5.6.5 The Process Of Change In Organisations

Change happens whether we like it or not and it affects us as individuals, families, communities, and organisations. So it would be hard to include a Chapter on Organisational Matters without exploring the phenomenon of change.

I have observed many organisations where change was supposed to happen with the aim of bettering the outcomes for people in distress, but really, very little discernable change took place at all. I gave an example here. (Scroll to the bottom of the post).

Our environment, that we know and experience every day, is constantly changing – and we are constantly adjusting to changes in it.  Obvious changes are in growth of plants, grass, trees and all living flora through the seasons and the ever-changing weather that affects that growth.

Recently I have observed foxes late at night in our estate and I bet that they are here because of some change in food supply elsewhere, and the possibility of easy pickings in our locality.

Apart from nature, new houses are built, others are knocked down, roads are built, new machines to do work are invented etc. And in our relationships, children are born, grow up, move out, people die, neighbours change houses, we join (and leave) all sorts of institutions, employments, and societies and get to know new people.

In short, our lives are constantly changing. Look, for example, at the totally unexpected change to all our lives that came about as a result of Covid 19! Who would ever have predicted it?

Actually when it all boils down, a lot of this website is concerned with change of one kind or another – and I have referred to it many times already.

In the Introduction I described how my own attitudes and values changed over time.

I have also referred to the way, for example the construction of opulent royal palaces and burial chambers change power structures in society, i.e. the way that ordinary people view the people who live in them, or are buried in them.

In the well-known L’Arche Homes people are empowered to take charge of their own destiny with only as much interference from professional practitioners as is necessary.  It is a very practical, empowering and economically advantageous solution to a challenging societal problem. This was quite an original concept when it was first introduced in the mid-20th century – and changed attitudes at that time.

Looking at change in recent history, the printing press undoubtedly brought huge changes in the World.  The spread of radical political ideas (in particular about what we now call our human rights) paralleled the spread of scientific, evolutionary and religious ideas.

Such political radicalisation was, I am sure, considered to be dangerous by many people who were doing okay from the existing order at that time – and eventually led to the American and in particular the French Revolutions.  (I covered this in the Chapter on Power and Control in Society).

Here I referred to the changes brought about by the silicon chip in more modern times. In particular I mentioned the Arab Spring where ordinary people organised through social media, and tried to overthrow oppressive regimes in their countries, with very mixed results.

And I have referred to how, often in society, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps it is also true to say that the less things change the less they stay the same. That is, if changes are small and slow it is more likely that they’ll be sustainable.

Because real, long-term change in society, as we noted already is so slow that it is sometimes hard to perceive!

This post briefly considers change in the family.

Beneath the self-similar patterns of behaviour that we described earlier, (and that are actually the foundation of the more things change the more they stay the same expression, i.e. the patterns repeating themselves) a family is a constantly changing entity.

This is because individual members of the family are constantly changing.

Mostly, the individuals are growing, but some are dying (or nearing the end of their physical life) which brings further change that can be very difficult for the members of the family that remain.

While we are constantly changing, some periods of our lives are more notable for fast growth and change than others – and during these times the change can be very challenging.  For example, a teenager growing – in any family – is usually very challenging.

This is because the rate of growth of the individual is faster than the speed at which the other members of the family (particularly those who see themselves in charge – i.e. parents) can adapt to the change.

This is interesting, because it implies that process, in general, is forced to speed up a little – or maybe a lot – above normal speed.  Usually, if we are parents, we rise to the occasion, and find strengths that we did not know we had, to cope with the fast changing situations where every day brings new emotional challenges.

And it is not only parents that have to adapt to change.  All the family, and sometimes the extended family, has to adapt in different ways.

I referred to a child learning to ride a bike in the Chapter in Cause and Effect – which, in terms of mental-physical-emotional coordination is an example of growing up.

