Management of Change and Accreditation
PhD. Eng. Daniel Hernández Jiménez
Organizational change, understood as the modification of organizations in a dynamic that may involve the extension, evolution or radial transformation of them, is an aspect of increasing importance. The relevance is not only given because the depth of changes is seen as increasing, but because the demands also acquire an imperative character, which becomes essentially different organizations: “In order to survive, many companies/organizations do not have to decide if they change or not, but when and how to do it so that the change is as successful as possible. ” (Davis and Newstrom, 2004, p.395). This is particularly true for the last few years, in which the modifications that organizations undergo suppose something more than mere reorganizations to make way for transformations that modify the essence of these:
During the last 30 years, the change in organizations has been shifting from the most superficial modifications to the deepest transformations. The introduction of practices to improve efficiency to the transformation of the most intimate and innermost part, namely, its nature and culture. The recorded progression represents, in reality, an inflection that leaves behind mere reorganizations and goes directly into the field of institutional transfiguration. The consolidation of this trend, over the next few years leads to radically new organizations. (Burcet, 2005, p.1)
This is also true for academic organizations, which have to face unprecedented challenges in different areas, one of which is the social call to accountability, to account for their purposes and their performances, with the mediation of a third party: the accreditation agency. The evaluation and properly the accreditation understood as a means for the transformation, appears in the middle of this dynamics of change, in some cases raising it, in others as one of its derivations. Understanding change, its management and its implications in the individual and group spheres, then, become necessary to account for the meaning and purpose that the actors of the evaluation process attribute to it.
- Types of change
In terms of depth and complexity, three basic types of change are distinguished: Changes in growth, changes in transition and changes in transformation, as Dean Anderson puts it, cited by Burcet (2005).
In this way, changes in growth are considered to be of less depth and complexity, since they only imply an extension of what one has and does, what already existed is strengthened and a greater dimension is given, without greater prospects of modification. In this type of changes, it is clear what the final result of the process should be. In the case of academic institutions, such modification could mean, for example, the increase of the educational offer in the same areas that have been addressed up to now, or the growth of the physical infrastructure, the teaching staff or the number of students served. However, the change is made from what you have and seeks to expand.
On the other hand, changes of transition in the depth scale reach a second level, produce a new situation whose structure is different; however, this new structure is based on the same basic concepts available in the previous situation, even so, the complexity increases with respect to changes in growth, the results of the change as in the previous level are clearly seen. Following the previous example, referred to the academic organizations, a change of transition would imply leaving aside the existing academic offer of degree, to assume other formative courses of postgraduate, for example. In a more illustrative sample, a transition change could mean a modification of the current organizational scheme to assume another, with new levels of authority and functionality.
The highest level of depth and complexity is achieved by changes in transformation, since they involve more than a simple organizational evolution and acquire the character of an authentic transfiguration of the entire organization to such a degree that it can be spoken of a new organization, with a different structure and even A new organizational culture, is for this reason that states that “When changes are made-transformation, the ways of thinking, beliefs, strategies, feelings, values and everything that unconsciously had been assumed as what was “good”, “successful” and “authentic”. (Burcet, 2005, p.2). Relevant aspect is that in this type of change you do not have total certainty of how the process will end, for that reason you have a high level of uncertainty, although you have clear where you should go, the idea of the final state it is outlined as it progresses. The Costa Rican academic experience has the case of a higher education institution that chose to leave aside a plural academic offer in terms of the disciplines it served, to focus on a single area of knowledge and training of professionals to the same partner. This change meant, for all practical purposes, the emergence of a new institution.
An aspect of importance with respect to the different types of change is that those of transformation affect globally the whole organization, as a whole. This is not the case in the changes of growth and transition that can affect only some parts of the organization and they can be treated separately, although it should not be forgotten that: “The entire organization tends to be affected by the change in any part of it” (Davis and Newstrom, 2004, p.395). In a metaphor, which accepts limitations, the changes of growth and transition manifest an evolutionary nuance, while a change of transformation has revolutionary overtones.
When characterizing the different evaluative approaches, it is established that the evaluation can have transforming scopes, both of the evaluated reality and of those who participate in it – evaluated and evaluators – for this reason it is not strange to associate an evaluative process as the direct or indirect architect of changes within organizations and their members, which can acquire any of the dimensions of the change indicated. Accreditation implies evaluative elements, therefore, its transforming action cannot be disdained.
- Stages of Change
Some authors establish the stages of change according to the dichotomous interaction between two possible states: stability and imbalance. Lewin, cited by Robbins (2004, p.564), uses a simile in which change is conceptualized as the fracture of the equilibrium state in the organization, which involves a first stage of thawing, in which the state is broken. Of balance, by the presence of propulsive forces, which are nothing but the stimuli or disturbances that originate and promote change: the demands of a process of accreditation of a training process, could exemplify this type of situation. At this stage, restrictive forces are also raised, which are all that opposes the loss of stability and that act as true mechanisms of homeostatic regulation: the reluctance to change individuals and groups for logical, psychological, ideological or social reasons, they would be suitable examples.
