Thus, change may sometimes appear to occur frequently and randomly. We are slowly becoming aware of how connected we are to one another and to our world. Organizations must also be cognizant of their holistic nature and of the ways their members affect one another. The Incredible amount of change has forced Individuals and organizations to see “the big picture” and to be aware of how events affect them and vice versa. Organizational development (ODD) Is a field of study that addresses change and how It affects organizations and the individuals within those organizations.
Effective organizational voltmeter can assist organizations and individuals to cope with change. Strategies can be developed to introduce planned change, such as team-building efforts, to improve organizational functioning. While change is a “given,” there are a number of ways to deal with change some useful, some not. Organizational development assists organizations in coping with the turbulent environment, both internally and externally, frequently doing so by introducing planned change efforts. Organizational development is a relatively new area of interest for business and the professions.
While the professional development of Individuals has been accepted and fostered by a number of organizations for some time, there Is still ambiguity surrounding the term organizational development. The basic concept of both professional development and organizational development is the same, however, with an essential difference in focus. Professional development attempts to improve an individual’s effectiveness in practice, while organizational development focuses on ways to improve an organization’s overall productivity, human fulfillment, and responsiveness to the environment (Cummings & Hues, 1988).
These goals are accomplished through a variety of interventions aimed at dealing with specific issues, as well as through ongoing processes. This chapter provides an overview of both change and organizational development. Educators, including those In the Judiciary, must be familiar with the dynamics of organizational change, since all educational activities, both at the Individual and organizational level, deal with effecting change.
One specific ODD strategy, team-building, will be examined in some depth. This strategy, if institutionalized effectively, can reduce the need for outside consultants. It is important to include a chapter on organizational change and development in this manual to address issues within the larger frameworks that exist for most Judicial educators. Change affects every individual and every organization. Moreover, all of the components of the program planning sequence discussed in this manual are administered within the setting of an organization, a committee or board, or some type of team.
As more and more work gets accomplished through teams, it becomes increasingly important to learn how to translate organizational concepts to the small group environment. The team approach is often being used to accomplish short-term projects, such as planning programs, conducting a needs assessment, or developing a new curriculum. A team’s capacity to create a shared vision for the task at hand and work together in the midst of a turbulent environment underlies its ability to be effective.
Organizational change and development is a fitting summary chapter for this Judicial educator’s manual since it deals with both effecting change (underlying much of education) and managing change. Change in Organizations Organizational development efforts, whether facilitated by an outside expert or institutionalized and conducted on an ongoing basis, bring about planned change within organizations and teams. However, they are but one type of change that occurs in organizations, for change can be both planned and unplanned and can occur in every dimension of the universe.
A change in chief Justice, appropriations, or staff support can dramatically alter the character of a Judicial education organization. Institutional alignment of the state bar, local law schools, area colleges and universities, and Judicial professional associations may yield similar impacts. Planned hangs takes conscious and diligent effort on the part of the educator or manager. Canter (1983) originated the concept of the change master: a person or organization adept at the art of anticipating the need for and of leading productive change.
As a way to reinforce the Judicial educator’s role in the change process, this term will be used to refer to educators and managers who are interested in effecting change in their organizations or work teams. 12. 2 Change will not occur unless the need for change is critical. Because individuals and organizations usually resist change, they typically do not embrace change unless they just. One ODD consultant describes how “pain” drives change (Conner, 1990). Pain occurs when people pay the price for being in a dangerous situation or for missing a key opportunity. As such, change is needed to relieve the pain.
According to this perspective, change will not occur Just because “it’s a good idea. ” It will only occur when the pain of an individual or an organization is sufficiently high to Justify the difficulties of assimilating change. Therefore, a change master must focus on the absolute need of the organization to change, rather than simply on the benefits of the anticipated change. Effective change masters understand this, and they then assist others in recognizing that the organization has no choice but to change. The organization cannot afford to maintain the status quo; change is simply that critical.
The Ohio Judicial College’s movement to full funding emerged from such a catharsis. In other states, mandatory training saved the office of Justice of the peace. Court administration emerged as an independent vocation out of exigent circumstances. These examples of change in state Judicial education provide evidence that effective change masters have perceived a critical need for change and then helped to make hat change happen. Planning for Change Before embarking on an organizational change initiative, it is wise to carefully plan strategies and anticipate potential problems.
One useful method of planning comes from an early researcher on change, Kurt Lenin (1947), who developed the concept of force-field analysis. The term describes analysis that is deceptively simple and can be used to help plan and manage organizational change. Lenin believed that behavior within an organization was a result of the dynamic balance of two opposing forces. Change would only occur when the balance shifted between these forces. Driving roses are those forces which positively affect and enhance the desired change.