The effect on the parents of the child learning to ride his bike (the cause) is joy/delight at the new found freedom and fear/anxiety that there might be an accident.  In late teens, of course, when he learns to ride a motorbike, the joy seems to wither away totally and is replaced by constant parental fear and often high anxiety!

So there is always cause and effect in change.  And it is largely through this lens it is explored in this Sub-Chapter.

Like almost all of our adult experiences, whether or not we adapt to change with ease or with difficulty is laid down in our family of origin.

And, the kind of change that we find easy or hard is also formed in this way.

For example, I may adapt very well to change in my work whereas change in my family might cause me a lot of distress.  Or vice versa.

I also believe that whether or not change in our organisation is easy or difficult is laid down by both our organisation’s history – i.e. our origins; combined with the history of (and attitude of) individual members of staff with respect to change.

Having explored how our attitude to change is formed by our experience of change in our family of origin, I will propose that the best way to explore how change impacts on our organisation is to check out what it means to us, personally.

To do this, it might be useful to try and remember a time when we experienced significant change – and then try and remember the emotional impacts of that change. 

And these emotional impacts are linked to our seeming in-built resistance to change. If it is change from within, there may be excitement, a little fear, joy and similar. If it is change imposed from outside, it may be a lot more fear, and anger.

No matter what kind of change it is – even change for the better, there seems to be a hankering after the familiar!  Of course, if change comes from within oneself, the resistance is likely to be a lot less than if it is imposed by some external force or circumstance.

A lot of change from within results from our root foundation emergence, and, even though it might sometimes take us by surprise, I believe that our unconscious is ready for it.  This, in turn, often causes things to fall into place.  (Check out the Johari Window again here).

I would now like to revisit upward causation and downward causation.  Let us consider change in the context of emergence in, say, skill development, in respect of the different intelligences that I mentioned in the Sub-Chapter on Leadership and Processing Speed.

Let us say that I was sent to a very academic school where all the emphasis was on subjects such as languages and science and there was no opportunity to explore whether or not I was any good at woodwork, carpentry or cabinet making – or, perhaps, my parents put pressure on me to study hard so that I didn’t have time to develop such skills.

Many years later I find myself in a job which is not of great interest to me.  I suffer on because I have a family and mortgage.  Then, to save money, I decide to do a night course in carpentry to put up a few shelves.  I discover my talent in this field and this talent that I have is affirmed by others.  My natural ability causes me to make different choices as people who I get to know through my woodwork/carpentry world ask me to do jobs and this results in having an income from something that I enjoy doing.

The effect of this enjoyment coupled with the income is to increase my confidence to the point that I consider getting a proper qualification as a carpenter and then changing career.

This is, clearly, emergence at work.

In respect of change, I propose that it is an example of upward causation (pressure from below) where a dormant talent causes change in my life to the extent that I may seek a new career.  Obviously, an example of downward causation would be my boss telling me that there is no more work for me in my job and I’d have to seek a new job – this is pressure from above.       

And the resistance to the downward causation would usually be a lot greater than the resistance to the upward causation – because the spark for the decision is outside me!

Resistance is always, primarily, as I mentioned already, emotional.

Upward causation might result (as all risk taking does) in some fear about career change, but the fear will be reduced considerably by 1): the confidence that I have gained in learning about my new career, 2): the excitement of exploration of a new life where I will be interested in what I am doing every day, 3): the fact that it is my decision i.e. it will be a risk worth taking and 4): it seems to make sense to me. 

On the other hand, the effect of the downward causation will be almost all fear, anxiety and undoubtedly a lot of anger [1].  And there is little or no internal rationalisation to moderate the fear and anger that I feel as a result of a decision that is totally external to me. 

Resistance to change is far greater – because the emotions are different.       

[1]. Of course, there are examples of people being made redundant and/or having other life changing experiences thrust upon them who will argue that it was the best thing that ever happened to them.  That is, they met the challenge full on and found resources within themselves that they didn’t know they had – and thrived under the pressure of having to find a new job, or career, new courses of studies and learning that brought them happiness that they would never have had should the situation not have been forced upon them.  However, the initial response is almost always a high level of resistance. 

