The Role of Background Conversations in Facilitating the Work of Change Agents - Coursework Example

The Role of Background Conversations in Facilitating the Work of Change Agents Student: Institutional affiliation: Date: Role of background conversations in facilitating the work of change agents Conversations are a complex information-rich mix of auditory, visual, olfactory and textile events, which include not only spoken but the full conversational apparatus of symbols, artefacts, and theatrics that can be used alongside what is spoken. Conversations are not only the process through which reality is constructed but also the product of the construction process. Background conversations are implicit, unspoken back drops against which explicit foreground conversations occur. They are a result of peoples’ inherited or direct experiences. Background conversations definitely have an effect on how people view things and react to conversations around them (Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002). Change agents as the persons who initiate, stimulate and facilitate a change programmer in an organisation need to use background conversations in their work to their advantage in order to achieve success (Jabri, 2012). There are three background conversations that offer the greatest resistance to change; complacent, resigned, and cynical backgrounds (McKay, Grainger, Marshall, & Hirscheim, 2011). A change agent should use the organisational conversations associated with these three backgrounds to develop effective change programs that encounter the least resistance. Indeed, background conversations offer great insights on how critical support for a change programme can be achieved from people in any organisation. Complacent background conversations A complacent background is anchored on historical success of an organization. The history of success sustains the unchallengeable argument that current success is a result of the right decisions made before. Success in complacent conversations is often attributed to the personal or groups ability in decisions made, skills used and actions taken before and should, therefore, be relied upon even in the current context to guarantee future success. It is, therefore, only prudent to resist any change proposal that seems to alter the status quo or the proven modus operandi. In fact, proposals for change may elicit conversations that tend to reflect a theme of preference for the kind of success that was achieved before and specific actions that were taken to achieve previous success. In a complacent background, change proposals often meet with clichés such as “sticking with the proven methodology”, “why change that which works and replace it with uncertainty” and “If it’s not broken don’t fix it” (Ford et al, 2002). Clearly, any attempt to introduce change in such a context will be met with significant opposition and preference for maintenance of current status quo. Change agents can be able to navigate through a complacent background effectively by first understanding the premises of conversations in a complacent background. While complacent background conversations may limit the success of an organization, they are genuinely concerned with ensuring the tested and proven procedures that guarantee success are not discredited or abandoned in preference for experimentation (Barratt-Pugh, Bahn, & G, 2013). In light of such a logical perspective, it is important to acknowledge the fact that continuous change and innovation is closely associated with dynamism, flexibility and improvement. Organizations that do not change risk losing touch with reality and are, therefore, likely to fail. A change agent should seek to understand the past success of the organization and the best practices that yielded good results. It is upon the change agent to help people understand the actions that led to dynamism and innovation then and the results achieved. The change agent should not prescribe new ideas or actions that supposedly will bring about new success. He/she should rather suggest a renewed focus on continuous change to build o the existing success, albeit cautiously (Doyle, 2001). Indeed, complacent background conversations provide a change agent with the prevailing attitudes and beliefs held by people and how they can be modified for an effective change process to take place. Most importantly, shifting background conversations from complacency to continuous improvement and innovation as a culture of success may be instrumental in achieving tremendous growth and change (McKay et al, 2011). Complacent background conversations may also give the change agent an insight into the personality of the organizational people. Some people particularly in the top leadership oppose change as they fear the unknown or they are opposed to ideas from other team players. People may also oppose change since they fear new responsibilities and commitments. Such insights may offer a change agent vital information that can be used to profile organizational people. A profile of the organizational people is important in developing an action plan to tackle personal resistance that affects the attitude and beliefs held by the groups in the organization (Haijden, Cramer, & Driessen, 2012). Indeed, long-term, successful change in an organization can only be achieved if the change agent understands and involves organizational people in the change process. Resigned background conversations Resigned background conversations are often filled with an internalized failure mentality that is a result of past experience. People, groups or the entire organization hold the opinion that previous failure is a testament that no matter what is done in present, failure will be the predetermined result. People often blame themselves or their current situational context for past failure and as such do not feel success is achievable if change is not made. Indeed, a resigned background is somewhat supportive of change initiatives but tends to be largely pessimistic of any positive change results from any change actions. Essentially, people in a resigned background have accepted the fact that they are ineffective and incapable of achieving any success in their initiatives (Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002). A general sense of hopelessness and deep-rooted mediocrity are often the greatest hurdles for a change agent to overcome in transforming organizations in resigned contexts (McKay et al, 2011). Resigned background conversations offer the greatest insight into the personality and opinions of organizational people, perceived or existing organizational failures. In resigned conversations, people often blame themselves or their organizations for failure or inability to achieve the desired level of success (Ford J. , 1999). It is common for people to express themselves through such contentions as “We never get to make any decisions here”, “My opinion never counts”, “Why should we even try? It will never work.” Such expressions offer a valuable insight of the contextual background that a change agent will have to address before any meaningful organizational change can be achieved (Ford et al, 2002). Change agents may rely on such opinions to identify the sources of the attitude that resents change initiatives. Addressing such issues as inclusive decision-making, improvement of skills and enhanced access to organizational resources and information may be the starting point of a successful change initiative. It is important to note that when people own and participate in the change process genuinely, there are higher chances of success as opposed to situations of imposed change (Tidd & Bessant, 2013; Val, Fuentes, & Dobon, 2012). Introducing a