Shhhhh, the dragon is asleep and its name is Resistance
By Monica Janas
Journal of Staff Development, Spring 1998 (Vol. 19, No. 3)
Can you recognize a common element in these three scenarios?
- Mary Jones, a principal, listened to her faculty when they requested release time for peer coaching. After lengthy collaborative planning with faculty and staff, she implemented a schedule that supported the peer coaching initiative. But after one semester, she noticed that many teachers never participated in peer coaching activities. In fact, some teachers who originally spoke up about the need to work with colleagues appeared to be socializing during release time instead.
- As director of staff development for a school system, Dave Thomas supervised an annual districtwide staff learning day. A veteran at structuring opportunities for professional development, Thomas conducted an interest survey before working with representatives from across the district to create an agenda that reflected the interests and needs of a wide range of school personnel. Thomas believed his committee had designed an outstanding plan. However, on the morning of the event, he overheard one teacher saying to another: "I wonder what the dog-and-pony show is this time? I don’t know about you, but inservice days are a complete waste of my time and the school district’s money. I came early to get a seat in the back so I can work on a unit I’m doing."
-Working closely with the staffs of local schools, Jane Smith, a faculty member at a local college, conducted a needs assessment survey of topics for professional education courses. After developing a number of courses in consultation with the school district administrators, Smith arranged to offer a slate of courses to meet the needs that had been identified. Unfortunately, registration was so poor that most courses had to be canceled.
What Went Wrong?
Can you recognize a common force that worked against change in each of these typical but fictitious scenarios?
If you responded "resistance," you successfully identified a major barrier to potential change. Resistance — the sleeping dragon of the change process — can be a challenge for every professional committed to reform and innovation. As these scenarios illustrate, resistance thwarts goals, disrupts action plans, and undermines progress.
In spite of the long history of educational reform efforts, resistance continues to play a noteworthy role in change (Friend & Cook, 1996; Gitlin & Margonis, 1995). In a review of the most significant advances in staff development, Guskey (1994, p. 6) concluded: "The gap in education between our knowledge base and general practice remains depressingly large." Even with ideal conditions, high expectations, and motivated educators, problems still arise when working toward innovations and reform (Winitzky, Stoddart, & O’Keefe, 1992). Resistance to change occupies a large part of the gap between knowledge and practice; between vision and reality.
However, resistance is not always a negative force. If identified and managed correctly, resistance can actually become a force for improving professional development, enhancing program innovation, and providing rich opportunities for reflection, growth, and renewal. This can be aided by a three-step process:
- Being aware of resistance.
- Identifying sources and types of resistance.
- Developing and applying proactive strategies for managing resistance.
Being aware of resistance
Broadly defined, resistance is a fearful response to change (Marshak, 1996; Valencia & Killion, 1988). A natural part of any change process (Theron & van der Westhuizen, 1996), resistance frequently occurs as a response to an interpersonal or organizational change that has the potential of personal impact (Friend & Cook, 1996).
Resistance to change is not all bad, or always an obstruction to reform. Resistance often serves a constructive purpose (Gitlin & Margonis, 1995) and is frequently an appropriate response to a situation, especially when it is a symptom of deeper problems. For instance, people may legitimately resist change required by a program that’s poorly designed, underfunded, or focused on unnecessary activities. A teacher who has seen numerous ill-conceived, irrelevant staff development initiatives come and go will understandably view new programs with suspicion.
Sources and types of resistance
Sources of resistance are not always clear, in part because on some level, resistance to change is a normal, valued function of existence. An individual naturally resists threats to the stability of their personality, for example (Watson, 1969). The same tendency also can be seen on a system or group level: Homeostasis, the tendency to prefer the known to the potential of the unknown as a result of change, is well documented (Friend & Cook, 1996).
Staff developers need to assess stakeholder beliefs and actions to determine the presence of resistance. This needs to be an ongoing part of talking with stakeholders and working with them on staff development activities. However, developers need to keep in mind how difficult this assessment process can be. Regardless of whether resistance is an individual or group reaction, it is difficult to recognize because it can take several forms (Karp, 1984).
