CTC Session Articles

Education Session Article

This article was written in support of a presentation given at CTC5 in 1997.

Change Management

By Mark A. Zaffarano

Words of Wisdom - Part 1

"TWENTY PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE AGAINST ANYTHING."

Robert F. Kennedy

Change is a very necessary constant in today's organizations and presents both a challenge and an opportunity for court managers and employees alike. Often those in leadership roles will institute changes that are critical to the survival of the organization, and yet those changes are sometimes met with resistance. People's response to change depends on the degree to which they understand the need for change, are involved in the change process, and understand the implications the change has for their roles.

During this session on change management, the following questions will be addressed:

What are some of the reasons why people resist change even when the change is critical to the organization's success?
How do we determine a person's readiness for change?
What is the best approach to take when facilitating change?
How can managers and other employees serve as role models for change?
How do we recognize signs of resistance to change, how do we determine causes of that resistance, and what strategies do we apply to help remove those barriers?

Words of Wisdom - Part 2

"In the world of information technology when we forecast the impact of change, we always over estimate the near-term impact and under estimate the long term impact."

24 Chief Executives
Roundtable Conference
March 1997

We know that the ramifications of implementing any new technology project can often affect the court staff not only months later but also a year or two later if the employees are not satisfied with the technology.

Words of Wisdom - Part 3

"When the rate of change outside the organization is greater than the rate of change
inside the organization, the organization is in trouble."

Rita Kidd
Government Reengineering
Consultant

In the court environment court leaders also must be aware of what changes are taking place externally and how change might be introduced to the courts. Clearly, judges, court administrators, and clerks need to focus on the pace of change. We need to examine best practices from industry and government to determine how courts can introduce more structural change. For example, placing court kiosks in shopping centers is following the same trend as banks positioning automatic teller machines (ATMs) in shopping centers.

The following chart describes a change issue that we may not have considered. How many court employees accept technology change more easily than do other groups of court employees? Could our acceptance of change be related to age differences?

GENERATION GAP IN THE INFORMATION AGE

	Under 30	Age 50 or over
Change brings exciting opportunities	77%	59%
They want to be their own boss	62%	47%
They own a computer	64%	38%
They've used e-mail	47%	16%
They have Internet access	36%	12%
Technology brings more confusion and complications than it does exciting opportunities	21%	36%
It is difficult to use computers	27%	57%

(US News/Bozell poll of 1,000 adults conducted by KRC Research & Consulting, Aug. 10-18, 1996. The survey was designed by Marcela Berland of KRC; U.S. News pollsters Celinda Lake of Lake Research and Ed Goeas of the Tarrrance Group consulted on the project.

Margin of error; plus or minus 3.1 percent.)

The change process for every court is different. When court officials are working on a technology project, there is not sufficient time to have one employee record step by step how the change process worked, how long the change took to complete from start to finish, and a number of other key decision points along the way. Nevertheless, there are some common misperceptions about the change process and some fairly consistent positive statements about the change process. The chart below covers some of the most consistent change themes.

THE CHANGE PROCESS

Myths

Innovations are accepted on their merit
Change is a rational process
Acceptance of change is an individual process
Major challenge is overcoming resistance to change
Best Solution involves more of the same

Truths

Things operate the way they do for a reason
The status quo is Dynamic
Someone is benefiting from what exists
Change will place stress on someone or something
The cost of change may outweigh the cost of leaving things alone

REACTIONS TO CHANGE

Reactive

Emotional
Defensive
Useless, since change will take place regardless
Self-defeating only wastes time which could spent adapting to and learning new methods or systems

Proactive

Calm and intellectual
Anticipates change
Uses change to personal advantage and gain

Price Pritchett has identified the following three stages of coping with change:

Ending Stage
Neutral Zone
Beginning Stage

The Ending Stage

One is forced to leave behind what he/she knows as stable, familiar, dependable. Grieving of some sort is normal.
Individuals can become emotional and somewhat irrational. By refusing to accept changes, they hope changes will disappear.
Situation must be handled gently; patience by everyone is necessary to overcome.
Rituals or ceremonies help give emotional closure.

