Questioning the "big assumptions". Part II: recognizing organizational contradictions that impede institutional change.

Abstract

Well-designed medical curriculum reforms can fall short of their primary objectives during implementation when unanticipated or unaddressed organizational resistance surfaces. This typically occurs if the agents for change ignore faculty concerns during the planning stage or when the provision of essential institutional safeguards to support new behaviors are neglected. Disappointing outcomes in curriculum reforms then result in the perpetuation of or reversion to the status quo despite the loftiest of goals. Institutional resistance to change, much like that observed during personal development, does not necessarily indicate a communal lack of commitment to the organization's newly stated goals. It may reflect the existence of competing organizational objectives that must be addressed before substantive advances in a new direction can be accomplished. The authors describe how the Big Assumptions process (see previous article) was adapted and applied at the institutional level during a school of medicine's curriculum reform. Reform leaders encouraged faculty participants to articulate their reservations about considered changes to provided insights into the organization's competing commitments. The line of discussion provided an opportunity for faculty to appreciate the gridlock that existed until appropriate test of the school's long held Big Assumptions could be conducted. The Big Assumptions process proved useful in moving faculty groups to recognize and questions the validity of unchallenged institutional beliefs that were likely to undermine efforts toward change. The process also allowed the organization to put essential institutional safeguards in place that ultimately insured that substantive reforms could be sustained.