Developing strategies
Overcoming resistance is important, complex work (Clift, Holland, & Veal, 1990). Staff developers need to play pivotal roles in recognizing, understanding, and minimizing resistance before it evolves into a barrier to progress. This means being proactive: helping stakeholders identify key issues and potential roadblocks so the change process remains on track. (See "10 things to do" above for examples of ideas and actions that can help staff developers craft successful proactive strategies.)
The "sleeping dragon" metaphor illustrates the duality and complexity of managing resistance. Change agents often tiptoe around this dragon, hoping it will not awaken. If awakened, they fear, resistance will wreak havoc. A proactive approach to managing resistance, however, can help staff developers tame the dragon and, thus, turn resistance into a positive force that influences staff development efforts and helps narrow the gap between reform initiatives and educational practices.
References
Bandy, E., Ross, D. D., Sindelar, P. T., & Griffin, C. (1995). Elementary and special educators learning to work together: Team building processes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18(2), 91-102.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Clift, R. T., Holland, P. E., & Veal,
M. L. (1990). School context dimensions that affect staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 11(1), 34-38.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1996). Interactions: Collaborative skills for school professionals (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Fullan, M. (1991). The meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallegos, J. L. (1994). Staff development strategies that facilitate a transition in educational paradigms. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4), 34-38.
Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103(4), 377-405.
Guskey, T.R. (1992). Enhancing the effectiveness of professional development programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3), 239-247.
Guskey, T.R. (1994). The most significant advances in the field of staff development over the last twenty-five years. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4), 5.
Guskey, T.R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff development. Educational Leadership, 49(3),73-76.
Hartzell, G. (1996). Wrestling with resistance. Technology Connection, 3(3),10-12.
Janas, M., & Boudreaux, M. (1997). Beyond resistance: A functional approach to building a shared agenda. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(2), 193-198.
Karp, H. (1984). Working with resistance. Training and Development Journal, 38(3), 69-73.
Khan, B. H. (1995). Obstacles encountered during stages of the educational change process. Educational Technology, 35(2), 43-46.
Lowry, M. (1997). Supporting adoption of innovations. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 34(1), 10-13.
Marshak, D. (1996). The emotional experience of school change: Resistance, loss, and grief. NASSP Bulletin, 80(577), 72-77.
McCarty, H. (1991). Self-esteem: The bottom line in school success. Sacramento, CA: Learning Resource Publishers.
Speck, M. (1996). The change process in a school learning community. The School Community Journal, 6(1), 69-79.
Theron, A. M. C., & van der Westhuizen, P. C. (1996, April). The management of resistance to change and polarity in educational organizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Valencia, S. W., & Killion, J. P. (1988). Overcoming obstacles to teacher change: Direction from school-based efforts. Journal of Staff Development, 9(2), 2-8.
Watson, G. (1969). Resistance to change. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chan (Eds.), In the planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Winitzky, N., Stoddart, T., & O’Keefe, P. (1992). Great expectations: Emergent professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 3-18.
About the Author
Monica Janas is an associate professor in the department of educational foundations and specializations in the School of Education at the University of Charleston, 66 George St., Charleston, SC 29424. (803) 953-5613, fax (803) 881-6796, e-mail: janasm@cofc.edu.
Two short, related articles follow:
10 things to do about resistance
A review of the relevant literature reveals numerous behaviors and actions that can help prevent or minimize resistance.
1. Acknowledge change as a process. Change is not an isolated event, but a series of stages that requires time (Valencia & Killion, 1988). Remember that the process of educational change is lengthy and may take years from goal-setting to stable establishment (Fullan, 1991). Missteps and setbacks are common (Gallegos, 1994). Conflict and resistance are natural products of change, not automatic signs of failure.
2. Empower stakeholders. As critical components of innovation, stakeholders must be included as decision makers. If change means individual needs are met, negative behavior and resistance are less likely (McCarty, 1991). Empowering people means creating mechanisms that provide them with genuine authority and responsibility, or else change efforts will become incoherent (Speck, 1996). Remember, however, that real or perceived shifts in power can spark resistance by colleagues, administrators, or board members (Janas & Boudreaux, 1997). To minimize discord, the change process should be guided by negotiation, not by issuing of demands.
