Lewin’s (1951) Force Field Model Figure 1
Using Gibbs model, I tried to analyse my feelings of rejection by the rest of the team, feelings of anger by not being able to change the situation because the support workers had created a clique whereby it was ‘us’ and ‘them.’ They felt that a tick box approach to supervision was not needed and that the only thing needed was a daily written log of the progress of the resident. What was good about this experience was that the workers were being introspective on an individual basis yet co-ordinated on a team basis. This gave them confidence and a single issue focus to tackle management issues. This also helped them to coalesce as a team as they appeared to be working together on an issue against management.
The negative aspect for me using New and Couillards (1981) theory was that the resistance to change that had occurred was affecting my confidence as a manager and supervisor. They were, in their language, appeared to be providing ‘active resistance’. This was clearly overt and the effect was filtering through the senior management that created personal issues of ineffectual management. My own supervision sessions with management were strained.
Some workers offered passive resistance and though their opinion echoed that of the main group, it was never the less covert and hence for me, potentially more sinister. These workers were quietly undermining the process to change. Gibbs model allowed me to reflect, analyse and conclude and this is a popular model for this level of interactive and participative management. Johns (2000) model is used in cases for critical incidents and hence are used for complex cases.
The meetings that I organised with the workers and with the senior management to create pathways for understanding from both sides, taking in argument both for and against, gave me an insight into the continuum of the process of change as proposed by New and Couillard (1981). I felt that in order for me to gain a better insight into the psyche of the workers and hence facilitate a positive change by changing positive drivers, then I needed to engage on a regular basis with the workers on a daily basis and physically take on the work load and examine if for myself. As yet I had only ordered the change form the ‘armchair’ and hence I had seen desertion and negative feedback. I needed to work with my workers and actually do the duties to see if their complaint that it was punitive, was in fact true.
Having worked two weeks on a rota with the workers, I was surprised to see that I partially understood their concern. Their concern was the repetitive nature of the checklist. This repetition of the work, day-in, day-out desensitized them to the task of critical observation and therapeutic intervention that was required for a positive management of outcomes for the residents.
I feel that this created a negative feel to their work and hence created a malaise that could threaten the smooth running of the unit. A further complication was that the unit was to have two new residents at the same time (2 days apart) this would create further management problems.
After an initial two weeks working on the rota with staff, I arranged a meeting together with a questionnaire to be filled in, in response to my working alongside and my conclusions. I used a questionnaire, knowing that this was an overt group and would quite readily raise their opinions without feeling inhibited.
Supervision meetings, questionnaire and general staff meeting followed, to try to progress the process of change, but I found that there was still resistance to change. I had hoped that by creating a platform for discussion and somewhere there views could be aired, this active resistance would change to empathy or at least passive acceptance.
By creating this platform, I had managed to get the group to ‘norm’ and ‘storm’ and concrete their ideas. This did not facilitate the process of change and according Asprec (1975) I had given too much time for implementation and hence a new resistance had begun to embed in the psyche of the collective group.
In these circumstances Lipett et al (1958) indicates that the change agent must do two things:
- Allow the need for change to be “felt” before proposing the definite options
- Facilitate the group in exploring options without being rushed. The group, he says, must be supported through this period of uncertainty in order to increase commitment to change and thereby decrease resistance. This is the moving stage and it is in this stage that implementation must happen.
I decided that the group needed more time to explore the reasons for having checklists and as discussions became more personal and deeper it was realised slowly that checklists need to be used not only for the betterment of the resident, but that the write ups would help the staff in cases of disputes and enquiries should there be any cases of abuse, complaints and suicides. The public enquiry resulting from such a case would need comprehensive and detailed write ups with daily assessments of certain procedures. This would actually help them. (Chin and Benne 1985 – rational strategy), proposed change only works when the participants can identify with the possible benefits of change i.e. self interest.
I worked collectively with the group to bring about a change in opinion by furnishing information that would be beneficial to them to serve a ‘self interest’ in terms of a job well done, job satisfaction, possible legal problems (if they did not do the write ups properly and on a daily basis) and progression in terms of training and associated financial gain.
When all of these ‘benefits’ were made aware over time, I could see that the opinion was slowly changing from active resistance to passive acceptance. This process took a number of months and what I learnt from this experience was that leading change takes time. The reasons needed time to be embedded into the minds and hearts of the staff. They have got to want to share the experience and need it to be owned by all. There has to be a self interest that needs to be satisfied by all the participants.
I agree with Lewin when he refers to the phases of change as analogous to the phases involved in changing the shape of a piece of ice; unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Rather than going directly to change, Lewin stressed the need to devote time and energy first to helping the client to unfreeze. The unfreezing phase is very important and often creates stress which in most cases leads to the complaint: “We are wasting time. Let’s get on with the change.” However, if this unfreezing change fails to take place, change efforts are likely to conflict with the existing behaviour. The unfreezing phase can begin if a person is willing to tolerate the suspicion that his or her current procedure is not optimal. They must search for disconfirming evidence (negative feedback). This is not easy for people generally, seeking evidence to support rather than disconfirm their beliefs.
I believe that during the unfreezing phase the client should be encouraged to actively seek disconfirming evidence. He or she should suggest alternatives to his or her current procedure and then define what information would lead to an adoption of one of the alternatives. At times the clients have difficulty in defining what information would disconfirm the current procedures. In the event that this occurs, the change agent can present the client with a series of possible research outcomes and ask what decision would be made given the possibility. Would the new evidence affect decision making?
I feel if I had to do it again, I would look at the conditions present at the work place and analyse them more scientifically.
I would then clarify the need for change for myself and then for the organisation. I would want to know for myself if a change was necessary and indeed possible, given the prevailing conditions. I would then choose an agent for change. During this time I would try to maximise the driving forces and minimise the restraining forces. The restraining forces or the resilience to change often drives the continuum to active resistance if information and knowledge is not given to the group.
Adair (1998) says that to satisfy a set of criteria for successful management of tasks, one should work with both the individual, allowing him to feel that he is an integral part of the task or organisation, and the group.
I feel that I have found that if I had given ample warning i.e. the news of the impending change, then the implementation would have been more successful. Additionally if the implementation is done over a shorter span of time, then any possible resistance may be minimal because it does not allow further resistance to develop.
For me the process of reflection is an on-going one as it gives me the opportunity to improve my practice and utilise supervision more effectively.
REFERENCES
Adair, J (1998) Action Centred Leadership. The Industrial Society, Birmingham
Bennis, W.G; Benne, K D & The Planning of Change (4th Ed). New York, Chin, R. (1985) Holt, Reinhart & Winston
Broome, A (1990) Managing Change. McMillan, London
Couillard & New (1981) Guidelines for introducing change. Journal of Nursing admin 11(3), 17-21
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning
Methods. Oxford Further Education Unit. Oxford
Lewin, K (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York, Harper
Lippitt, R, Watson (1958) The Dynamics of planned Change. Chicago, Harcourt, Brace & World