Parenting, (a high-impact low-noticeability activity) is, obviously, crucial to managing change within the family.

After all, if we are parents, it is we who started the family in the first place!

It is we who choose to have children and then decide what way to rear them.  We will decide on the importance or otherwise of formal education, sports, music, etc. the nature of conflict resolution, emotional expression, what subjects are not spoken about and what ones are.

The mixing of the two cultures of our families of origin means that the result (the output – I suppose), in the best case scenario – incorporates the best of both cultures.

But oftentimes, despite our best efforts, some negative elements of our families’ cultures also filter in and are propagated downwards to our new family.  With interfering parents or other relatives in our extended family, pressure can come on us (particularly if we are young parents) to comply with family practices and norms even though we might have started out with different aims for our new family. Sometimes we are consciously aware of this pressure – sometimes not.

All the above efforts to change (or to prevent it – which is a kind of negative change) result from downward causation.

Children going to school cause more changes in our family. For example, we cannot go on holidays anytime we like.  Also, money might need to be reoriented to pay for school expenses that were previously available for luxuries.  This is a kind of downward causation also because it is external but there are elements of upward causation because the change is brought about by factors internal to our family, i.e. our children’s needs.

But the real upward causation happens because our children will have unique individual characteristics and they will manifest, as they grow, in a way that we, their parents, might not predict or, indeed, be ready for.

We will almost always adjust our values, thoughts, feelings, norms and behaviour in the light of the challenges that children are throwing up.  Once again, these changes have a high emotional component. 

And we may resist them because we have been conditioned from a young age to believe in one way knowledge flow – i.e. adults know best and children learn from parents and not the other way around.  This is understandable because in life in general we are so accustomed to the top down paradigm that we very often don’t think of any other one.

However, if we are wise we will realise that children carry an inherent wisdom and clarity of thought that we can learn a lot from – if we are open to learning!

You will probably see where I am going in the previous post – in that I am advocating upward causation in respect of change in organisations, just like in good enough families.

When it comes to passion, enthusiasm, creativity, etc., why should our places of work be so different to our families when it comes to change?

Well, of course, there are differences!

But these differences should not get in the way of change happening because our staff, or people who seek our support – our Focus Group – have new ideas. Morale is enhanced greatly by people having a say.

After all, it is commonplace in private industry, where the customer is king – as the saying goes.  If I, a customer, doesn’t like a product I won’t buy it – so the quality or type or nature of the product will have to change, not me.

In another Chapter I devoted a lot of time to Research and Evaluation. Despite endless research, academic papers, surveys, evaluations etc. what customers experience doesn’t change that much.

Indeed, after all the research and recommendations, if they don’t choose something that we offer, there is a belief that there is something wrong with them, not us or the product that we are offering.

In many of our organisations, the customer is rarely king.

It is easy to see why this happens – and I am not being unduly self-critical.  Very hurt people come looking for help and despite what most of us workers and leaders would deem to be huge effort, sometimes bending over backwards – not an easy thing to do – the very hurt people still perceive what is offered to be unhelpful, and/or are angry with us, or are not perceived to be making any progress.

So how could such an individual be perceived to be king, i.e. to know what’s best for him?

In respect of change in organisations I have often observed staff wanting to do more but management corralling them into safe but ineffective work practices which do not honour their creativity, integrity, experience, or good intention – that might really work with the very hurt person.

The management, funders etc. might be more attracted to what distant researchers with glossy reports might propose, and this may be prioritised over what a creative staff member (or family member in distress) might suggest. In many of our organisations management seems to have an aversion to staff being themselves.

But the people who matter most might be more attracted to the more creative, immediate response.

And – I will explore the implications of size in a later Sub-Chapter – it seems that the larger our organisation the more the likelihood is that we will have rules and policies that make it difficult for staff to be creative.

