Assumptions

«I think the intention regarding making this project work, was good. We thought about the tourism industry and about letting them partake, the whole time, but I don’t think it was thoroughly

investigated in advance whether they thought it was a good idea. A whole lot of assumptions took place.»

The better mousetrap theory

The theory of “The better mouse trap” is based on the assumption that if an innovation is successful, interest will spread, and the wanted results will ultimately follow. The managers assume that by making use of an approach where they let the results speak for them selves, the employees will understand and accept the change initiative, and the challenge of

diffusion will be overcome. Senge (et al., 1999:976), among others, considers this to be a misunderstood description of how change initiatives should spread throughout an organization, and one that is not sustainable in the long run.

If the agent choose to engage a small group of recipients in identifying the need for change, and then later aiming to gain broader employee support and commitment for that proposal, this will often not be as effective (Weick & Quinn, 1999: 362; Piderit, 2000: 791).

«It was challenging to promote a whole valley as ‘The Medieval Valley’ when only half of the

participants wanted to partake. After a while we chose to not use any more energy on those who said that ‘this doesn’t interest us’ – because it was pointless. During the course of the process, there were fewer open meetings. We chose to work with those that wanted to partake, and we assumed that once we had created some results, the others would want to become a part of it.»

Distribution of information

Change agents often mistakenly assume that understanding is sufficient to produce action.

They are likely to emphasize conversations for understanding over conversation for performance and as a consequence, they are likely to see little or no action (Beer et al.,

1990; Ford & Ford, 1995; Ford, 2008: 367). It is a naïve assumption to think that recipient understanding and acceptance will lead to action. If change agents make this assumption, they may inappropriately attribute the lack of action to resistance (Ford et al, 2008: 367).

«Many participants found it to be a good initiative, and we put representatives from the tourism industry in The Internal Board. Thus, we thought about letting the tourism businesses partake the whole time. But many of them weren’t to positive regarding the idea. We engaged different speakers, who explained during seminars, that calling oneself ‘The Medieval Valley’ was something positive.

This was hard for the tourism industry to grasp. Many did not trust it fully; while other participants were not very excited about it.»

Grabbing fter the low-hanging fruit

By engaging in behavior related to the better mousetrap theory, people are often motivated by quickly being able to show to observable results. This often makes them overlook the deeper issues that are being sidestepped, and fail to develop the learning capabilities that leads to the wanted sustainable change. Believing that the results will speak for themselves, is a classic assumption made by leaders (Senge et al.,1999:5913).

The fundamental flaw in most change agents’ strategies is that they focus on their innovation, on what they are trying to do - rather than on understanding how the larger culture, structures and norms of their organization or company will react to their efforts (Senge et al., 1999: 657).

A unilateral phenomenon

Change agents tends to objectify the resistance as if it existed independent of them and as if they had nothing to do with its creation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Ford, 2008:

364); assuming that resistance is a unilateral phenomenon. The reality is that resistance is at least partially dependent on the behavior of the agents themselves, and it is

important to see both sides of the story. It is both inaccurate and simplistic to view resistance as coming only from “over there, in them”; and from the behaviors and

attitudes of the change recipients. This perception assumes that only the recipients must alter their behaviors, and that the change would easily succeed if it were not for their irrational actions that purposefully block the implementation (Ford&Ford, 2010:24).

What they fail to realize when they blame resistance is how this approach causes a distance between the managers and the people who are expected to implement, and

most likely work the closest with the change once its implemented. Approaching a change context with the perception of the resistors being the roadblock will rob managers of a powerful lever in the conduct of change (Ford&Ford, 2010:27).

«The question is how one interprets the term ‘The Medieval Valley’.

I think that car racing is just as much a medieval activity as anything else.»

3.2 “RESISTANCE TO CHANGE”

In the case one of the main findings was that the change recipients felt that the change agents had treated them unfairly and that being labeled “resistant” and “negative” did not match their perception of what took place. In the first section the change agents’

understanding of resistance was looked into, in this upcoming section I will take a look at how the recipients understand the phenomenon and its implications, and how this knowledge can be interpreted in light of the case of “The medieval valley”. The research question I will investigate in this section is: “How do change recipients understand and act upon ‘resistance’?”