For many employees who used WordPerfect 5.0 for the past few years, I am sure that having to learn WordPerfect 6.0 constituted a clear and present dangerous technology risk! Most court leaders can think of a technology project in which the first step was to help employees emotionally detach themselves from the "old way of doing the activity" and instead charge head first into learning "the new way of doing the activity." Now consider the second stage. Court leaders must be aware of hidden problems for those employees whom dare..."Enter into the Neutral Zone"!

The Neutral Zone

The most difficult stage to deal with among the three stages
One feels as if he/she is in limbo
Disconnected from past, unconnected with and unsure of future
Must learn to live with ambiguity
Reminder that you're not alone helps
Simplify strategies; avoid radical or overly sophisticated solutions

As court employees leave the neutral zone and face the beginning zone, there can be significant excitement and anticipation about a new way of viewing the change process as well as a fresh view concerning an emerging technology that is being scheduled for implementation. I like to call this phase the G.E. light bulb phase during which staff begins to understand the strategic direction and organizational significance of the proposed project.

The Beginning Stage

Introduction to the future
Attitude determines success in adoption to change
Should see a deal with the situation rationally
Openness to new approaches necessary
See the problem, consider the options, start a course of action
Need to view change positively
See possibilities of new change
Opportunity for innovation, and empowerment shouldn't be feared or resisted

One of the best rules of thumb for implementing change developed by Pritchett is the 20-50-30 Rule. It is easy to remember and court officials can apply it to all types of technology-related projects:

20% of the people are "change friendly," actively helping the change process
50% are fence-sitters, neither backing nor resisting the change
30% actively resist change and are generally more vocal and adamant than the others

The key court strategy is to focus on winning over the middle 50% rather than fighting a losing battle against the resisters.

In order to apply this rule, one must understand what types of employees can be identified as change resistors and which groups of employees appear to be more accepting toward technology change projects.

ADOPTER CATEGORIES AS IDEAL TYPES

Innovators: "Venturesome" minority, comfortable with risk and failure
Early Adopters: Internal opinion leaders
Early Majority: Deliberate and willing followers
Late Majority: Skeptical followers, need convincing to adopt
Laggards: "Traditional," tied to the past

All court officials can think of staff who would fall into these categories, and then develop some meaningful strategies for keeping the staff positively interested with technology change. In addition, court leaders also must consider how quickly different court groups are likely to reach final acceptance after the change project has been installed.

The chart below suggests a definite pattern of change acceptance and change awareness.

LENGTH OF ADOPTION OF PERIOD

(BY ADOPTER TYPE)

There are many change management books that deal with the resistance to change. Court officials must plan for resistance from groups such as the late majority.

UNDERSTANDING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Feelings of uncertainty
Sense of loss
Focus on competence
Altered relationships
Lack of involvement in the decision

While there can be many types of resistance, here are some easy-to-identify resistance categories:

Category 1: Firebrands: Loud, outspoken; usually small, openly dissatisfied groups. Understand their problems and try to work them out.
Category 2: Moderates: Larger, quieter group; some disguise their resistance to stay safe. These people can usually be approached in straightforward manner.
Category 3: Saboteurs: Operate under cover, trying not be discovered by management; often use passive resistance. Blow their cover and get them to talk to you about their problems

Here is a quick checklist for dealing with resistance during a long-term court technology project:

Expect resistance to change
Follow the 20-50-30 Rule
Thoroughly communicate the change to whole staff
Act quietly and boldly to stave off resistance
Provide a clear goal with every change
It is usually best to involve everyone in the change process
Promise problems
Continue to communicate with staff throughout the change process
Prevent bureaucracy
Commit yourself completely to change
Provide incentives to change and make resistance costly
Fight resistance openly and forcefully
Educate the staff on how to implement change and work under the new system
Track resistance to determine problem areas
Implement a fast pace to the change process

