How do we communicate and understand the plan or change?

Listening to the many sounds of the change music could be a metaphor referring to this next section. How does the mechanical view influence communication? This is another aspect that seems to arise from my literature study, giving meaning to the change process. With the help of the machine or clockwork metaphor, the organization and, consequently, the process were divided into parts separated from each other. As we have seen before this separation led to separate tasks and responsibilities. The power issue even increases the gap between all these groups. Formerly, and it is sometimes still the case, plans were devised and goals were set for the workers by others. The plan was designed and discussed in detail in the small groups of so-called experts. They could be the leaders or policy-makers, or the experts on change such as researchers.

Because of all the separate layers and well-defined responsibilities in the organization, communication took place within these separate groups but too little between the groups. Power was given to a small group over the larger groups of workers. The leaders‘ stories of how workers acted and thought were different from the real stories of the workers who lived and worked in the daily reality of the organization. But the leaders did not always realize this. They supposed that their story was the real story and acted on it. This seems odd, now that I am writing this. It seems like another time or space where this happened but, unfortunately, I still see this mechanism working today in so-called modern organizations. Communication may be improved by better insights, or better trained people (see one of the principles of Taylor) or even by better technologies like the Internet, but my own experiences in my present daily work in schools, with school boards, with individual teachers or within my own company, show that this mechanism still exists and has consequences for the change processes. What I observe is that leaders still think that once they have organized communication properly, in a structured manner, their construction is that what they see and hear, and the way they construct it is the real story. They think the meaning they give to this reality is the same as that of others. I call this the formal story. Their stories, however, differ frequently from those of their followers. They

tell different stories. Again, this need not be a problem. I think it is of all time. People construct and deconstruct their own stories many times. In relation with others these stories are under construction, they are ongoing and changing. We just need to be aware of this.

Separating formal and informal stories

Often communication is divided into parts, separating the formal and informal stories. Leaders often manage on the basis of their own, formal, stories. Communication, however, is not only formal, but also informal.

What are people really talking about when they exchange their experiences? In this context I refer to the work of Homan, who once at a workshop expressed it in the following way. When people have a training or meeting they will contribute in the desired way, perhaps give answers in the desired way. But as soon as they go to the toilet they will tell others how they really experience the situation. It is in these informal moments that we can learn a lot about the real change processes going on. I use these informal moments often, because they give the opportunity to hear what people think about the process and what could make it better. This knowledge helps me to fine-tune the process to the moment. Communication is about people, colored by what we think might be, often misled into thinking that our constructed thoughts or impressions are the reality, the Truth. It is also then, within an open and safe environment that we can hear the real stories.

Are we talking about the same?

Another problem that occurs frequently is that although we may think that we are talking about the same change issues, this is often not the case. On one hand, it is partly caused by the limited or separated communication, which gives different meanings to the issues of the change process. On the other hand, it is caused by paying too little attention within the change process to the issue of giving meaning. In my present work in supporting ineffective staff to go on together in better ways, I try to stimulate different ways of communication between the different groups of the system, such as the students, teachers, parents and managers. By doing so they are put in relation again. I like the work of Fullan (1991, 2005, 2008), who provides interesting insights into this problem of giving meaning, which in his opinion causes change processes to fail. One of the reflections in my log reads, ―After reading literature, my awareness is growing that defining change is difficult, or perhaps even impossible. To a large content it depends on what the collective memory is of past experiences and how the individual can be critically aware of his own influence in this. Members of the change process, and also outsiders, create all their own unique meaning of the change process and its issues. This construction is, I feel, an ongoing process of active participation and intense communication. Furthermore, I realize that the reader of this dissertation will do the same. And I am happy to invite him to derive his own meaning from the insights and experiences I am writing about. Change should be concerned more with generating linkages and relationships among the various stakeholders. The way we communicate has enormous effects on the relationships we build and consequently on change processes.― (Log, May, 2010). Another problem is that there is a danger, that in cutting the cake of change into separate pieces, we communicate about the change process in separate parts and not about the whole.

As we will see below, the responses between the different parts make the change and make it different each time and unpredictable.

The human factor and giving meaning

I refer to the Chinese saying of the Chinese soup, of which we know which ingredients to use to make a good soup. We also know the recipe, or the procedure. But what we do not know yet is what it will taste like.

We will experience this when we eat the soup (during the change so to speak). I realize now that however it will turn out to be, the mutual reactions will decide what the taste is like. My insights, noted down in my log, are that the human factor plays a crucial role in the change process in terms of giving meaning. This giving meaning will be different each time, it is a dynamic process. ―The problem is that we turn giving meaning into something static as if it is an entity. From this thinking in terms of an entity, we move on in the change process without being aware of this static thinking. Change, and the issues that crop up in change, becomes an object in this way.‖ (Log, June 2010)

If we spend little on mutual communication about this meaning giving process, we will be farther away from the success of change, often without realizing it. We think that we know what we are talking about, but in reality that is not the case at all. We all eat our own soup and think that it all tastes the same! Minzberg (1979) gives some idea of these loose, separated parts with his principle that the different factors within the change process influence one another permanently and decide how we will deal with the change process.

