On resistance to change

Recently I had cause to ponder the source of resistance I encountered in trying to introduce a new mental health system in a high school at which I provide psychological services. Opposition was encountered despite the sore need for mental hrealth sevices and the receipt of grant support for proposed additions to the on-going program.

During the past presidential campaign both presidential candidates attacked the present administration and promised change. Most voters also seemed to desire change but the change had to be according to their own definition of how it would be structured

A close relative of mine was violently opposed to the Democratic candidate before the election and extremely bitter about the outcome. Her perception of Barack Obama conformes to the worst stereotyping and slander that had been circulated by radical conservatives. She sincerely believes that he is a fanatical Moslem who consorts with terrorists. Furthermore he is a Socialist, despite the fact that she gladly accepts social security and medicare payments and was raised by a family that voted Democratic since FDR and the Great Depression. In her view it is highly likely that the new president will sell out to Islamic interests,will transfer inordinate amounts of her assets to undeserving poor people, will make her pay for universal health care. In fairness to her she opposes using federal bailout money to greedy bankers who caused the present financial crisis, yet somehow attributes the ultimate fault to lie with previous Democratic regimes. She sees no inconsistency in endorsing Republican free trade and anti-regulatory philosophy. Accepting her concepts as true, it is small wonder that she opposes change. I await the building of her air raid shelter.

It seems to me that reaction to proposed change is determined by a definable set of factors. Resistance to change may be directly related to the perceived magnitude of change from the status quo and the perceived risk to be incurred by change, and inversely related to the perceived value of the proposed change both persoanlly and to the system as a whole. Reformers endorsing change need to manipulate each of these factors to win support for their program. The Magnitude factor requires imposition of change in small and grsdually applied stages with proven success of each incremental modification. Attention to Risk requires demonstration of the feasibility of the planned changes without radical disruption of individual or the common good. Manipulation of Value perception requires attention in promoting visible, understandable, and concrete outcomes of change. Rather than emphasizing a global concept of satisfaction of the whatever administration is currently empowered, public relations persons need to address and measure public perceptions of specific components of each of the three determining attitudinal and emotional factors.