If court leaders begin to consider change as a PROCESS, then the following listing is useful:

THE INNOVATION-DECISION PROCESS

Awareness: Concept known but not understood
Information: Interest in ideas spurs investigation
Evaluation: Use of information to evaluate feasibility of idea
Trial: Testing innovation on small scale to gain experience
Adoption: Full-scale integration innovation into routines

You will note that the following checklist is similar to the above checklist, but it may also serve as a litmus test for evaluating how successful your technology project was after implementation. Many courts do not have either the staff or the resources to conduct program evaluation, so this quick assessment may be useful.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL CHANGE

Demonstrates relative advantage
Ensures compatibility
Avoids complexity
Promotes trialability
Provides observability

Source: Dale Lefever

After reading several books and articles on change management, I have developed the following list for judicial leaders to consider using for major technology projects. I would be interested in your feedback regarding this checklist.

COURT MANAGER'S CHECKLIST FOR PROMOTING INTERNAL CHANGE

Focus on the key management reasons for the change; provide a clear aiming point.
Make it clear in the beginning that the change process won't be trouble-free.
Give everyone an accurate sense of what's coming.
Allow employees to assist actively in designing how the change will unfold.
Expect resistance--resistance measures impact of change but not the appropriateness of the change.
Take care of the "me" issues.
Follow the 20-50-30 Rule: focus your time on the 30% who are resisters and the 20% who are driving the change.
Choose your opening moves carefully:
Gradual change approach (subtle)
Dramatic change approach (bold)
Middle of the road approach (muddling along)
Overcommunicate.
Demonstrate commitment.
Show respect for resisters.
Train, coach, and educate staff during the change effort.
Track behavior and measure results.
Implement at a fast pace:
Outrun the resisters
Execute at a blistering pace
Once the change effort ends, review the lessons learned so you can apply them to your next technology project.

I believe that court employees also must accept some major responsibility for dealing with technology change if court managers allow them to make technology decisions.

COURT MANAGER PRINCIPLES FOR ASSISTING EMPLOYEES WITH THE CHANGE PROCESS

Keep performance results the primary objective of behavior and skill change.
Continually increase the number of individuals taking responsibility for their own change.
Ensure each person always knows why his or her performance and that change reflect the purpose and results of the whole organization.
Put people in a position to learn by doing, and provide them the information and support needed just in time to perform.
Embrace improvisation as the best path to both performance and change.
Use team performance to drive change whenever demanded.
Concentrate organization designs on the work that people do and not the decision-making authority they have.
Create and focus energy and meaningful language because they are the scarcest resources during periods of change.
Stimulate and sustain behavior-driven change by harmonizing initiatives throughout the organization.
Practice leadership based on the courage to live the change you wish to bring about.
The primary objective of change is performance, not change. Managers always find it difficult to keep performance firmly in focus among the people they are enlisting to change.

For court leaders who do not feel confident using the previously stated change model, I have provided the following change model for your consideration. If you use this model in your court, I would be interested in knowing how you applied it and how effective the model appeared to be for your court situation.

THE EIGHT-STAGE CHANGE PROCESS

Establishing a sense of urgency
Creating the guiding coalition
Developing a vision and strategy
Communicating the change vision
Empowering employees for broad-based action
Generating short-term wins
Consolidating gains and producing more change
Anchor new approaches such as reengineering, restructuring, or reorganizing in the culture

Source: John Kotter, Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

It is not easy to summarize a change management approach that every court can utilize.

However, there are certain common themes for all court leaders to consider.