This influence gives the process a different color each time. It shows its dynamic character. And above all it shows how unpredictable change is. The quotation from Ford that De Caluwé & Vermaak (2006, p. 114) cite is interesting, ―Change is a phenomenon of time. It is the way people talk about the event, in which something appears to become, or turn into something else, where the ‗something else‘ is seen as a result or outcome.‖

Educational change, interactions and relationships

Lagerweij (2004, p. 45) states that ―Educational change is a dynamic occasion characterized by interactions and relationships between people. This is it what makes the process so difficult.‖ Another risk involved in educational change and the question of giving meaning is that so-called proven methods or approaches are copied in other situations too easily. The meaning-giving by a small group of experts and policymakers is passed on to the larger group of workers, i.e. the teachers. Huberman (1992, p. 7) states that ―Education is a tricky business. We try to plan and to implement programs which are not tried out in these certain contexts.

We never know if they will work in other contexts, until we have tried… We try to achieve planned goals and outcomes of which we are not sure if these are reachable. We try to change habits of teachers, but in the meantime we are corroding the teachers‘ workplace.‖ I think Huberman makes a good point here. It is interesting to see, in the often bureaucratic approach of planned change (mechanistic view), that leaders try to control the change by protocols and procedures etcetera, but that the workers try to avoid this steering, especially when it does not match their meaning giving. I would like to refer here to the issue of pocket veto I wrote about.

Being out of relation with the different layers within change processes and organizations results in different stories in the process. The problem, as I see it, is that people in the change process know too little about each other‘s realities; it seems as if they are hidden in the process but have great influence below the surface. I experienced this during the I Believe In You! process in Suriname. Not being locally or politically involved, I did not know the stories or realities of some important key persons. Thanks to the help of my friend and advisor of the Minister of Education in Suriname, Mr. Henri Ori, I became more aware of these often hidden stories and realities and could act on them better. In simple terms, people do not only bring their hands but also their hearts and minds to the process. Communication in the form of dialogues and real encounters will help us to make the difference, to improve mutual understanding. It is necessary to create bridges between all these hierarchical levels to hear one another‘s stories, to understand each other to be able to really work for the sake of change. The challenge in change processes is to unveil all these hidden stories. I have seen that creating many different moments of formal and informal communication, often in the

form of dialogues and collaborative activities, help to unveil them. De Caluwé (2002, p. 11) states that

―Employees are acting permanently in the process and in their minds the process is created again and again each day based on the meanings they give according to their acting.‖ In addition, he cites Van Aken (1993),

―Organization is an interaction pattern that unfolds in time, a social system that cannot be taken apart like a machine. Furthermore it is unknowable, that is that we can impossibly know which expectations all that are involved do have about their own and others‘ roles, and about all mutual relationships in their formal and informal details, whereas these expectations above all are in continuous movement.‖

Morgan (1992, p. 333) even doubts whether we must see organizations or change processes as a group of people who try to reach a mutual goal. In reality, he thinks, we are blind people who each try to decipher the change. He uses the metaphor of a handshake, which feels different at each moment. He says that we effect the separation into parts ourselves to handle change, it happens more in our head than in the change itself.

In this way Morgan expresses the still common rational way to deal with change. Mitchell and Sackney (2000) promote the interpersonal capacity in which teachers share meaning and in this way work on profound improvement. Organizational structures can isolate parties and fragment the process! They emphasize the need for different structures which honor connections rather than separation, diversity rather than uniformity, empowerment rather than control, and inclusion rather than dominance. Structures are both invisible, as in cognitive assumptions and attributions, socio-cultural conditions, and collaborative processes, and visible, as in the physical arrangements of location, space, time and so on.

Emphasizing differences or appreciating them

By separation we emphasize the differences instead of embracing and appreciating them. This weakens the process. From the constructionist view we must be aware that it is natural that every participant of a change process understands the change differently, there are multiple views. By exchanging these different meanings in appreciative ways we can encounter each other and understand each other‘s stories better. To be heard and seen, or understood, is important for the commitment to the process. Communication in the form of real encounters is very stimulating. Your story must be heard. An important conclusion of many scholars is that it is not that people resist change, but that it is more that they do not understand the change and do not know how to cope with it. (Day et al, 2000; Fullan, 1991, 1995; Lagerweij, 2004, Stevens, 2004, Hargreaves, 2009). I think it is very obvious that it is harder for people to get onto the boat of change if they do not know where it is going, or if it will complete the journey. Fullan makes it very clear in his work that communicating about the change and the change process helps to understand it better. We need to help teachers to understand the change if we want to be successful in reform. We will see in the analysis of the I Believe In You! process that understanding the change and the approach helped to make a success of the process. ―The problem of meaning is central to making sense of educational reform‖. (Fullan, 1991, p. 4) We have to understand the small and bigger pictures. We have to appreciate all stories. The small pictures concern the subjective meaning or lack of meaning for individuals at all levels of the education system. It is also important to build the bigger picture in a clear way for all those involved. I think that in the I Believe In You! process in Suriname the search for the small and bigger pictures of all who were involved underlines what Fullan observes. All those involved were able to give their opinion in the process. All these stories could be combined in a way to get the bigger picture. Those involved in the change process need to understand what it is that should change and how it can be best accomplished, while realizing that the what and how constantly interact and reshape each other. Solutions must come out as the byproducts of the process. ―The interface between individual and collective meaning and action in everyday situations is where change stands or falls.‖(Fullan, 1991, p. 5) Fullan emphasizes that everyone in the change process is important and must be seen; everybody has his own responsibility. It is my view and experience that there

should be an ongoing connecting dialog in the change process. Fullan concludes that real change lies in how we deal with the many subjective realities (or meanings) and that how they are addressed or ignored is crucial. ―Educational change depends on what teachers do and think, it is as simple and as complex as that.‖

(Fullan, 1991, p. 117) Hargreaves (2009) goes even further by not only looking in how we give meaning to many aspects of education and change in the system, but also how we give meaning to the system itself.