Leadership and Change

Quite honestly, I can't think of any significant instances in my life when I resisted change. I have always been on the other end of the spectrum- for better or worse- openly stepping into change. That was my answer a year ago. Now I realize how my extreme fluidity into change actually was my resistance to change. I have always thought highly of my independent ideas and actions. It was my last travel to India and circumstances in the past year in Minneapolis that knocked on this close-minded habitual lifestyle I created for myself and invited change in the way I live. I realized that my inability to become comfortable within my life, to stay in one place for awhile, was my resistance to change. When I became aware of it, I first felt as if I was knocked off my horse into a huge hole. I have since been slowly testing my ability to go deeper into where I am right now, cultivating relationships and being an actual agent for change in community. I will definitely travel more; that is something that fulfills me. But using staying power, exploring leadership through gaining community respect are important tools that I intend to bring with me. So, the change that I was, or am still, resistant to is actually an asset to my growth in who I am already.

Commenting on Toole, I appreciated his recognition of external conditions as catalysts for change in an organization and how efficiency is not always effective in change. (pxiii) Yet a further reminder that, even though Obama promises change, it will take time. Toole also suggests regarding tradition as an important partner to change because cultures have different resistances to it. He doesn't deny innate tendencies toward stillness but warns us that becoming too resistant to change causes failure to identify when good leaders are present. (248) The many ideas that are proposed in this essay are great building blocks toward creating effective change in all aspects of life.

My impression of the reading was a little different than what others have mentioned.

Early in the reading, O’Toole refers to classic anthropological research which basically states that no two societies are organized identically; there is always variation. This research also found that modern societies are as change resistant as traditional communities. This resistance to change is a result of a fundamental comfort with the status quo and what we perceive to be our reality. It doesn’t matter if the reality of our ideology is accurate; it is the belief that we have to hold on to. If we are basically happy with our current beliefs and situation, we don’t want to change because that change will mean we have to give up something that we are comfortable with.

Resisting change is not part of everyone’s nature all of the time. The table on page 245 depicts the role of different players in different scenarios. Essentially, those who are not happy with the status quo will seek change. Explorers, inventors, and entrepreneurs are by nature not happy with the status quo and will always seek innovation and change.

One of the main implications of this chapter was that change will rarely be peaceful because the people who have the power to implement change are comfortable with what they have; change will cause them to loose something – probably many things. That, and nobody wants anyone else to tell them what to do, to have someone else’s change forced on them.

For a leader to effect change, she must convince the people who have the power that adopting a change is in their best interests, and do so in terms that are meaningful and defined by them. And to continue being viewed as a leader by the haves and all of the other groups, she must maintain a consistent value set. Regardless of how varied the groups and societies surrounding her are, constant values and morals will guide the decisions of an effective leader.

I felt a connection in relation to resistance to change when I read O’Toole and afterwards read Mumford et. al. This connection was based on an organization in the metro area that I learned more about while taking a course this week for my own professional development. The question I ask is why do organizations or leaders always have to find a reason to have change when this actually may be what causes resistance in the first place?

The overall feeling that resulted from reading Mumford et al was that exemplary leaders need to always be thinking and be on the lookout for ways that they can more creative and innovative in creating processes, products, workflow etc., which would then result in change of these areas. I do agree with Mumford’s process on creating successful change and that their process is necessary for success to keep up with today’s post-industrial society, but should leaders always be on the lookout for change and making change if it isn’t always necessary? If they are making change constantly and are always trying to be innovate in every task or opportunity that comes their way I do believe that there is going to be resistance and that there is a need for people to feel resistance as O’Toole discussed. If there is no consistency in change and the organization or leadership team is trying to change constantly there is no prevailing ideology that the rest of the organization can even hold on to. Employees within the organization are affected by the change once it has been implemented. They become “socially and psychologically comfortable” (247) with the change and may begin to “have something invested in the system” (247) when all of a sudden there is another change or reason to change what was just implemented.