They may be persons, trends, resources, or information. Opposing them are the restraining forces, which represent the obstacles to the desired change. As these two sets of forces exist within an organization, they create a certain equilibrium. That is, if the weights of the driving and restraining forces are relatively equal, then the organization will remain static. As changes occur and affect the weight of either one of the forces, a new balance will occur, and the organization will return to what Lenin called “quasi-stationary equilibrium.
Individuals practicing their vocation in the context of a political organization may intuitively employ these concepts in defining and redefining what change is possible. Judicial educators operate in such a context. 12. 3 What is the usefulness of this perspective? Force-field analysis assists in planning in two major ways: (a) as a way for individuals to scan their organizational context, brainstorming and predicting potential changes in the environment; and (b) as a tool for implementing change.
In the former, forcedly analysis becomes a method of environmental scanning (which is useful in strategic planning), whereby organizations keep abreast of impending and potential changes from societal trends and potential budget constraints to staff turnover and purchases of new office equipment. The more change can be anticipated, the better individuals and organizations are prepared to deal with the resulting effects. The second use of force-field analysis is similar, offering a way to systematically examine the potential resources that can be brought to bear on organizational change and the restraining forces that can be anticipated.
This advance planning and analysis assists in developing strategies to implement the desired change. An example may help illustrate this point. A Judicial educator wishes to introduce a computer class for a particular group of Judges. In her role as a change master, she identifies the driving forces as follows: (a) most Judges are presently obtaining the necessary equipment, (b) software and databases are available that are user-friendly and appropriate, (c) computers can help Judges handle information quickly and efficiently, and (d) the use of computers as information sources allows court personnel to perform other functions.
On the other hand, restraining forces may include the following: (a) Judges eave limited time for attending additional courses; (b) they appear to be intimidated by computers, so they passively resist using them; and (c) they feel more comfortable utilizing human resources for their Judicial research rather than a computer and databases. Force-field analysis provides the necessary information for the Judicial educator to plan most effectively for change. If he or she is more aware of some of the potential pitfalls that can accompany the planned change, steps can be taken in advance to overcome them.
One strategy for successfully implementing change is to confront the potential obstacles at the outset. In order for the educator to be proactive, however, the positive driving forces and the negative restraining forces must be listed, so that a strategy for change can include enhancing or adding to the positive forces, while decreasing or minimizing the negative forces. In this process, skills such as coalition building, networking, conflict resolution, and the appropriate utilization of power are necessary. 12. The Process of Change There are many different models for the change process in the literature; the following is a simple, straightforward one proposed by Egan (1988, p. 5). He alienates three steps: ; ; ; The assessment of the current scenario. The creation of a preferred scenario. Designing a plan that moves the system from the current to the preferred scenario. It is evident Egan has been influenced by Lenin, in the emphasis on both planning and assessment. Additionally, Egan argues that planning must lead to an action that produces valued outcomes or results for the organization.
Thus, both planning and change must be directed toward a specific goal. Once the need for change has been determined, one follows the steps of the model in sequence. While these steps could ACH be examined in detail, only step three will be discussed in an in-depth manner here. The first step, “assessing the current scenario,” can be accomplished through a mechanism such as force-field analysis. It provides the necessary information on the forces that can facilitate the desired change and the forces that will resist and deter the change.
Step two, “creating a preferred scenario,” is often accomplished through team effort in brainstorming and developing alternative futures. While the need that precipitates the change is clearly compelling, there may be several ways in which the hangs could actually occur within the organization. It is important to examine the various alternatives thoroughly. The third step of the process, “devising a plan for moving from the current to the preferred scenario,” includes the strategies and plans that educators and managers must develop to overcome the restraining forces in an organization.
This is a political process, requiring individuals to harness and utilize power. Power is necessary for change to occur. It is neither inherently good nor bad; it simply assists individuals in accomplishing their goals. In his recent book Mastering the Politics of Planning, Benefits (1989) notes that even well-thought-out plans for change can be derailed when the politics of implementation are not considered. Change masters must gather support for the desired change throughout the organization, using both formal and informal networks.
The multiplier or “bandwagon” effect, he notes, is often necessary to rally enough support for the change. 12. 5 Key Roles in the Change Process During this stage of planning, it is useful to distinguish the different roles associated with the change process. These roles must remain distinctive in order to implement landed change effectively. However, within different settings or systems, a Judicial educator may play more than one role. The various roles that individuals can play, as the change. Change Target: Individual or group who legitimates the change.
