Managing
change
This is a resource
file which supports the regular public program "areol" (action
research and evaluation on line) offered twice a year beginning
in mid-February and mid-July. For details email
Bob Dick.
...
in which a description of the overall change process is
described as having three phases. Pre-planning requires
negotiating roles and building relationships. Planning
involves setting goals, analysing the situation, deciding what
to do, and deciding how to monitor it. Action has two
parts, implementation and monitoring
Anna Chekovsky has
provided a French
translation here.
There is also a
Bulgarian translation
courtesy of Artem Delik.
Contents
Today
is tomorrow's history
With few exceptions,
intentional change is future change. The present is already
determined by its past. As individuals and organisations and
communities,we carry much of our history with us. However,
what we do today can make future change easier or harder to
achieve.
Today is determined by
its history. Today is part of tomorrow's history.
We are imprisoned in the
present. All we have is "now". And it turns into the
past even while we experience it. This is the change agent's
first dilemma. For the most part we can change only the
future. We have direct access only to the present. To
bring about change, we need some means to reach into the
future.
Planning is what allows
us to do so. Done well, present plans become future
actions.
present plans --> future actions
Much of the work of the
change agent is helping people plan for the
future.
Planning
Planning itself has a
number of parts. A plan is a way of getting from the present
to the future. To develop the plan we need some knowledge of
the present and of the desired future.
So you can think of a
plan as being a "route map" from present to future. To plan
a suitable route, you must know where you are and where you want
to be. Planning change is no different.
present ---plan--> goal
Here we encounter the
change agent's second dilemma. The future that happens isn't
the future you planned for. Between plan and action, the
future takes off on a tangent of its own.
If your planning is very
specific it probably won't fit the future which actually
eventuates. Yet if it isn't specific, it may not be evident
who is to do what.
If it is specific, it
won't fit. If it's not specific it may not
happen.
The escape from this
dilemma is to be found in developing two plans. One plan
specifies who will do what to move forward from where we are and
in the direction we want to go. The other plan specifies who
will do what to check that the first plan is working.
present action plans --> future actions
present monitoring plans --> future monitoring
The action plans provide
the specificity and detail. The monitoring plans provide the
flexibility.
Both plans can be more
specific in the early stages than in the later stages. We
therefore also need something else as part of our monitoring plan:
details of who will do what to reconsider the goals as well as the
plans.
Note, by the way, that a
monitoring plan provides for on-going evaluation during
implementation. In this scheme, evaluation isn't something
that happens at the end when it is usually too late to do any
good. It happens all the time. It is what keeps the
shifting goals in sight, and revises them if necessary.
Both sets of plans are
best developed by the people who have to carry them out.
There is then a greater likelihood that they will actually do
so. For this, action research provides a useful guide.
Alternating between action and reflection, it provides for the
actors to review their actions and their achievements at each
step.
You can think of a
planning process, then, as having four main components
- goal-setting (in the
form of visioning) to define the desired
future
- situation analysis
to identify aspects of the present that have to be taken into
account
- action planning, to
specify how to achieve the desired
future
- monitoring planning,
to build review and flexibility and replanning into the
planning.
present ----action plan---> goal
--monitoring plan->
2 3 1
situation action goal
analysis planning setting
4
review
planning
This is the order in
which it is usually done. However, it is also possible to
carry out the situation analysis first, and then the goal
setting.
You can do quite
effective consulting just by asking four repeated
questions
- what do you want to
achieve in the long term?
- how is it different
now?
- how will you achieve
it?
- if you try to do it
that way, what is likely to go wrong and how will you
know?
and then by encouraging
people to adopt a cycle of action and reflection as they implement
the plans.
In partial summary, it
can be said that change occurs when in the future people behave in
changed ways. In the present, one prepares for this by
clarifying the desired future, analysing the present, developing
plans for achieving the future, and building adequate flexibility
and responsiveness into the plans.
Action follows
planning
Desirably, action
follows planning. The planning is intended as a catalyst for
action. Because plans will not fit the future, action can be
expected to develop a life of its own. The action phase can
therefore be regarded as having three components:
- arising from the
goal-setting, a shared vision to provide overall direction to
the actions
- arising from the
action planning, agreement on who will do what to begin to move
towards the vision
- arising from the
monitoring planning, and guided by an action research
methodology, continual review and adjustment of the
actions.
In other words, planning
need not be precise beyond the early steps. Effective plans
are those that are specific for the present, and are guided by a
distant and shared vision. Between these extremes there is
too much unpredictability for clarity.
Yet clearly this is not
enough. You cannot, starting from scratch, involve people in
goal setting and situation analysis and planning. Why should
they follow your dictates, especially if you are stepping outside
your usual role with them? Or especially if you're an
outsider who doesn't understand their situation?
Something else has to
happen first.
Entry,
contracting and preparation
I said earlier that the
present, already determined by its past, is hard to change.
One important exception to this is your own behaviour. By
act of will you can change your own behaviour. If you
change your behaviour in interaction with others, you then change
the relationship and the processes which characterise
it.
You can't always predict
with certainty what effects this will have. You can
confidently assert that if you change, so will the
relationship.
Ultimately, as change
agent what you depend on is yourself and your capacity to manage
your own behaviour. Using this, you can influence processes
and relationships. You can negotiate a constructive role for
yourself. You can exhibit and encourage the openness and
critical reflection that a change program can depend
on.
In this context, I might
mention that my favourite metaphor for change agent is court
jester. In mediaeval courts, telling the truth was a health
hazard -- people were known to lose their heads, literally, for
telling even truths we might today find innocuous.
The court jester,
however, had a licence to tell the truth. If the change
agent can negotiate a similar licence, those things that need to
be said can be said.
The building of
relationships mostly happens with one person at a time, or perhaps
a small group of people. Add together this influence on
individuals and groups, however, and you can begin to influence a
community or an organisation.
Part of this relates to
participation. In most instances you will want to involve
the people in the community or organisation, at least as
informants. How will you do this? Mechanisms for
participation are an important early duty for the change
agent.
If these are to work,
the style of interaction within them is important. Leave
people to their own devices and they will usually import the
prevailing local culture into their groups. That culture may
or may not support change. For example, if that culture is
averse to taking risks you are unlikely to achieve much
change.
In short, you are going
to have to work with processes and relationships. In a
sense, that is all you have. But through them you can in
turn influence the mechanisms for participation, and the culture
which pervades them.
Pre-planning for
planning for change
Change can be viewed as
a three-stage process consisting of overlapping phases of
pre-planning, planning and change.
In the pre-planning
phase, the consultant or researcher or change agent sets out to
build and maintain constructive, healthy and clear relationships
with the members of the client group. Having done this, the
change agent then builds on this foundation by creating the
pre-conditions for change -- appropriate mechanisms, and
appropriate culture.
The planning process
typically consists of three sub-processes. Goal-setting and
situation analysis are done first, usually (but not always) in
that order. Then follows action planning, which incorporates
its own plan by which it will be reviewed and
critiqued.
Finally, after all this,
implementation using action research takes place.
PRE-PLANNING | PLANNING | CHANGE
| |
relationships | |
processes | now -plan-> goal | future actions
mechanisms | | future evaluation
culture | |
_____
Copyright (c) Bob Dick
1995-2000. This document may be copied if it is not included
in documents sold at a profit, and this and the following notice
are included.
This document can be
cited as follows:
Dick, B. (1996)
Managing change [On line]. Available at
http://www.aral.com.au/resources/change.html
Maintained
by Bob
Dick;
this version 1.07w last revised 20140628