The organization in the metro area I learned of was experiencing this resistance to change throughout their employees – frontline works to middle management. Upper level management seemed to be making constant process changes to their line of work to be more efficient and produce better results within the products they were creating. A process improvement technique would be discussed within the leadership team, they would agree, and then would tell middle management and front-line supervisors “here is the new change and process, go and implement it.” Much of the time there seemed to be no explanation or as O’Toole stated, “change that’s forced on them” (239). Of course after hearing this you would assume that there should be resistance to change. How are employees going to feel comfortable with change and accept it when they don’t know why or are told do it with no input. At this point, most of the employees implement the change to keep their jobs but many of the supervisors are having a hard time keeping their employees invested into making the constant changes. As a result production isn’t always where it should be which then results in another change from management to try to get it to where they want it to be. It is a vicious cycle which I think is seen throughout O’Toole’s point that the resistance is often a result of feeling of being “forced”. As I mentioned, employees are implementing the change, but I think eventually you will start seeing the “have-nots” of the organization become more apparent and possibility a higher turnover rate of employees since their needs are not being met.

I think that this is a good case to point out some of the major resistors to change and why. In this case or cases like this I think an organization should make change to stay on top of their industry and to keep up with the “times” as Mumford stated, but need to also look at the bottom line of who and what they are affecting and why and to make sure that they are creating the shared values, vision, mission and goals at some level throughout.

Jody, I'll take a different route to address one of your questions -- What changes in your life did you resist? I would rather reflect on changes that leaders sometimes try to make, and the way that these changes tend to backfire on them. A case in point is the "change" that former President George W. Bush Jr. tried to make by bringing a "democratic process" to Iraq some years ago. This "change" has resulted to a war that has claimed several thousands of American lives, several more thousands of Iraq's citizens, thousands of lives of the international community, billions of dollars, and destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. And yet, the end is not in sight. O'toole would argue that this type of change "is perceived as trying to impose his or her will on the group" (p. 248). Getting rid of Sadam Hussen was a necessary thing to do, but there would have been other ways to do it without going to a war that has adversly affected this country in many negative ways.

The changes that I see myself resisting in life tend to be the ones where my sense of comfort is being challenged. In my work, probably like many others, the building of routines/systems that reduce the amount of time it takes to produce the end product is key. When we learn a new task it tends to take us longer to complete it than it does after mastering that skill. And here is why I think I may resist change, it is the anticipation of having to work harder when I believe that the current method is working fine. When change is directed into your world one can feel that whoever is directing that change is saying that you are not good or effective enough.

At one time I beleive that it was in my nature to resist change. But I have discovered over the years that systems and jobs will change. In my experience there are three people you can be when change happens 1 - The person who resists changes to the end and either gets replaced or who loses power/importance/authoruty when all is said and done. 2 - The one who goes along with the process until the end and lives with the results of the change in their work without any of their input. 3 - The person who doesn't resist but doesn't allow change to be forced on them without helping steer it and in the end leave their stamp on the end product.

The changes that I see myself resisting in life tend to be the ones where my sense of comfort is being challenged. In my work, probably like many others, the building of routines/systems that reduce the amount of time it takes to produce the end product is key. When we learn a new task it tends to take us longer to complete it than it does after mastering that skill. And here is why I think I may resist change, it is the anticipation of having to work harder when I believe that the current method is working fine. When change is directed into your world one can feel that whoever is directing that change is saying that you are not good or effective enough.

At one time I beleive that it was in my nature to resist change. But I have discovered over the years that systems and jobs will change. In my experience there are three people you can be when change happens 1 - The person who resists changes to the end and either gets replaced or who loses power/importance/authoruty when all is said and done. 2 - The one who goes along with the process until the end and lives with the results of the change in their work without any of their input. 3 - The person who doesn't resist but doesn't allow change to be forced on them without helping steer it and in the end leave their stamp on the end product.

O’Toole Reading

“…dimensions of resistance are power, fear, and imposition of the will of others…” (p. 239)

I think it is understandable that people are resistant to change, think about all the work that went into making it to the point at which the individual is resisting. There is too much invested for the person to want to relinquish anything! On some level the challenge with change means that our “ideology of comfort” will be challenged. Even something as mundane as someone else seating in your habitual spot for class—I know it often throws me off, and I’m not even as bad as Adrian Monk in the T.V. show Monk! So is it human nature to resist? More likely than not, but resisting is all part of the process of how we let the change arrive, because change is always going to come!

