|
Change, by definition, disturbs the status quo. This simple statement has profound implications for the change agent: even those who approve of an innovation are likely to find some aspect of their cultural or social identity challenged, some professional or psychological comfort zone intruded upon. Rogers puts it bluntly, opening Diffusion of Innovations by quoting Machiavelli: "Whenever his enemies have the ability to attack the innovator they do so with the passion of partisans, while the others defend him sluggishly, so that the innovator and his party alike are vulnerable" (Rogers, 1995, p. 1).
This resistance can be especially frustrating when it does not come from the innovation's intended adopters--or even from inside what the change agent understood to be the client system. Opponents of change can sometimes be highly adept at mobilizing support from groups outside the community who wouldn't normally be seen as stakeholders in a local effort. These factors make understanding the causes of resistance a crucial competency for the change agent.
Furthermore, despite the negative connotations associated with resistance, a careful examination of its causes can be a powerful tool for the facilitator of change. While most studies of resistance focus on techniques for overcoming it, a few, like Field's (1988) handbook on curriculum change, also note that resistance is sometimes an indicator that the change effort is off course (Part D, p. 1). This point is often overlooked due to the pro-innovation bias of much diffusion research noted by Rogers (pp. 100-113). Even when its proponents conclude that their reforms are on target, "[Resistance] forces advocates to rethink, reformulate, and restate why they put so much faith in the program under attack." (Mitchell, 1995, p. 1). In short, it constitutes a valuable form of feedback that helps change agents know how they are doing, and how well (or poorly) an innovation's intended users see it as fitting their needs (Corbett, Firestone, & Rossman, 1987).
|
|