Another thing that, I have observed, seems to change things is the length of time an organisation is in existence [1].  I propose here that many organisations that start off radical, creative and innovative default to a kind of mediocre can’t-do-that stance after many years when the initial founders are gone and forgotten – even if they don’t grow that much in size.

Promoting radical ideas in our very early days is relatively easy because firstly, we are the founders, they are our ideas and we are very enthusiastic; and, secondly certain realities that journeying with vulnerable people throw up may not yet be fully revealed.  (I discussed this earlier).  This might last, typically, 5 – 8 years.

In respect of sharing power (which, as I am sure you have now realised, this website advocates) the first phase is usually the immediate response to the problem and the people are affected by it directly.

During the second phase (following some inevitable leadership and staff changes) we might still remember the early days but not as clearly so there may be a small dilution of both passion and the urgency of the issues.

By the third phase (typically 15 – 20 years) it is likely that none of us will remember the original founders, or if we do, the memories are blurred, and the initial drive, ambition and urgency might be forgotten.

Also, through each phase, the initial vision may be dimmed by funding realities, or the external environment changes, or there is pressure from the Pillars and presence of suits on Boards, all of whom combine to demand regular reports filled with impressive outcomes and outputs.

Sometimes, those of us with a good bit of formal education are committed to include very vulnerable people but then we follow the norms and practices of the Pillars from where we have come.  This inevitably results in a drift to a more amenable group and exclusion of those who are not conforming. 

It’s as if the world can’t tolerate eccentricity and will always drift to predictability over time.

Looking at it from the point of view of cause and effect, this is indeed change.

And if the effect is a lessening in quality of service to those most in need, (as it usually is) the cause is usually either direct or indirect pressure from an external force, or we on the inside not being vigilant in respect of the ethos of the founders and inadvertently taking on the values of the mainstream.

In such cases (I believe anyway) the original founders – who may have set up an organisation with a lot of heart but with a little less head – may not have been sure why they choose the methods they chose and why those methods should prevail.

They just did it because they felt that it was the right thing to do.

But – and this is the important bit – over many years (as I stated elsewhere a number of times), head/logic always trumps heart/spontaneity unless we who promote the necessity of balance between both are both knowledgeable about and confident in our rationale.

[1]. Karl Marx is reported to have said that a revolution should take place about every 10 years to keep a movement fresh, and – I suppose – to prevent people getting lazy or cozy! 

As I stated already, change in our organisation will often occur because of necessities that arise from external pressures.

This change is sometimes for the good, but at other times it is harmful in our aim to support our Focus Group.

This is why continual attention needs to be paid to the rationale behind what we are doing – i.e. why we are doing it, the benefits of the methods we choose over other more bureaucratic or mainstream methods, the holistic, person centred approach, and how we have our rationale thought through.

Many bureaucrats, who make decisions on behalf of the Pillars, have very little appreciation of the needs of the Focus Group, or the causes and effects of matters such as trauma, or dissociation, and most would probably not give much thought to the power of the root foundations that are described in the Chapter on the Universal Theories of Change.

Also, while bureaucrats will have no difficulty investing hundreds of millions on, say building a motorway to provide vital infrastructure to increase the attractiveness of an area to industrial investment over a time frame of 50+ years, the norm for child protection or crime prevention work with the Focus Group are investments in short term (relatively) inexpensive Projects that are based more on mainstream paradigms than anything innovative or creative.

And a large part of our education will come from listening to ideas that come upwards from those with direct experience, and giving them at least equal status as the ideas that come downwards from the Pillars.

In this, it is not the bureaucrats’ fault if they don’t know – it is our responsibility to educate them.

Since the late 1980’s or early 1990’s in Ireland there has been ongoing debate about whether social/community partnership is truly empowering of disadvantaged people or a well-meaning strategy by Government – influenced by the corporate world – to further impose corporate-type values on vulnerable communities.

Many community workers that I have spoken to are sceptical.