Individual or group who wants to achieve a change but does not possess legalization power. Individual or group who is responsible for multidimensional or group who must actually change. Inning One of the most critical tasks for the educator in implementing change is to harness the support of an effective change sponsor. The sponsor is in a position to legitimate the change. Sponsorship is critical to implementing the desired change. Directly or indirectly, pain can motivate the sponsor to foster the planned change.
Within the state Judicial system, this sponsor may be the chief Justice, the head of the education committee, or the state court administrator. Conner (1990) argues that weak sponsors should be educated or replaced, even by someone at a lower level in the organization, or, he emphasizes, failure will be inevitable. Educators and managers are often in the position of change advocates, who perceive the need for change and desire and advocate the change, but who do not have the necessary organizational rower to implement the change.
Alternatively, these individuals may function as the change agent, with the responsibility (but again, not the power) to implement change. And, of course, in an organizational change effort, educators and managers may be part of the group affected by the change, or the change target. It is useful to consider each of these roles in planning strategies not only for implementation, but for gathering support for the change effort. Strategies for Implementing Change In order to move an ODD effort from the idea stage into implementation, educators ND managers must also rally the resources and support of the organization.
Canter (1983) describes how the following three sets of “basic commodities” or “power tools” can be acquired by members of an organization to gain power: 12. 6 Information (data, technical knowledge, political intelligence, expertise). Resources (funds, materials, staff, time). Support (endorsement, backing, approval, legitimacy). The first strategy in implementing a change would be to collect as many of these power tools as possible. As this occurs, individuals can “plant seeds of support” for the planned change. This is particularly important in helping others see the critical need for the planned change.
It may be possible to plant these seeds before sponsorship of the change is sought so that the sponsor feels he or she is proactively responding to a critical need. Another strategy is to “package” the change in a way implement change of a product or a project when it is: (a) conducted on a trial basis; (b) reversible, if it doesn’t succeed; (c) done in small steps; (d) familiar and consistent with past experience; (e) a fit with the organization’s current direction; or (f) built on he prior commitments or projects of the organization (Canter, 1983).
This packaging should be completed prior to submitting the ODD effort to the designated change sponsor, although that person needs to be involved in further assisting in the packaging and selling of the planned change. Building coalitions is a strategy that often occurs throughout the entire phase of implementing the change. Support must be gathered from all areas which will be affected by the desired change, across different levels of the organization. It is always advisable to get the support of an immediate supervisor early on, although this may not always be possible.
In such instances, other support could be gathered across the organization to influence the supervisor to reconsider lending support to the change efforts. Effective change masters use their informal networks and deal with any concerns or questions of supporters individually rather than in formal meetings. “Pre-meetings” can provide a safer environment for airing concerns about implementing change. In such settings, an individual may have the opportunity to “trade” some of the power tools that he or she has acquired in order to generate support.
Additionally, some individuals will purport a project or change effort for reasons that are fairly reactive: “If so-and-so supports it, then I will, too,” or “If such-and-such state is moving in that direction, then we should, too. ” Obviously, the more change masters know about how particular individuals may react, the better able they are to plan for ways to garner support. 12. 7 Resistance to Change With every major and minor change, resistance typically occurs.
Every Judicial educator has seen this tendency, whether the change involves a certain speaker or a particular topic, a customary time of year or time of day to meet, a favorite location or conferences or planning sessions, or a given style for delivering a speech or organizing a paper. This resistance should be accepted as a “given,” so that the educator can predict and plan for effectively dealing with inevitable resistance. This section will address some of the causes and types of resistance to change, particularly at the organizational level. Individual Resistance Why does resistance to change occur?
The primary reason is that people fear change. They are not usually eager to forego the familiar, safe, routine ways of conducting their business in favor of unknown and possibly unsafe territory. As humans, we tend to prefer routines and accumulate habits easily; however, fear of change may be unknown. It could mean the possibility of failure, the relinquishing or diminishing of one’s span of control and authority, or the possibility of success creating further change. It might be that the planned change has little or no effect on the organization whatsoever.
Any one of these possibilities can cause doubt and thus fear, understandably causing resistance to the change efforts. Additionally, the transition between the present state and the changed state is difficult for both individuals and organizations. On an individual level, people must be reminded that every transition or change effort begins with an ending the end of the current state. The first step toward change is going through the process of ending. Endings must be accepted and managed before individuals can fully embrace the change.
