We all have different attitudes to change: some we like, some we don't like quite as much.

As the title of this Blog suggests I am again thinking about change, and how we can all take different positions in relation to the different types of change we might encounter. Sometimes it might be us who suggests a certain type of change to moves things on, and sometimes we might take up the ideas of others and support them. Sometimes we aren't sure about something until we've seen it in action, and then, if the positives seem to outweigh the negatives, we might accept it and even adopt the change ourselves (perhaps reluctantly). 

However, there are other times, times when we don't really fancy the change: whatever this change is, it didn't come from us, or people like us, and it is going to ask more of us than we are really willing to give - putting us too far outside of our physical, emotional or intellectual comfort zones. Or perhaps we feel that the outcomes of the change won't fit with our desired outcomes or our current values. If so, then we might drag our heels with respect to the change ... we might not 'get on board' with the proposed change 'going forward'. Although often, especially if you are low down in an organisational hierarchy, then probably you will have to change, however reluctantly, and come to some sort of accommodation with the new way of doing things (or leave!).

But there might be occasions when we really can't contemplate the change, or its intended outcomes. Indeed, perhaps we are so against this change that we will actively work against it, and against those who propose this change ... we might even try to challenge or sabotage the change in some way, either overly or behind the scenes, to stop it from happening at all.

But all of this is perfectly normal: indeed, during my time trying to get people and services to adopt Intensive Interaction, I have encountered all the above attitudes towards the adoption of our approach - from unbridled enthusiasm to outright opposition (luckily more the former than the latter - and thankfully the latter is now less and less frequent as we have now put Intensive Interaction into the mainstream).

But when I do encounter people at training events or at our Interactive Cafe sessions (and we had a brilliant session last Thursday!) I now tend to compartmentalise people into a number of categories that were set out in a book on curriculum design and development (Pratt, D. (1980) Curriculum Design and Development. New York: HBJ). In this book the author said that people, when encountering proposed changes to the way they work, tend to fall into 5 categories depending on their responses to it. These categories being:

1. Enthusiasts – those people being the initiators of change.
2. Supporters – those people being easily persuaded by the arguments put forward for the need to change.
3. Acquiescers – those people who follow the line of least resistance, eventually adopting the change in response to a 'critical mass' of supporters.
4. Laggards –  the sceptics, those people who passively resist the proposed change until it becomes unstoppable.
5. Antagonists – those people who actively resist all change attempts.   

It should be remembered that these categories are not general descriptions of people's individual character, but an attempt to be analytic in looking at people's responses to particular types of change (we are not intending to criticise anyone here). Indeed I am a proud Laggard (or Luddite!) in terms of many technology related changes that I think often promise much, and then fail to deliver. I am also a somewhat weak and feeble acquiescer in terms of some of the structural changes now going on in our trust, and more broadly across the NHS.

But, when I am doing work that will change how people view or use Intensive Interactive, I usually try to identify those people most likely to be Intensive Interactive 'enthusiasts' and 'supporters' - as these are the people who will adopt Intensive Interaction most readily and will therefore be vital in starting the process of embedding Intensive Interaction into their workplace or service - I always try to look for the low hanging fruit first!. I think that this is a better way of securing the change we want, rather than initially investing too much of our efforts into trying to get the 'laggards' and 'antagonists' on board - trying to do that too early in a change process will most likely waste both time and energy for very little positive change. 

In my next blog I plan to look at these bottom two groups in a bit more detail in terms of how they might (sometimes legitimately) think about change, and also what we might do when encountering such people.

cheers,
Graham Firth
(still) Intensive Interaction Project Leader - LYPFT NHS Trust

Director: Intensive Interaction Institute