Innovation is change. A new leadership team (L2) is disrupting the norm and invoking necessary change to a new model of professional learning teams (PLTs). Each leadership team, the previous one (L1), and the current one (L2) approached change differently. The current model reveals how relationships and reflective practice are critical for innovation.
Change Management
Both leadership teams (L1 and L2) established a need to build more purposeful collaboration. Initial factors to implement change are physical – the school has difficulty with space, lacking space in the schedule for teachers to physically collaborate, but also mental space due to a hectic pace in – impeding mental capacity to grow and develop.
In recognizing this need for professional learning teams (PLT), the previous leadership team (L1) implemented a plan and affected change; however, the full faculty did not demonstrate a commitment to the PLT implementation. For four years, the L1 team has had difficulty in sustaining the trust of the faculty and resulted in low motivation by the faculty to build a collaborative group. Working backward, faculty members noted the L1 lacked transparency in stages of planning and implementing; change efficacy of the faculty was low (Weiner, 2009). According to Weiner, without the common belief in the change, implementation of the PLT model was difficult (2009).
The faculty demonstrated a lack of confidence in L1, leading to a difficulty in building enthusiasm and willingness to change. According to Lewin’s theory of change, the L1 team should have created a psychologically safe place when disrupting the traditional structure (Antwi & Kale, 2014). However, unable to do so, the L1 strategy became more autocratic by nature versus adaptive, weakening Lewin’s “moving” stage, where smaller influential groups is vital to implementing change (Antwi & Kale, 2014).
In contrast, the current leadership team (L2) had a different approach to determining organizational readiness. L2 created trust through transparency. The faculty identified the issue of PLTs, and common agreements were established. Under the lense of Kotter’s steps for change, L2 was able to create a sense of urgency, instilling greater efficacy for change (Weiner, 2009). Transparent in the vision and strategies, the immediate investment by the faculty in the change model was greater (Al-Haad & Kontour, 2015). Assessing the organizational readiness to change, allowed L2 to establish trust in the process (Weiner, 2009).
Perspectives
The success of L2 is the difference in approach and reception, leading to a reflective and adaptive process. L1 demonstrated strength in identifying the issue and implementing a plan; however, establishing trust proved challenging. L2 focused on building supportive relationships with the faculty through an adaptive leadership approach: faculty’s needs and goals were listened to and respected (Khan, 2017). Applying Kotter’s Leading Change model, L2 was successful in establishing a (1) sense of urgency, (2) a trusted guiding team, (3) a common vision, and (4) communication of the vision (Al-Haad & Kontour, 2015). The faculty demonstrated willingness and investment in the change ahead by forging common agreements.
Although L1 was unable to have full investment in the change, the L1 team was able to implement PLTs. The change was in process only, leaving the culture of the unchanged. L2, due to the relationship and trust, moved the culture from an on-site PLT to pair with professional learning networks via Twitter. Although traditionally labeled a tech school, there are difficulties in fully being current in practice and L2 was able to promote and build enthusiasm for being vulnerable to try something new.
L2, unlike L1, demonstrated the characteristics of an innovator. Kotter’s Leading Change model aligns with a reflective leader (Castelli, 2015) and innovator characteristics (Dyer, 2011). The first stages of Kotter’s model demonstrate the need for an innovative leader:
(1) The ability to associate with colleagues, showing the leadership diversity, connecting with each member, and establishing trust;
(2) question the status quo, displaying the vulnerability with suggestions;
(3) observe and respect the needs and goals of the faculty (Dyer, 2011).
L2 was able to instill trust and build change efficacy. By nurturing networking characteristics to lead to the implementation of change and aligning with experimenting characteristics, the faculty was infused with trust. Being an effective changemaker requires a skill set and a plan; the analysis reveals that trust and relationships are key to building enthusiasm and willingness to change and invest in the process.
Final Thoughts
Communication is important. The leadership who are changemakers are learners themselves. Leaders need to investigate, source, plan, and apply, then reflect in order to be transparent with the process.