Resistance to technological change

Part One Ms. Figueroa is facing an issue that is being framed as resistance to technological change, but seems more resistance to cultural change. She was hired to bring innovative technologies to ASD, but started to do so without first establishing her personal credibility as a change agent. Part of this is that her supervisor wanted a demonstration early in her tenure, before she had proven anything, but there are several other cultural issues at play as well.

Yet, adoption of new technologies is clearly not something that ASD has done well in the past, despite its reputation as an innovative school, so there may be some cultural issues specifically surrounding new technologies. The case takes place in 2006, so right before smartphones, which makes it an interesting case – what did the teachers and supervisors at ASD do when smartphones entirely revolutionized learning for deaf students? Adoption of new technologies often faces resistance, especially in organizations that are generally slow to change.

Some of the issues that come into play, and probably do for Ms. Figueroa, are mistrust, fear of the unknown, and in particular concern about how the changes will impact them (Quast, 2012). Figueroa is new to the organization, and has not established any trust yet. Moreover, she is seen at least by some teachers as a shill for Texas Instruments, and is not one of them, as in not deaf.

Her credentials as a math teacher and an innovator are less important that her cultural credentials and her ability to fit into an already-established social dynamic. For her to have succeeded, she would have needed more leadership support.

What occurred instead was that the senior organizational leaders hired her, disappeared from the picture, and failed to ensure that her immediate supervisors and the other teachers were aware of the degree of support they had for her and her work – that left the others feeling that they could resist so openly. In addition to the cultural issues, the other teachers were doubtless concerned that a new hotshot teacher was coming in to make them look bad.

They are inherently resistant to change, and this inertia probably means that new technology is a threat (UnicornHRO, 2016). They know they won’t master it the same way that a younger teacher will, even going so far as to (falsely) suggest that the students won’t like it, or will have trouble with it. Their random spurious arguments mask this threat, because admitting that they are threatened by younger teachers and new technology is not something that they are going to ever admit to Figueroa.

Part Two There are several key stakeholders in this case besides Figueroa. The hiring committee and senior leadership of ASD are critical stakeholders who, after hiring Figueroa, dropped out of the picture. This was a tactical error. The second key group of stakeholders are the students, and the third are the other teachers and low-level supervisors. The hiring committee and senior leadership had a vision for what they wanted in a new teacher, and Figueroa fit that bill. Thus, she earned the role based on her qualifications.

Yet, they left the door open for her to think otherwise. Further, their lack of post-hiring support has proved to be a problem. For her ideas to be accepted openly in the organization, she would have needed the support of senior management. If the rest of the organization knows that senior management fully supports her, and is willing to go to bat for her, then they are less likely to resist change so openly.

Figueroa’s supervisor, for example, should have been specifically requested to support her, and if senior management had any doubts about this, she should have been given an advocate on senior management. There was, it seems, a failure to anticipate the troubles she would have, and therefore the resources she needed to have from senior management – specifically their direct involvement in establishing her credibility and vision, and actively countering resistance to change – were lacking.

Many studies have established that leadership is critical to driving change, so that absent this leadership, change is much less likely to succeed (Gilley, Gilley & McMillan, 2009). The students also play a key role. The case mentions that the students were enthusiastic adopters of the new technology. This of course could be perceived by the resistors as a threat, because it makes them look bad in relation to Figueroa, but at the same time it should have provided an opportunity for senior management to step in and support.

Had they been aware of the situation, they could have taken the students’ adoption of the technology to Figueroa’s supervisor and the other supervisors as justification of their strategic decision. That proof of concept, in turn, would have allowed them to leverage their formal power to quash much of the resistance to change. The final group of stakeholders are the other teachers. They clearly see the entire thing as a threat, both in terms of a younger teacher, a new technology, and a non-deaf teacher.

All of these things run counter to their identities, and would challenge them to rethink certain things about their jobs, and how they view themselves. Those are difficult challenges to face, and resistance is usually the main response. The reality is that two of these groups supported the change, but did not come together to help make that change happen. If ASD’s leadership had worked with the other teachers and their supervisors, resistance would have decreased.

The power dynamic is straightforward, though, the change failed based on the resistance of one stakeholder group, where it should have succeeded. If other stakeholder groups also resisted the change, it would maybe have failed more spectacularly. But if the leadership group had worked with the supervisors, and used the success that the calculators had with the students as an example, it could have helped Figueroa to influence positive change. Instead, Figueroa was left to do it on her own, a hopeless mission.

That she did not ask for help is on her, however, and was also a contributing factor. Part Three The group that resisted the change was the teachers and supervisors. Their resistance was based on a number of other factors. These included a fear that the newcomer would show them up, that their skills would all of a sudden not be as valuable, and that they might have to learn new skills. Fear of change on this level is common in organizations, and especially among older or veteran workers.

There does come a point in one’s working life where the motivation to learn new skills simply drops off (Friedburg, 2001). The cultural dynamic is another major driver of this resistance to change. Figueroa was trying to bring about change without any meaningful formal authority.

The hiring board was impressed with her expertise, but that expertise was not valued by her colleagues, either because of her relationship with Texas Instruments, or just because they didn’t know her and didn’t value what she brought to the table. To foster informal power, she would have needed to, at the very least, fit in with the culture in which she was trying to operate. Morgan and Zeffane (2003) note that trust plays an important role in organizational change.

The deaf teachers in particular have a particular cultural belonging and identity, and it was always going to be more difficult for an outsider to build trust. Without that trust, Figueroa’s attempts to implement change were necessarily going to be much more difficult. So the resistance stems from a combination of mistrust, fear, loss of job security, and overall a total lack of leadership to help Figueroa bring about the change. She was put in the impossible position of making change happen on her own, as an outsider.

There was really little hope of success, given that. Part Four I do not believe that Figueroa can resolve the situation, at least not on her own. The best approach would have been proactive, to work with the leadership of ASD, and tie her hiring to a broader strategic initiative. This is simply not about calculators, and will never succeed if that’s what it is about.

Figueroa’s move here is to act retroactively, to go back to ASD leadership, to whoever showed the most faith and enthusiasm for her in the first place. Find that person, and get them on board. Make sure that they understand the challenges, and are willing to create a roadmap to success. This is more challenging retroactively because now it looks like she is going above her supervisor’s head, but it is the only play left for her.

Figueroa needs to enlist the support of ASD leadership, and make the new technology part of a critical strategic initiative. A sense of urgency needs to be created for this change, in order to break down some of the entrenched resistance (Armenakis, Harris, Mossholder, 1993). Further, the entire school needs to see Figueroa’s work in a broader context, one that directly affects their own jobs, and the students.

The teachers have seemingly ignored the positive response from the students to Figueroa’s work, but that response should be part of what senior management conveys to the other stakeholders. Ultimately, Figueroa cannot do this on her own, but rather she needs to enlist some insiders with formal authority, being the senior leadership of ASD who hired her in the first place.

So while the resistance to change is going to be more difficult to overcome now that it has been established, it is not entirely impossible to overcome it. Figueroa was never going to do this by herself, and should not have been put in that position.

First and foremost, by creating the impetus for change, lending senior management support and tying the change to a broader strategic vision, that puts the resistors in the position of having to either get on board with the change or stand at odds with the strategic vision of their employer. Further, it puts them at odds with the best interest of students. At that point, the resistors lose their perceived moral high standing – they are against logic, and against what is morally right.

That makes their position much less justifiable. That does not mean that this will come without conflict. The reality is that while resistance will be less strong, it will still exist. There is still the fact that Figueroa faces personal resistance for not being part.