After completing the various readings for Unit 2, it has become abundantly clear that change is a challenge in a personal and organizational sense, to say it mildly.  I think we all can relate that a fear of the unknown is a real and constant barrier to change in many aspects of life.  I, career wise, have figuratively buried my head in the sand over the past few years, not really facing the reality of my situation.  I applied for jobs, tried my best to build my network, and took on contracts and projects which built new skills.  Many of these inspired me (and ultimately led me to enrol in this program), but were temporary, leading me to continually search for the next new and exciting prospect, in the hope it would be more of a prolonged one.  After doing this over a 5 year period, a considerable change was needed. 

I needed to uproot my life and leave my face to face community in order to, as established by Lewin (1947), unfreeze myself.  By ‘growing new skin’, I desire to now implement the change required to move to the next step in my career. 

In reviewing models for change, it has also become apparent that for organizational change to occur, individuals need to feel empowered and part of the process.  Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) mention that “when employees feel that change belongs to them, this holds them more responsible to ensure change succeeds” (p. 245).  Feeling part of the process can vary greatly depending on the size of the organization, but in the context of educational technology departments at the University of Guelph and Waterloo near to where I now live, it appears that they leverage the expertise of staff when guiding incremental changes in learning approach.  Weiner (2009) also elaborates on how members get involved in implementing organizational change in his three types: because they want to and value the change, because the have to due to having little choice, and because they ought to and feel obliged.  Seeing value and wanting to results in the highest commitment to organizational change (Weiner, 2009).

Biech’s (2007) change model is one that incorporates elements of many prior models, and can apply to a modern technologically driven workplace context.  She emphasizes the need for planning in the process for change, and how important it is to get staff harmonized into the company’s end goal early (Step 2).  In order to get commitment from staff who may not all be able to physically be in the same room, being consistent and clear through the steps in the process is essential.  Biech also reinforces in Step 3 how important it is for those directly responsible for learning or developing new tools or methods to implement the plan to not only have input, but to also understand the longer term process.  This applies directly to a context where a learning organization may be changing to a new LMS or learning approach using technology.

Although purely hypothetical, due to currently being unemployed, my leadership focus definitely attempts to have a clear plan in mind, but to seek reinforcement, discussion and group decision making.  Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) reference Kouzes and Posner (1995), when they  states that five exemplary leader practices are “model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart” (p. 239).  I lead by example, but show flexibility and openness to suggestions.  This has applied directly to my work as an educator, and how I modify and adapt lessons to meet the needs of learners.  This aligns with Biech’s change model, as well as participatory action research (PAR) and Evaluation, re-evaluation and action (ERA) models.  “When employees feel that change belongs to them, this holds them more responsible to ensure change succeeds” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 247).

One of the many challenges for managing change in digital learning environments is the growing and constant growth of available tools and LMS.  Technology in general is updated and morphing so quickly, that it is challenging for organizations to select a system or set of tools that they know will grow to meet their needs as available external options themselves change.  Weller and Anderson’s (2013) focus on resilience is particularly relevant here, as “resilience requires adaptation and evolution to new environmental conditions, but retains core identity” (p. 55).  This is essential in digital learning environments, as values and pedagogical focus need to remain, even with changes in design and tools used for learning.  In a sense, organizations who can integrate new tools without losing that ‘something’ that makes them successful and unique will be the ones to survive.  Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) referenced Chrusciel and Field (2006) when they said “winners will be able to adapt, learn and act quickly, losers will spend time trying to control and master change” (p. 243).

This definitely applies to both the organizations I’ve worked for, as well as to the learners I’ve taught in the context of training programs and distance learning for adults.  At my most recent organization, many staff members were resistant to switching to a blended model for learning, as well as to using SMART boards when they suddenly were purchased on mass for classes a few years ago.  I found myself quickly in high demand for classes being offered, as I swiftly developed skills to use the tools, as well as how to use them in tandem with already established curriculum and teaching methods. 

I was also intrigued by Feldstein’s blog post, which suggested that the future of LMS should be a situation where a modular learning environment exists which mixes tools and programs, and uses the best of each.  This kind of situation greatly appeals to me, as there is no one LMS which has functionality to apply to varied contexts.  Feldstein (2017) suggests that LMS vendors in this context can see their systems as “environments that learning apps run on rather than merely the environment that they run in”.  This may seem like a utopia where all companies openly share and get along, but it does to me sound like a rich and highly resilient model for learning in distance learning contexts. 

The image above was obtained through Creative Commons.

References

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234–262.

Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD

Feldstein, M. (2017, May 28). A flexible, interoperable digital learning platform: Are we there yet? [blog post].

Weller, M., & Anderson, T. (2013). Digital resilience in higher education Digital Resilience in Higher Education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16(1), 53-66.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1–9.