpinned by shaky notions of "spirituality" - are top-heavy and distracting superstructures built on a simple and effective concept.
Reflection is about learning; how an individual uses their learning thereafter - or what particular shape they give to their learning - is subsidiary to the act of reflection itself.
Monday, July 12, 2010
A Week of Study
I have five days in which to finalise three chapters of my doctoral thesis - and to create a first draft of the key analytical section of the piece. The work takes a critical look at the way in which reflective practice has established itself discursively. It has acheived this with little reference to the relative merits and demerits of the activity, scant regard to the limited evidence base that supports this type of formal reflection, and no sense of what is of use (in terms of ideas and techniques) in terms of reflective practice and what is not.
As a practitioner who puts reflective technique at the foundation of each learning intervention that I build, I would not want people to think that I am critical of reflection per se; instead, I am eager to explore the discourse of Reflective Practice, wherein healthcare professionals are compelled to engage in this type of activity so that the positive aspects of reflection - as a key component of thoughtful and professional practice.
As a practitioner who puts reflective technique at the foundation of each learning intervention that I build, I would not want people to think that I am critical of reflection per se; instead, I am eager to explore the discourse of Reflective Practice, wherein healthcare professionals are compelled to engage in this type of activity so that the positive aspects of reflection - as a key component of thoughtful and professional practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)