Change, the one and only constant
Change occurs in all aspects of life and at every possible scale for an individual, a company, the community, a country, or the world. Now more than ever change has become a constant concern for organisations. Moreover, change can be related to any topic ranging from environment regulations to fiscal reforms, and from organisational structure to learning management systems. Authors Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) present an extense list of 17 methods besides the change outcomes and alignments post-change to comprehensibly manage change which can be as diverse as the existing kinds of organisations and the ones still to come.

The scale or size of the change as well as the duration of the change effort play important roles in selecting the approach. For instance, when planning a large scope change Stock (as cited by Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) considered necessary to adjust the change efforts to match closely the culture of units and departments. The diagrams in figure 1 show the contrast between two ways of organising people that are dramatically distinct, and would require individuals to be prepared in advance. Hence probably one of the most difficults factors to take into account is human behaviour as stated by Harrison (as cited by Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) specially when the change process takes a long period of time, strong leadership is a must to provide for a sustained effort. Furthermore, involving people’s participation in the change process helps endure the required duration according to what Rachele stated (as cited by Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). I personally have experienced how important it is to have people actively participating in the change process since by doing so they would develop ownership of the new settings, thus making it less hard to let go of the previous frameworks which, to many of them, would represent their comfort zone.

When dealing with change in any form it is useful to approach the change process bearing the systems’ theory in mind since, according to Peter Senge (as cited by Biech, 2007), all the parts involved would be interrelated. Additionally, combining theories is another way to increase the likelihood of a successful change process because any given organisation, in order to perform efficiently and effectively, must take care of organisation capabilities and economic values. Theories O and E focus on these aspects respectively, Beer and Nohria (as cited by Biech, 2007) described these theories to work approaching the company from both ends. Theory E with important involvement of external consultants aiming at cutting costs, streamlining the structure, and optimizing assets; while theory O fosters high levels of employees’ participation thus facilitating the assimilation of the new structures and processes.

The post-merger integration process I experienced with an international cement corporation allowed me to know the difficulties people faced when they were not prepared and coached to enter a change process. They had many doubts and were not convinced that that was the way to go. At the same time I witnessed a contrasting positive disposition of people that were involved in a constructive manner, and the difference resided in the attitude of the leader of each area when they communicated and managed the change process.
Change management starts taking place well in advance to the actual change itself being implemented. Paralleling what Bandura stated about individuals being committed to goals (cited by Weiner, 2009), Weiner asserted that the commitment of people in an organisation prior to starting the change process denotes ability and will to carry it on (2009).

Three different roads take people to a change process as explained by Herscovitch and Meyer (cited by Weiner, 2009): people want to change, which represents the highest level of commitment; people have to change because there is little choice for them to do otherwise; or people feel obligued to change, which is similar to having to change. Bandura also mentioned a notion of collective efficacy which instills confidence in people that they are able to attain change as long as they act as a collective entity, providing mutual support amongst individuals.

Technology has the ability of erasing distances and time zone limitations, thus making itself an indispensable ingredient for achieving resilience in higher education, according to Hall and Winn (as cited by Weller & Anderson, 2013).
Furthermore, Walker et al (as cited by Weller & Anderson, 2013) considered resilience to be conformed by four aspects:
- Latitude: similar to stretching a rubber band represents the limit to which a system can be modified without losing its ability to recover.
- Resistance: the degree of ease or difficulty for performing those modifications to the system; how ‘resistant’ it is to being changed.
- Precariousness: can be understood as the fragility of a system with regard to how close it is to a limit or ‘threshold’.
- Panarchy: refers to the susceptibility of the system to external forces at scales above and below its boundaries.

My conclusion is that given the speed at which events occur today most of the methods and approaches to manage change have to be able to adjust to faster response times. This might reflect some type of syndrome of instant gratification –so common nowadays amongst youngsters– which could be considered an indicator of immaturity, impacting the dynamics of organisations and communities. By stating that I mean leaders facing the challenge to be faster than ever deciding how to approach preparations and change itself.
I consider the participatory action research and the integrative method to be the methods that best match my leadership style, since I feel more comfortable managing things in a team than on my own. Besides, the pace at which technology evolves shows no sign of slowing down, thus change as a constant is here to stay which requires the ability of searching for answers and options quicker, and that is better achieved with multiple minds at work.
The last bullet on the right in figure 6 closes today’s blog.
References
All graphic material obtained from Creative Commons.
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.
Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD [Books24x7 database]
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Ray, J. J., & Jackob M. Najman, J. M. (1986) The generalizability of deferment of gratification. The Journal of Social Psychology 126(1).
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).
Weller, M., & Anderson, T. (2013). Digital resilience in higher education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.