I believe that one thing that is missing from such partnership is the voice of the less formally educated, but hugely experienced and knowledgeable partners.  In order to get our needs met we have to be either clever in a political way or else have a detailed knowledge of the complex area in which we have chosen to work

Obviously I am recommending the latter. The far more powerful Pillars say “this has to be done” or “that can’t be done” or “this has to be done that way”, but in my opinion their rationale is based, usually, on relatively shallow thought and analysis.

It is really up to us, the community sector, to have the confidence and assertiveness to argue for different, more empowering State actions.

A very good example of upward causation in this respect would be someone in the community sector having a strong enough voice to object to a certain course of action because it lacked kindness, or compassion, or left vulnerable people out, and that this concern would be brought to the bureaucratic table which would in turn lead to real change.  (If, after all, it we reported that money was being fiddled we would be taken very seriously). [1]

Summing up, to inform and educate, and make the most of well-meaning social/community partnership, is, I argue, our responsibility.

I believe that striking the right balance between the upward and the downward causation optimises the chance that beneficial change will be long term and sustainable rather than short term and cosmetic that risks fading away quickly.

[1]. It is revealing of the Pillars’ priorities that the Charities Regulatory Authority demands that all financial, managerial, governance, human resource and similar practices are above reproach but doesn’t state that Charities have an obligation to be charitable, kind, compassionate etc.

To conclude this Sub-Chapter on the process of change in organisations I would like to briefly mention Change Management.

This is an expression that is used by management consultants and human resource specialists to (obviously) manage change in an organisation.  In other words, to ensure that change happens with minimum disruption to smooth running.

There was a time when change was introduced by bosses in organisations (whether they were private for-profit companies, charities, Government departments etc.) and no employee was consulted – really.  Workers had few if any rights and if something changed and they didn’t like it they just had to put up with it.  This could have meant transfer to another department, loss of earnings through a less senior position, or even redundancy – it didn’t really matter. 

However, over many decades of hard-won rights (plus increased knowledge of how to motivate staff – and the benefits of that) managers and leadership groups began to realise that if one prepared staff for change, and supported them through it, it would have a better chance of going more smoothly.

Of course, the necessity to get whatever change is planned effected, and the speed that owners and managers want that change to happen, often results in lip-service being paid to consultation, dialogue and workers’ rights and wishes rather than having the patience to enter into it and attending to all the detail that it demands.

This in turn often results in workers, having been forced (or duped) into accepting change, being unhappy, and resisting the change.  Sometimes they resist in an honest way, but often their unhappiness is expressed in a kind of passive-aggressive manner, where workers make life difficult for managers/owners of businesses, but are reluctant to express their unhappiness directly in case they end up disadvantaged in some way. 

But where there is genuine partnership, and management work at it, I believe that the felt partnership makes it easier for people to put their differences aside, sometimes unresolved, and get on with it.

And the amazing thing about doing that, is, when people do it, very often, part of what they originally stood for and/or promoted, which the other side would have been totally against, is included anyway. (The exception here might be higher pay – of course).

I believe that in addition to partnership, identity is important.  Organisations with a strong identity manage change better, they know what they are about, and they can rise to the challenge if they perceive the proposed change to be congruent with their identity – to which they have loyalty and commitment.

On the management side, there are often cases where change is forced on an organisation, usually for financial reasons, but sometimes for other reasons (e.g. a new obsession of higher-up leadership) and junior managers are in an impossible situation in respect of workers wishes or demands. In such situations change is brought in whether workers like it or not, and change management can be mostly about putting up with complaints.

Finally, managing change in organisations that are committed to sharing power can be very challenging and time consuming.  However, inclusion of people in decisions affecting them, while appearing to slow everything down actually speeds up the process of change in the long run – because it enables us to keep people on board and interested.

On the other hand, keeping people outside, or making it too difficult for them to be involved, risks alienating them – which turns out to be far more expensive in the long run.

Indeed, keeping people on board and enthusiastic enables hidden efficiencies that no amount of getting things done quickly will bring.