Change Process

Fullan (1991) makes the following comments about the change process:

"We have accumulated considerable knowledge and insight into the process of change over the past decade. Some of these lessons were not self-evident at the outset, although they make common sense once discovered. The main revelations in this journey include a combination of elements that we usually think of as mutually exclusive or as not operating in the manner that they do. There are four main insights that were not predictable, but have turned out to be important.
1. active initiation and participation

2. pressure and support

3. changes in behavior and beliefs

4. the overriding problem of ownership

The first issue is how reform can get started when there are large numbers of people involved. There is no single answer, but it is increasingly clear that changes require some impetus to get started. There is no evidence that widespread involvement at the initiation stage is either feasible or effective. It is more likely the case that small groups of people begin and, if successful, build momentum. Active initiation, starting small and thinking big, bias for action, and learning by doing are all aspects of making change more manageable, by getting the process underway in a desirable direction. Participation, initiative-taking, and empowerment are key factors from the beginning, but sometimes do not get activated until a change process has begun.

Second, it is increasingly clear that both pressure and support are necessary for success. We usually think of pressure as a bad thing, and support as good. But there is a positive role for pressure in change. There are many forces maintaining the status quo. When change occurs, it is because some pressure has built up that leads to action. During the change process, interaction among implementers serves to integrate both pressure and support. One of the reasons that peer coaching works so effectively is that it combines pressure and support in a kind of seamless way. Successful change projects always include elements of both pressure and support. Pressure without support leads to resistance and alienation; support without pressure leads to drift or waste of resources.

Third, the relationship between changes in behavior on the one hand, and changes in beliefs or understanding on the other hand requires careful consideration. Returning to the theme of meaning, it seems that most people do not discover new understandings until they have delved into something. . . . Moreover, when people try something new they often suffer what I call 'the implementation dip.' Things get worse before they get better and clearer as people grapple with the meaning and skills of change (Joyce & Showers, 1995). We see then that the relationship between behavioral and belief change is reciprocal and ongoing, with change in doing or behavior a necessary experience on the way to breakthroughs in meaning and understanding.

The role of ownership is the fourth subtlety in the change process. Clearly, deep ownership of something new on the part of large numbers of people is tantamount to real change, but the fact is that ownership is not acquired that easily. And when people are apparently in favor of a particular change, they may not 'own it' in the sense of understanding it and being skilled at it, that is, they may not know what they are doing. Ownership in the sense of clarity, skill, and commitment is a progressive process. True ownership is not something that occurs magically at the beginning, but rather is something that comes out the other end of a successful change process.

In summary, the broad implications of the implementation process have several interrelated components. The first is that the crux of change involves the development of meaning in relation to a new idea, program, reform, or set of activities. But it is individuals who have to develop new meaning, and these individuals are insignificant parts of a gigantic, loosely organized, complex, messy social system that contains myriad different subjective worlds." (p. 90-92)

References