During my project, I encountered an unexpected resistance to change from the employees. I believe the reason behind the resistance was the insufficient communication between the participants and me. I was able to communicate the expected positive outcomes to the management, which led me to assume that the employees share the readiness and commitment to change. My assumption was further strengthened by the fact that the employees were unsatisfied with the state of events and even pointed out the specific flaws in leadership practices.
This created the impression of informed stakeholders who are aware of the need for change and, therefore, are eager to participate in the facilitation. The issue was eventually resolved, but I cannot say that it was addressed. Several weeks into the intervention, the participants of the workshops started noticing the positive effects of the process, and the resistance declined. However, this was not the result of deliberate intervention.
I believe that in this case the possibility of change was misjudged, which slowed down the process considerably. To avoid similar scenarios in the future, the possibility of resistance must be evaluated more carefully and addressed early in the process, excluding the undesirable slowdown.
Whole system change is a paradigm that suggests a unified and holistic approach as opposed to piecemeal interventions. Due to its characteristics, it offers a range of advantages to organizations. First, it can tackle the cause of the issue rather than target the effect. Second, its benefits are long-lasting and extend across multiple aspects of organizational activity. Third, it is sustainable since the changes and learning are continuous and each success or failure increases understanding of its effectiveness. However, due to its scale, it also has several drawbacks. For instance, its encompassing nature requires significant planning and inclusive strategies that may be ill-fitted for urgent matters.
Next, because of its far-reaching approach, its value is increasing with the complexity of the organization, which means that it may be unnecessarily complex for smaller entities. Finally, due to its scope, it may be difficult to definitively evaluate its outcomes and differentiate them from the effects of unrelated factors. I tried to adapt it for personal use and build up useful habits of a healthy lifestyle. Over time, I kept discovering and adding new areas of whole system integration to achieve a holistic approach. I cannot say I observed any outstanding results as of yet, but I was able to identify at least one benefit: the whole system change turned out useful in detecting and addressing all (rather than the most popular) aspects of the problem, which can be used for a thorough assessment.
Organizational development can and should incorporate values as a part of a successful change. The easiest example I can recall is empowerment. This is a highly sought after value in an organization and is required for a successful change. Besides, it can be linked to the long-term effects of change and sustainability of OD. Thus, they are often emphasized by OD consultants. Collaboration is another important value since change is rarely implemented on the individual level and often involves teamwork and interdepartmental communication.
I can say that communication between employees and management is the value that is often violated in the organization, which is confirmed by my observations in the workplace. For instance, the employees may not have communication channels to deliver feedback in a meaningful form, which, aside from value deterioration, poses a threat to workplace ethics. Poor communication often leads to declining in motivation among workers and wrongly targeted interventions which compromise trust and waste resources.