CONCLUSIONS TO MANAGING TECHNOLOGY CHANGE

Paying attention to change will be the number one responsibility for court leaders in the 21st century.
We are moving from an era dominated by incremental change to a new era known as discontinuous change. The notion of discontinuous change means completely rethinking the way in which we operate our courts.
Discontinuous change is not simply top-down direction or a series of bottom-up initiatives. Wide-scale change requires a combination of initiatives. For example, a court may want to reengineer a series of court activities while simultaneously forming an in-house team of employees to be involved directly with the change management project. After completing the project, court leaders recognize the contributions of all team members and celebrate the success of the project.
For judicial branch leaders, managing the soft part of discontinuous change is the difficult part of monitoring the change process. In order to produce the greatest impact, leaders must combine both the hard and soft aspects of organizational change. For example, the use of a new technology installed by a company must be introduced in such a manner that employees embrace the change rather than resist the new technology.
Court leaders must pay attention to how technology change affects employees stress levels--both positively and negatively. In the future, our court leaders will need to do more than damage control to ensure that their employees can recover from discontinuous change; they must prepare employees to sustain the next wave of technology change.

Please share this chart with your court staff. I thought you would enjoy it and recognize some of the most interesting excuses. Hope to see you at CTC5!

PARADIGMS WHICH RESIST CHANGE

"Sixty Excuses for a Closed Mind"

We tried that before.
Our place is different.
It costs too much.
That's beyond our responsibility.
That's not my job.
We're all too busy to do that.
It's too radical a change.
We don't have the time.
Not enough help.
That will make other equipment obsolete.
Let's make a market research test of it first.
Our plant is too small for it.
Not practical for operating people.
The men will never buy it.
The union will scream.
We've never done it before.
It's against company policy.
Runs up our overhead.
We don't have the authority.
That's too ivory tower.
Let's get back to reality.
That's not our problem.
Why change it, it's still working okay.
I don't like the idea.
You're right - but...
You're two years ahead.
We're not ready for that.
We don't have the money, equipment, room, or personnel.
It isn't in the budget.
Can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Good thought, but impractical.
Let's hold in abeyance.
Let's give it more thought.
Top management would never go for it.
We'll be the laughing stock.
Let's put it in writing.
Not that again.
We'd lose money in the long run.
Where'd you dig that one up?
We did all right without it.
That's what we can expect from staff.
It's never been tried before.
Let's shelve it for the time being.
Let's form a committee.
Has anyone else ever tried it?
Customers won't like it.
I don't see the connection.
It won't work in our plant.
What you are really saying is...
Maybe that will work in your office but not in mine.
The Executive Committee will never go for it.
Don't you think we should look into it further before we act?
What do they do in our competitor's plant?
Let's all sleep on it.
It can't be done.
It's too much trouble to change.
It won't pay for itself.
I know a fellow who tried it.
It's impossible.
We've always done it this way.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, Lance A. and Martin J. Sikora. The Change Management Handbook. Irwin, Chicago, Ill., 1994.
Davis, Donald D. Managing Technological Innovation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif., 1986.
Gaebler, Ted A. Create Change Now! Entrepreneurial Government Workshops, Double Vision Productions, Inc. Publisher, Calif., 1996.
Harvey, Don and Donald R. Brown. An Experiential Approach to Organization Development, 5th edition. Prentice-Hall, Saddle River, N.J., 1996.
Katzenbach, Jon R. Real Change Leaders. Random House, N.Y., 1996.
Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Harvard Business Press, Boston, Mass., 1996.
Lippitt, Gordon L. Implementing Organizational Change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif., 1985.
Nadler, David A., Robert B. Shaw, and A. Elise Walton. Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Calif., 1995.
Pritchett, Price. Overcoming Resistance to Change. Pritchet Publishing, Texas, 1996.
Rogers, M. Everett. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd. ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif., 1982.
Smith, Douglas K. Taking Charge of Change. Addison-Wesley, N.Y., 1996.

Biographical Information

This biographical information may date from as far back as 1997. Please keep in mind that it may no longer be accurate.

Mark A. Zaffarano

Mark A. Zaffarano is currently a senior court management consultant with IBM. He serves on a worldwide IBM government team composed of both justice and public safety professionals. He has directed several major court technology projects and two national-scope court management projects. His areas of expertise include case management and case tracking, change management projects, long-range technology improvement projects, court organization, and change-focused projects. Before joining IBM, he worked in the trial courts for 20 years.

Technology Services

View Articles