“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” -from: ‘Future Shock’ by Alvin Toffler (written in 1970)

Being embedded in aviation for 30 years, specifically flying and pilot training for the last 20 years, I have seen astonishing change. The way we fly, the equipment we operate, and the regulations we are (appropriately, in most cases) saddled with have undergone a tectonic shift. Technological advances have forced nearly every single change of merit in the mentioned time frame.

Airspace use is now more time and fuel efficient, regulatory compliance has seen all the positive and negative effects of the dawn and establishment of the digital age, and training…….has lagged sadly behind.

I was chief instructor the most successful training facility in the country and when I assumed the role, was given the entire course catalog on transparencies; we were teaching on overhead projectors. This was 2002. As an individual who has an affinity for technology (at times bordering on neomania) I was excited to adapt teaching strategies that were being used in other industries that could massively streamline the processes I saw. I came to realize, due to a few very uncomfortable experiences, that not only was my industry behind, it would actively combat progress.

Being a (hopefully) progressive manager, and married to someone with a Masters Degree in organizational leadership, concepts of change management were not new to me. I had what I would describe as a well above average understanding of the landscape. What I have learned though, is:

  • the degree of specialization in this field is impressive
  •  that knowing about something, is very different than knowing how to operate it.

I have often been astonished by what intelligent people decide to study (a friend did her Phd dissertation on the caloric expenditure of an obscure rodent during mating) but change management is vital and timely. The degree and rate of change that is commonplace in contemporary society, and as a result education, now lead me to believe the quote, apparently wrongly attributed to Darwin that :”the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.” (Megginson, 1963). Adaptors, it appears, may become the new apex predators.

 There are numerous issues I know see in retrospect that caused some organizations unable to adapt to a changing environment, while others flourished. With respect to limitations of one blog post, I’ll focus on the biggest from my experience, Organizational Readiness.

When Weiner (2009) described organizational readiness as “a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so.” (para. 3) it strikes a visceral chord with me as I see how critical two aspects of that statement are; committed, and confident.

Organizations who were not committed, never were able to overcome the cultural inertia, and discomfort, to turn concepts into new behaviours. Likewise, the confidence element seemed to provide vital stamina when resistance arose, either internal or external, to the new behaviours. Promoting belief that the change was not only important, but achievable was the special responsibility of leadership.

Accepting that aviation still has strong roots in military philosophy and structure, my observations may not necessarily be extrapolated to other industries, but when Weiner writes “Organizational readiness for change is a multi-level con- struct.” it has been my observation that Leadership has been the defining level in successful change. I have observed motivated and confident employees fail in advancing their organization due to leadership resistance, and visionary leaders watch their enterprises fail due to poor employee buy-in. In the second case, while it would appear leadership was not the culprit, I believe that in the era of change, establishing buy-in may be the most important role in a leader’s job description.

So where does that leave today’s leaders? I’d guess for the most part in one of two camps: Overconfident or confused. The manager who believes she has a complete grasp may be as dangerous as the one paralyzed by options. I would count myself in either of those camps, depending on the day! In this case, a “roadmap to the change management literature” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 234) is a welcome resource. I’ll be using this resource immediately, as I have just received a safety management position requiring considerable organizational change. What I notice in the evolution of the literature and research, is that there seems to be a shift in the intention and application of the theories and models. Rather than being a process that an organization may need to go through, the tone has shifted to one where organizational change is a perpetual state.

With change being the new normal (as absurd as that reads!) problems arise that no model or theory can properly address: How much change is good, and at what pace? While I like many of the concepts in “Digital Resilience in Higher Education” by Weller and Anderson (2013) even I, as a confessed sometimes neomaniac have to wonder if leaders in education should embrace change, or be a stand for some established structure. Should there not be at least some resistance to change in general to shield the student, institution, and public in general from the sensation that we have stepped into a void where nobody knows the laws of physics.

This underlying risk seems to be the key issue we are facing. The risk that if we change too fast, we may follow fruitless paths, yet if we delay, we may become obsolete or irrelevant. I believe this risk must now be assumed by leadership. Not assumed from an accountability perspective, but from a navigation perspective. We must decide, in advance, our pacing strategy. Change is no longer a sprint, but a marathon.

 

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.

Megginson, L (1963). Lessons from Europe for American Business. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 4, (Published jointly by The Southwestern Social Science Association and the University of Texas Press.)

Toffler, A. (1971). Future shock. Bantam.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation science, 4(1), 67.

Weller, M., & Anderson, T. (2013). Digital resilience in higher education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 16(1).