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.