Organizational Change Is a Necessity

Organizational change is a necessity within today's dynamic society. Change is however mostly associated with economic agents -- those players who seek profits, who want to attract as many customers as possible and those who generally have personal financial goals. Yet, change is also a growing necessity within the not for profit organizations as well. With the advent of technology or due to the cultural changes brought about by globalizations, not for profit entities are forced to change their approach to organized activities.

Robert Evans has spent a large part of his career interacting with school teachers and directors and he is now turning his attention to the implementation of change in schools. If an analogy were to be made between schools and for profit entities, it could be stated that the teachers are similar to the managerial team and the students / pupils are the homologues of the organizational staff members. Yet, a major difference is observed. While in the organizational context it is the employees who are reticent to change (Holbeche, 2006), in the educational system, it is the teachers who are reticent to the modifications.

This situation can be explained through another analogy. At a general level, the older an employee, the higher his reticence to change will be. Younger staff members -- who do not have family responsibilities and are just starting out their careers -- are more flexible and more opened to embrace change in the workplace. Older employees however -- who are at the peak of their professional careers and who have family responsibilities -- are not open to change; they will traditionally prefer the current silence and safety of the job they know and they will prefer to peacefully work themselves into retirement. Given this situation, it could then be stated that the students resemble the characteristics of the younger and more flexible staff members, as they are at the beginning of their professional path and are just forming themselves. The teachers on the other hand, they are already formed as individuals and as educators, and they do not embrace the change process.

Resistance to change in educational institutions is also pegged to the fact that in schools, unlike in a business context, the inter-individual relations are more personal. The school is a friendlier setting and the students and teachers interact without competition and offense. The relationships in an organizational context are more formal and more focused on organizational goals. This difference makes it possible for a relative standardization in economic agents; but in schools, every decision or act is taken personally and feelings are currently involved. In other words, change implementation in schools is more complex as it needs to consider the feelings of the involved parties.

Another interesting aspect Evans reveals is given by the access of schools to resources. While economic agents generate their own profit which is then reinvested in change and improvement agendas, schools -- in their large majority -- do not reveal an ability to generate profits nor otherwise funds. Most schools are subsidized by the government and some receive sponsorships, but the funds for change implementation are reduced. Nevertheless, this does not constitute a reason to renounce the change, but emphasizes on the necessity of the school to implement change in order to meet the demands and expectations, and moreover, to do this within the resource limitations imposed.