change proposal in a resigned context is may not be met with open resistance but rather with soft opposition characterized by lack of motivation, willingness or eagerness to adopt new ideas or practices. People in such contexts seem to avoid areas where they feel less influential or impactful in decision-making and execution. This is an indication of the source of resigned background that develops due to consistent failures and unfulfilled expectations. The resulting failure and frustrations get ingrained into the minds of the organizational people over time. Resigned background conversations thus indicate clearly the internal source of opposition to change (Ford et al, 2002). A change agent may therefore provide several solutions including different managerial approach or organizational structure overhaul to provide a favourable environment for change to be implemented. Indeed, resigned background conversations can be relied upon to identify various motivational tools that can be used to promote a success mentality in an organization that has failed consistently in the past (Randall, 2004). Cynical background conversations Cynical background conversations just like resigned background is deeply anchored on historical failure. However, in cynical background, failure is attributed to an external and not one oneself as it is the case with resigned background. Cynical background is somewhat pessimistic of any success stemming from change initiative. This attitude is heavily influenced by past experiences of failure that characterised any change initiatives or attempts to do so by a change agent in the organisation. Attempts to introduce a change agenda are often countered by such comments as “This is just more of the old stuff”. Cynical background seems to provide a strong basis to the realisation that a particular situation cannot be changed no matter the amount of effort or new ideas used to seek a solution (Ford et al, 2002). Essentially, from a cynical background perspective, failure is a reality that cannot be changed given the prevailing contextual setup. In most cases, people in the cynical background context focus on blaming failure on other individuals particularly in decision-making position who could have made a difference if they acted in a particular way. Indeed the conversation in cynical backgrounds tends to portray a theme of deception, betrayal and incompetence as the sources of failure in an organisation. The general contention then is that any success initiatives are simply efforts in futility. In fact, people view change agents as dishonest and selfish individuals with questionable motives. For an external change agent, cynical background conversations are vital sources of informational relating to the relationship between superiors and subordinates in an organisational setting (McKay et al, 2011). This may help the change agent to adopt an appropriate change model that must certainly gain managerial as well as subordinates support. Change agent may achieve this by offering an opportunity for people to pursue a closure for past mistakes and failures. This involves candid objective discussions on what caused past failure and how it can be avoided in the future. Such a closure will allow people to move on and adopt an optimistic mindset regarding future success initiatives (Ford at al, 2002). In cases where complacent and cynical backgrounds involve self-directed explanation for resisting change initiatives, the cynical conversations often include attacks on other people in the organisation that portrays them as lazy, incompetent, or unwilling to bring about positive change. Attempts to involve such unconsenting people in a change initiative may be met with hostility towards the proposed changes. Such attacks target the very credibility of the people introducing the change initiative or are affiliated to change initiators (McKay et al, 2011). Clearly, cynical background conversations offer an opportunity to change agents to develop suitable mechanisms of addressing any attacks on change initiatives. Such mechanisms may include attempts to include the greatest expressers of cynical backgrounds in decisions that propose drastic changes. Change agents must work with the opposing forces in the organisation to gain credibility and support for their change initiatives. This means that change agents will have to work with organisational people at all levels. Midlevel managers are particularly very important players in implementing change initiatives. They have an understanding of the top management agenda and subordinates interests (Doyle, 2001). Such players can offer change agents valuable insights into the causes of past failures and successes in the organisation. In addition, winning the trust and support of people across all levels of the organisation is certainly beneficial to change initiatives as the greatest time will be allocated to implementation and improvement as opposed to addressing opposition to change (Rumbles & Rees, 2013). From the discussion presented in the above literature analysis, it is justifiable to hold the contention that background conversations definitely have a significant influence on explicit foreground conversations. Complacent background conversation may resist change on the basis of notion that the existing, proven methodologies are sufficient in pursuit of future success. Resigned background conversation may reject change on the account of historical failures which make it imprudent and naive to pursue success again if the same contextual setup exists. Where cynical background conversations exist, strong opposition to change is exhibited on since the organisational people blame change agents for past failure and are, therefore, critical of their current intentions of competency. Change agents must have a good understanding of the background conversations that exist in a particular organisational context in order to develop effective plans and methodologies of introducing change processes that will gain the support of the critical majority. References Barratt-Pugh, L., Bahn, S., & G, E. (2013). Managers as change agents: Implications for human resource managers engaging with culture change. Journal of Organisational Change Management , 26 (4), 748-64. Doyle, M. (2001). Dispersing change agency in high velocity change organisations: issues and implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 22 (7), 321-329. Ford, J. (1999). Organisational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organisational Change Management , 12 (6), 490-500. Ford, J., Ford, L., & McNamara, R. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organisational Change Management , 15 (2), 106-21. Haijden, A., Cramer, J., & Driessen, P. (2012). Change agent sensemaking for sustainability in a multinational subsidiary. Journal of Organisational Change , 25 (4), 539-59. Jabri, M. (2012). Managing Organizational Change: Process, Social Construction and Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan. McKay, J., Grainger, N., Marshall, P., & Hirscheim, R. (2011). Learning to Listen: Background Conversations in Enterprise Systems Implementation. European Conference on Information Systems. Association of Information systems. Randall, J. (2004). Managing Change, Changing Managers. New York: Routledge. Rumbles, S., & Rees, G. (2013). Continuous Changes, Organisational Burnout and the implications for HRD. Research paper . Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2013). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. John Wiley and Sons. Val, M. P., Fuentes, C. M., & Dobon, S. R. (2012). Participative management and its influence on organisational change. Management Decision, (50)10 , 1843-1860. Read More