A second stage is the change itself, in which the actions that move the organizations towards their expansion are developed, towards a structural modification or towards their radical transformation.
The third stage involves the consolidation of the change that has taken place in the organization, which Lewin calls re-freezing, which implies that the organization reaches a new equilibrium state, only that, in another condition, since it has grown, it has moved towards a transition modification or has been transformed into a new organization.
With everything and how limited the simile of Lewin is, since it supposes the absence of a mutable and uncertain context and on the contrary assumes it as stable, it shows that the dynamics of organizational change fluctuate between stability and disequilibrium, that there are both forces that favor change, and those that oppose it. It also shows that in order for change to take place, organizations must abandon their condition of stability, which they must recover if the change ends successfully.
- Incidence of Change in Individual and Group Performance
Depending on the type of change faced by an organization, there are different effects at the individual and group levels, three being particularly relevant: with respect to identity, with respect to the emotional impact and with respect to the collaboration of people . These three aspects are linked to each other, although they manifest themselves in varying degrees. What is certain is that they obey the dynamics of change that is arising and that the subjective aspects are of capital importance: “… every change is interpreted by individuals according to their attitudes. The feeling of people about change is the factor that determines their response to it.” (Davis and Newstrom, 2004, p.397)
One of the main aspects that affects one or another type of change, is in the identity. This is understood as the affirmation of singularity, whether individual or the group to which it belongs. This singularity involves the awareness that one has of being oneself, different from others, characterized by its own distinctive features.
In the change of growth, the identity is consolidated to the extent that what is established is strengthened:
The changes of growth represent a reaffirmation of identity. Most of the people affected, continue occupying the same positions within the organization and maintain the same responsibilities. Growth implies going further, without ceasing to be what one is and without having to move too much about where one is. (Burcet, 2005, p.4)
By moving deeper towards transition, the identity is mostly compromised since this type of change involves a structural modification that can go hand in hand with a rethinking of the social relations that have occurred so far in the organization. Regardless of the characterization as positive or negative, the change of transition entails a detachment of what one has and the reinforcement of situations, responsibilities, privileges or new activities, which demand equally new knowledge, skills and attitudes.
In the change of transformation, it comprises a movement characterized by greater depth and complexity. New reference schemes are assumed – paradigms – that can be very different from those established up to now, so it is not surprising that the identity is seriously disturbed: “In the most intense changes of transformation, the identity in itself must be transformed (…) “. (Burcet, 2005, p.4).
Therefore, depending on the type of change, the individual and the group that make up the organization are affected in terms of their identity, which is reaffirmed, modified or completely replaced. This alteration of identity is coupled with situations of emotional order, which are greater in the measure that the change is more radical, so the emotional impact on the changes of transformation is greater than in the levels of transition or growth: ( ) … in The changes of growth can to a certain extent ignore the emotions, but it is essential to take them into account in the transition changes and, naturally, it is absolutely essential to take them into account in the transformation processes. (Burcet, 2005, p.5).
The incidence of change in emotional aspects is such that it is suggested that the management of change is the management of emotions: “To manage change, it is necessary to pay attention to the emotional reactions it provokes” (Burcet, 2005, p.1).
Changes consist of a series of objective facts, but the reaction of people is always subjective. The impact that is received depends on the perception that each one makes of the facts. The emotional response is more affected depending on the magnitude, complexity and speed of the change.
In general terms, the perception of change can generate positive or negative emotional responses. In the latter there is a concatenation of phases and emotional states that fluctuate between passivity and activity, and that usually occur in this order: Immobility, denial, anger, negotiation, anguish, sadness, depression and finally assimilation. The borders between these emotional stages are diffuse, in each moment the feelings of that moment predominate, but small appearances of emotional states before or after that moment may emerge.
In the emotional stages pointed out by Burcet (2005), the identity also passes through different moments: a first moment of reaffirmation, which is given as a defensive response to change and that encompasses the first four emotional manifestations indicated: immobility, negation, anger and negotiation. A second moment of crisis coupled with the verification of change as irreversible and linked to manifestations of sadness, anguish and depression. And finally, a moment of reconstruction of identity in which a state of assimilation is emotionally manifested.
If the change is perceived as positive, it also has various emotional manifestations: Initially the difficulties and the magnitude of the challenges that are to be faced are not well perceived, this can produce an excess of euphoria and optimism that can cause an excess of confidence and in such conditions, it is easy to make wrong decisions.