3. Encourage all stakeholders. Stakeholders must be active, invested participants throughout the change process. Often it’s beneficial to focus directly on helping participants understand the innovation being tried (Hartzell, 1996; Khan, 1995). Providing a variety of opportunities — for both individuals and groups — to vent concerns also can be particularly effective. Being "heard" is fundamental in establishing understanding and consensus (Caine & Caine, 1997).
4. Set concrete goals. Agreed-upon goals should form a shared agenda reached by consensus, thus creating a broad sense of ownership and strengthening communication among stakeholders. This step is critically important because if anything goes awry later in the change process, the stakeholders will be able to return to a shared agenda and refocus their intent and efforts.
5. Show sensitivity. Managing conflict means being aware of differences among individuals. Each stakeholder must genuinely feel he or she is an equal and valued party throughout the change process, not just in the initial trust-building stage. All persons need respect, sensitivity, and support as they struggle to redefine their roles and master new concepts.
6. Model process skills. Teaching through modeling the appropriate process skills and actions (Caine & Caine, 1991; Lowery, 1997) is fundamental to successful staff development initiatives. Staff developers may find, for example, that reflecting publicly and straightforwardly on their own doubts and resistance to change may help others (Guskey, 1992). At the very least, honesty goes a long way toward building credibility. When staff developers model desirable behaviors, they give other stakeholders a chance to identify with someone going through the difficult process of change.
7. Develop strategies for dealing with emotions. All too often, educators concentrate on outcomes and neglect the emotional experiences — anxiety, fear, loss, and grief — of change (Marshak, 1996). Effective staff development programs should include activities and strategies to address those emotions. Focus on such questions as: How will our lives be different with the change? How do we feel about the changes? Is there anything that can or should be done to honor the past before we move on?
8. Manage conflict. Ideally, change is a negotiated process (Fullan, 1991). Stakeholders should be invited to negotiate on issues that provoke their resistance. For example, an assistant principal may need to negotiate the needs of the whole school with faculty members who rank their departmental priorities higher.
9. Communicate. Openness in communication is a necessary component of collaborative problem-solving (Bandy et al., 1995, Khan, 1995). Communication that focuses on differences can move issues of concern out of the shadows (Friend & Cook, 1996). Another technique that increases communication is reflective questioning: The questioner tries to help stakeholders explore their thinking, feelings, needs, or attitudes. Such questions can include: Where are we in the change process? What has changed so far? Where are we headed?
10. Monitor process dynamics. The constant interplay between the various tensions within the change process must be monitored, and appropriate adjustments must be made. Evaluation begins with the original assessment of the need and readiness to change (Lowry, 1997) and remains a key factor throughout systemic reform (Guskey & Sparks, 1991). Reflection forms the scaffolding of the evaluation process and ongoing assessments of progress serve as checkpoints on the reform journey.
Recognizing the face of resistance
Some common types or resistance encountered by staff developers:
Aggressive resistance. This is the easiest type to identify, because it’s overt and no effort is made to disguise the refusal to change.
For example, a colleague confronts a lead teacher with: "Under no circumstances will I participate in another curriculum committee. Let someone else do the work."
Passive-aggressive resistance. In these cases, staff members appear willing to change, but change never materializes. It’s common to hear people say, "I’ll be glad to lend a hand as soon as I finish this paper work," or "I’ll try clear my schedule so I can attend the conference."
Unfortunately, the paper work never ends, the calendar is never cleared, and "try" never becomes "will." Meanwhile, support for an initiative slowly erodes.
Phantom obstacles are also common: For example, teachers may express interest in working with a university professor to explore new math teaching strategies, but then back away from change by claiming that "parents don’t like us experimenting with the way we teach."
Passive resistance. This looks like wholehearted acceptance until action fails to take place. Staff members willingly discuss change, and may in fact seem enthusiastic, but never follow through.
This is the most difficult form of resistance to detect because it’s subtle and sounds supportive. All too often, staff developers hear exclamations of "sounds great," "count me in," and "let’s do it" in meetings, only to discover weeks later that action failed to materialize.
|
