Replying to LO28022 --
I find a great deal of truth to many of the recent comments re: barriers
to change. I have indeed seen (and experienced) fear as a barrier to
change -- but not to all change. I have also seen and experienced change
barriers in the form of meaning schemes and belief systems -- but again,
not all change. In my own work with change, we typically start with
urging people to put change into perspective -- to critically examine
change in their own lives, and finally uncover the self-knowledge that
they are indeed masters at making change work; afterall, they have done it
successfully tens of thousands of times in their own lives.
I am always interested in observing the people I work with during times of
change, and see how they reconfigure their meaning schemes when pressed to
critically examine how they have handled change in the past (and the
conditions that surround a change) -- especially when they have really
made a change work in their favor, or have embraced a change whole
heartedly.
Very often people will start with what many change guru's push -- the idea
that change is always difficult, and that people will naturally resist
change. That idea is easy to absorb into our belief systems. Yet when we
critically examine change in our lives, I think we'd find that most of the
time we embrace change, and worked very hard to make it turn out in a
positive manner. We worked hard to eliminate any barriers to change.
Some more random thoughts here -- and forgive me if I cover old ground
(have not gone back to review prior discussions from last year, while I
was "away" from this group). I wonder if we too easily fall into talking
about "change" as if it were an objective condition outside ourselves.
And a solitary condition at that, as if "change" were just one thing. I
have found it helpful, in working with individuals, groups, and
organizations, to break change into levels of change (a la Lippett &
Lippett, if I remember correctly) -- something of a continuum from low
level change (does not affect the rights, roles, responsibilities,
rewards, etc. of the organization's members) to high level change (affects
or alters the rights, roles, responsibilities, rewards et al of the
majority of an organization's members). A level one change (low level)
might be like repainting your living room. The high level change might be
moving cross country or perhaps out of the country. The extent to which
barriers such as fear, or our beliefs, serves as a barrier depends at
least somewhat on the level of change we perceive or experience.
I oftentimes think that barriers to change are a function of our
individual or collective cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), *and*
conative experience (doing, striving -- much of the difference between why
some people seem to hate any kind of change, while others create change if
there's not enough going on around them) at given points in time (the
collective being seen if we view the organization as a Self). To the
extent that things like our beliefs or our upbringing or our fears create
barriers to change may have to do with the level of change being
experienced and the health and development of those 3 psychological
domains (development along the lines of Wilber's hierarchical psyche).
In addition to the psychological structures with which we meet any given
change, we also have the physical structures to consider and the extent to
which they really support/enhance or restrict/distort the change. And one
aspect I find that is often overlooked by an organization's designated
leaders is, Does the change make sense to those surrounding it? Too
often, it doesn't, and the opportunity to have it make sense (presuming,
of course, that the change is a good idea to begin with) is denied to the
people most affected by it -- they simply are not given the information
needed.
Other things that make one change different from another, and one barrier
to change different than another: whether the change is self-chosen or
other-chosen, and whether change will affect (end or change) relationships
that are important to us.
Much discussion of change seems to assume, of course, that our success
with change (however we define that) rests largley with the rational parts
of ourself -- which of course it doesn't, at least not for me. I'd guess
that most of us can look back at some change we attempted, only to be
thwarted by nonrational or unconscious . . . somethings. Knowledge and
information certainly won't do it all for us, as I can see in my own
battles -- though rationally looking at health needs assisted me in
dealing with alcoholism and things like leaving an abusive marriage (and
sometimes helps with my eating habits today), it has yet to make much of a
dent in my addiction to nicotine! Go figure. Change seems to have both
conscious/rational and unconscious/nonrational components. Perhaps this
is one reason that the best predictor of success for high level
organizational change has to do with the extent to which we engage the
people affected by the change, from decision-making through planning
through implementation and evaluation -- we accommodate the rational,
nonrational, and physical aspects of it.
It's a pleasure to be a part of this group again! As always, forgive my
long-windedness.
[Host's Note: Welcome back, Terri! ..Rick]
Terri
-----------------------------------
TerriA. Deems, PhD
WorkLifeDesign
TheArt of People at Work
Re-SpiritingWork through Organizational Change, Development, & Transformation;
Career Management & Outplacement;
Training, Coaching, & Consulting Services
DesMoines Scottsdale Moline
515-964-0219 Vitalwork@aol.com www.worklifedesign.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.