As the change occurs, the difficulties that arise begin to be see, then the initial confidence tends to weaken, with the risk of moving to have a negative perception of change generating an emotional cycle of such appreciation.
If the evolution of change consolidates the perspectives of this, people gain confidence in their capacity for realization and begin to glimpse things in their true dimension in a realistic way. As the change takes hold and the final stages of the change are successfully achieved, a new increase in confidence and readiness for action is recorded.
Whether the change is perceived as negative or positive, a whole range of emotions are recorded, their duration is uncertain, but they have as one of its results the distortion of reality and the consequent loss of quality in the performance. Although it is true that the emotional process referred to individuals has been presented, it can also be applied to groups and organizational groups: “(…) it is common (for people) to show their relationship with the group accompanying the other members in some type of uniform response to change,” (Davis and Newstrom, 2004, p.397).
An evaluation process with a view to the accreditation of a training program has many characteristics related to those of change. It is to be expected, then, that emotional manifestations that condition the actions of people and that affect in different ways are presented in the same way, in the way you are giving meaning to the experience that you live and configure meanings of it.
In the face of a change, the third aspect that affects people in organizations is in the area of collaboration or cooperation that is demanded of them. In the changes of growth, the levels of collaboration exceed slightly what has been demanded up to now and that is why the systems of conventional incentives and motivation, such as a higher remuneration, a promotion, or the perspective of security in the employment are sufficient to obtain the collaboration of the people in the consolidation of the change that is wanted, Burcet (2005) expresses it in these terms:
In the case of growth changes, the need for cooperation is not as great as in the other cases. As important rearrangements of identity are not necessary, the more conventional forms of motivation are usually sufficient for each to do what he is supposed to do. (p.5).
In the transition changes, people are required to make an extra adaptation effort that requires a greater degree of commitment and personal responsibility, which if not, can compromise the goals set:
In a change of transition it is essential that the members of the organization do not lock themselves in defensive positions because they need to collaborate actively in the realization of the changes. If those affected do not cooperate, the transition fails. It may lead to a seemingly new situation, but it will preserve practically intact the spirit and the tics of the preceding situation. (Burcet, 2005, p.6).
Finally it is in the changes of transformation where the aspect referred to the collaboration is more critical, since the change not only affects the organization, but demands a resolute and firm decision of personal change:
(…) it is in the changes of transformation where the need for cooperation is most extreme. In these changes, it is not just the organization that is transformed. The individuals that constitute it must also be transformed. Nobody really transforms himself if he does not want to do it. The active will firmly maintained persistently is absolutely essential, (Burcet, 2005, p.6).
Along with the demands for cooperation, resistance to change appears, which can occur for various reasons, three being representative: the nature of change, the method and inequity.
Depending on the change in growth, transition or transformation, resistance increases as its depth and complexity increase, as a reaction mainly to real or fictitious threats to identity as explained above.
Also, the method followed to implement the change can generate opposition, if it lacks effective communication or is filled with authoritarian and insensitive imposition, people will respond opposing the proposed change and in the best of cases they will accept it unwillingly, with which the consolidation of the modifications that are sought is difficult.
The last aspect that causes resistance is the perception of some kind of inequity. If people experience that the benefits of change do not reach them in equal proportion to those of others, their reaction will be to oppose it. If the factors mentioned above coexist simultaneously, the resistance to change will be greater.
The opposition to change also accepts a classification, Espinoza (s.f., p.38), mentions three types: logical resistance, psychological resistance and sociological resistance. The first type is constituted by rational objections in terms of time, effort and cost that involves any change. The second type is based on the individual emotional charge, the feelings and attitudes that accompany any change. The third type of resistance originates if with the change the interests, norms or group values are questioned. The three types of resistance can be questioned for their validity in terms of objectivity and reality, but that does not stop them from manifesting themselves and influencing the quality of the expected action and collaboration.
It is then that the changes generate responses from individuals and groups in at least three orders: identity, emotions and collaboration, these three elements are interrelated, have moments with diffuse delimitations and everything contributes to the increase in complexity in change management.
Evaluative processes can be associated with change, either because they favor it or because they are a consequence of it. For this reason, participation in an accreditation may well provoke reactions linked to identity, emotions and collaboration and influence the way people interpret the experience and its corresponding action.
Works Cited
Burcet, J. (2005). Gestionar el cambio es gestionar emociones. Retrieved on February 24th, 2019 from http://www.burcet.net/gestion_cambio/gestion_cambio_4.asp
Tipos de cambio. (2005). Retrieved on February 24th, 2019 from http://www.burcet.net/gestion%5Fcambio/gestion_cambio_3.asp?ve_de=recursos
Davis, K. y Newstrom, J. (2004). Comportamiento humano en el trabajo. 11Ed. México: Mc Graw Hill.