Nduka makes good point of an example of how change imposed upon can have some adverse effects, Iraq war, and in others parenting, it is not so bad, because most children are blank slates and looking for guidance (change).

I have to admit, I am guilty of resisting change. I find it to be scary, and uncomfortable. I wish I could be the kind of person that naturally adapted to change, and I wish I were the type that found it exciting. But whether it is moving to a new city, moving back to an old city, starting a new job or even just starting a new semester, I am automatically uncomfortable. That’s not to say I have not taken a lot of risks; I have moved from city to city, lived abroad and taken on a great deal of responsibilities and tasks. But I am always uncomfortable and nervous, and it will take me quite a while to adjust to the new situation. I have to force myself to see the excitement that new changes can bring.

On p. 248, O’Toole says that the “haves” that are resistant to change resent having their own personal ideology questioned, and they resent even more being forced to question that ideology themselves. I think that this can represent a lot of the resistance to change in myself and others. On p. 245, he says that those who are most content with the status quo are also the most resistant to change. Those who are associated with the status quo also typically are the ones with the most power, in this case power being influence, authority and access to resources. So if you put this all together, those with the most power are also typically the most resistant to change because they do not want their own personal ideology challenged, and do not like having to be forced to question it themselves. If you are a person with the most power, the person who holds the status quo, why would you feel the need to question personal ideologies? They would seem to be working out pretty well as they are. This seems to be the root of resistance to change.

If I think about myself, I am resistant to change in a similar way. It is not that I hold more power than others; it is that if I am comfortable in a given situation, and I do not want to possibly be put into a new situation where I am unhappy. When I am generally happy with the “status quo,” I am more resistant to changes. I have to remind myself that change does not necessarily bring negative, it can bring many more positives. I have to ignore my first instinct that says “Don’t rock the boat.”

"(R)esistance to change arises when a would-be leader challenges the comfort of the group, the members' satisfaction with the established level of their power, prestige, privileges, position, and satisfaction with who they are, what they believe, and what they cherish." (O'Toole, p. 248)

In response to your questions, Jody, I really think that the element of power/control over the change one is experiencing is important in determining if a person/group resists/embraces change. I enjoyed O'Toole's explanation of resisting change through the lens of power & control. Right now one of the groups I am a part of is experiencing change, with many resisting and a few pressing on. The change at stake deals with changing the way we do what we do, and ultimately conflicts with the way we (the majority of the group) see ourselves and what we believe in. The 'leader' of our group has proposed changes and gone ahead with implementing without much input or alternatives from the group, which has put me in a position of resisting change. In this situation I feel that the power dynamic is really interesting because the would-be leader "is perceived as trying to impose his or her will on the group" (p. 248). Overall, I think that an interesting way to explain resistance to change is the paying attention to the power-dynamics involved (if it is a group situation) and the perception of one's role in the proposed change, as introduced by O'Toole.

O’Toole argues that shared-values help a team or community come to the same general conclusion about the need for and direction of a beneficial or required change. While he does not address it directly, O’Toole also reinforces an underlying message that change is more easily implemented when those required to make the change feel they have come to the decision themselves.

Jody presents the recent election of Barack Obama and his campaign promise to bring change as evidence that O’Toole’s is over reaching in his claim that resistance to change is a factor of human nature. While I agree that O’Toole’s assertion is far too general, I am not sure that Obama’s promises of change were specific enough to cause the backlash that O’Toole’s logic would predict.

Obama’s promises for change were quite vague throughout his campaign. He understood that with something close to 80% of Americans agreeing that the country was moving in the wrong direction, change was the order of the day. But, he left many of the details unspoken, instead allowing people to create a vision of change that suited their own desires. In this way, people can become comfortable with (or even excited about) the idea of change.