Even if the impending change is desired, a sense of loss will occur. Because our sense of self is defined by our roles, our responsibilities, and our context, change forces us to redefine ourselves and our world. This process is not easy. William Bridges does an excellent Job of discussing the process of individual change in his kook Transitions (1980). In describing the process of ending, Bridges presents the following four stages that individuals must pass through in order to move into the transition state and effectively change: ; Disengagement.
The individual must make a break with the “old” and with his or her current definition of self. Desertification. After making this break, individuals should loosen their sense of self, so that they recognize that they aren’t who they were before. 12. 8 Disenchantment. In this stage, individuals further clear away the “old,” challenging assumptions and creating a deeper sense of reality for themselves. They perceive hat the old way or old state was Just a temporary condition, not an immutable fact of life. Disorientation. In this final state, individuals feel lost and confused.
It’s not a comfortable state, but a necessary one so that they can then move into the transition state and to a new beginning. In this process, it is important to recognize how the change was initiated. While all change is stressful, it is easier to go through the process of ending and into the transition if the change was internally driven, rather than if it was initiated by an new career), there is a greater sense of control over the change; therefore, we feel ore capable of coping with the unpleasant aspects of transition.
This is not necessarily true when the change is driven or mandated by an external source (e. G. , new Job responsibilities, unexpected changes in finances, or Job relocation). In externally driven change, the process of transition is more difficult, and there is more resistance as individuals refuse to begin the ending process and make the initial break with the past. This almost innate resistance to externally driven change makes a convincing argument for the change master to facilitate “ownership” of the change efforts by both the change sponsor and the change target.
In other words, we should assist others in perceiving the change as desirable and internally driven, rather than an externally driven mandate that is thrust upon them. Organizational Resistance With even this very brief discussion on the difficulties involved in individual change, it should be apparent that this phenomenon occurs at the organizational level as well. Organizations, regardless of size, are composed of individuals. The extent to which individuals within the organization can appropriately manage change represents the overall organizational capacity for change.
However, there are other actors peculiar to the organizational setting that can act as barriers to implementing change. These include: ; Inertia. One of the most powerful forces that can affect individuals and organizations is inertia. The day-to-day demands of work diminish the urgency of implementing the change effort until it slowly vanishes within the organization. Lack of Clear Communication. If information concerning the change is not communicated clearly throughout the organization, individuals will have differing perceptions and expectations of the change. 2. 9 Low-Risk Environment. In an organization that does not promote change and tends to knish mistakes, individuals develop a resistance to change, preferring instead to continue in safe, lorries behaviors. Lack of Sufficient Resources. If the organization does not have sufficient time, staff, funds, or other resources to fully implement the change, the change efforts will be sabotaged. These factors, combined with others characteristic to the specific organization, can undermine the change effort and create resistance.
A wise change agent will spend the necessary time to anticipate and plan for ways to manage resistance. Techniques such as force-field analysis, discussed earlier, are useful tools to assist in developing tragedies for overcoming organizational resistance to change. Organizational Development: A Neglected Need Judicial educators may be in the best position to sense the need for organizational change and development efforts within their committees, boards, or work teams.
While they may not have the organizational power to ensure that appropriate efforts are implemented (the role of a change sponsor), they can certainly “raise the consciousness” of the organization and advocate that ODD needs be addressed. Healthy organizations are willing to commit time and energy toward improving both the individual and the organization as a whole. A synergistic effect can be created when professional development and organizational development efforts are simultaneously put into place.
However, many organizations and teams unfortunately overlook the need for organizational development, often because of their unfamiliarity with the concept or their emphasis on professional development. While “professionals” are generally considered to be independently-based practitioners, the majority of professionals function within an established organizational setting. Judicial personnel are no exception. While members of a Judicial office may make sections in an independent fashion, they are still part of the larger system in which they work (e. . , the state Justice system) and are related to the organizational context in which they function (e. G. , Administrative Office of the Courts). Judges in particular work in a highly independent fashion. Yet, they too are part of an overarching system. The system itself must have the benefit of development as well as the individual professionals who are a part of the system. However, Judicial educators may unwittingly neglect the needs of the organization or system in favor of professional development alone.
Indeed, some observers have argued that this is a fundamental part of conflict between state Judicial educators and state court administrators. 12. 10 With this focus on improving the practice of individual professionals, educators and managers may overlook the equally important needs of the organization to support its institutional mission as well as individual vocational growth. Individuals can improve only as much as their organizations “allow’ them to grow. Newly, among others, has discussed this challenge in A New Approach to Continuing Education for Business and the Professions (1988). He believes that the most effective professional