I also noticed that the concept of nobody wanting to change came up a lot in the reading and thought it was a very interesting thing to think about! First off I dont agree that everyone resists change. I think that depends a lot on your situation in life. It was a very good point that the "Haves" of course don't want change. Why would they? They are comfortable, they have what they want, life is good and change is just a hassel. But on the other hand people that dont have anything or have less are much more willing to be open to change. I also think that your age or situation in life makes a big difference. For example from my expereince, younger people are much more likly to embrace change than older people ("you can't teach an old dog new tricks"). And reasonably so, when you are older you often have a lot more commitments and therefore big changes are scary and riskier. When you have a house payment or children to provide for, its a lot harder to make changes because you know you have a lot of responsibility resting on your shoulders and also that the changes will not only effect you directly but your family too. For me I feel like I am very open to change. For example, I would love to travel around the world soon if I can afford it. I have no problem with the idea of quiting my job to pursue something new, even in this economy. Anytime something new comes up I pretty much jump at the idea. But if this were 10 years later in my life, I'm sure it would be a different story. Also when I think about the next degree program I am going to go for, I am totally open to going to other parts of the country if that is where I get in. But if I had kids, I would only want to stay in the Twin Cities to be close to the rest of my family. So basically I think that everyone goes through phases in their lives where they are easier to have things changing around them and phases where change makes them nervous and they resist it.

Like Linda, I viewed this reading through the societal lens and much less through my own patterns of being resistant to change. As I read the haves "resent having the ideology with which they are comfortable called into questions and they resent even more being forced to question that ideology themselves" (p.248) I couldn't help but think about slavery, women's rights, civil rights, and gay marriage. At the heart of each "social issue" was the discontentment of the few versus the profit of the many. Or has it been the other way around?

In this country, there has always been a select group of haves that have taken it upon themselves to decide the moral way of others. History has shown that errors in judgment and morality have been great - believing a slave to not be a human being and therefore not subject to constitutional rights, women and children being property, and now the argument that the GLBT community is somehow not "worthy" of the benefits of marriage.

The Rushmorean reference to a higher-order of values leaves me skeptical because of ideals of the time period in mention. However, I can concede to the notion that really "listening to all sides and not being dictated to by any one side" (p. 258) is rich with ideals to aspire to.

I try to remember that the only constant in this life is change. Is it possible to fully embrace this philosophy? Is it possible to truly embrace such a deep respect for all humans and all of our differences? Is it achievable to embrace social justice even as it encroaches its way into our own comfort zones?

In response to Therese's comments "So basically I think that everyone goes through phases in their lives where they are easier to have things changing around them and phases where change makes them nervous and they resist it."

I agree, but I do not think that age is always a temperance. Anita Roddick, creator of the Body Shop, (when referring to the late 1990s/early 2000s) maintained that the past few years were the most exciting period of her life - She believed the older you get, the more radical you become. She loved a Dorothy Sayers quote, "A woman in advancing old age is unstoppable by any earthly force".

http://www.thebodyshop.com/_en/_ww/services/aboutus_anita-roddick.aspx

I should be so lucky!!

I have enjoyed the discussion regarding change and our comfort level with those changes. Of the many posts I have read the most fascinating have included personal stories. For myself, I have enjoyed change as long as the attendant stressors that come with the change do not exceed the value of the change taking place.

On the note of personal stories, I would like to share a story regarding change and leadership in a business environment. For several years I worked in retail management from the inventory or warehouse manager to the general manager of large wholesale/retail operation. For about 10 out of the 12 years I was in retail, I worked closely with a colleague and friend, we worked at four different companies and managed several stores together and I felt that he exemplified great leadership skills. At the last store we worked together through a rather painful experience I came to realize that he not only did not share many of the leadership and professional values that I did but that regardless of the cost he would pursue only his agenda. We parted company and we have not communicated since although several attempts to contact him have failed.

What does this have to do with the discussion of change and O'Toole's piece is that resistance to change as he discussed is not always overt. We may at times resist change passively, why did it take me so long to recognize that my values and goals were so different from this other gentleman? Mainly because I was unwilling to see the differences because I did not want to things to change, I was comfortable and I often felt that the value associated with changing my profession did not outweigh the issues. When I reached that point it was not very difficult for me to make the decision to change because the value of the change quite suddenly outweighed the cost.

Do other people ever weigh decisions regarding change that we have some control over and our attitudes as a value judgment?

In this case "value" is defined as "the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange" value. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved February 23, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value