How have the theories/models for change adapted to take into consideration our current technological, economic and societal contexts?
Based on Al-Haddad and Kotnour’s (2015) descriptions of change methods and Biech’s (2007) History of Change Design, theories and models have generally adapted to include more emphasis on involvement of all stakeholders early in the change process. More specifically, using facilitation strategies has become more common. An example of this is shown in Hamel’s Insurrection method in the “create a coalition” stage (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015).
Which theories/models do you think best align with your own approach to leadership? Do these approaches align with your organizational context?
The change model that really resonates with me at the present time is Kotter’s Leading Change method (Kotter, 2012). The method is straight forward and logical, but highlights things that I think are important functions of leadership: creating a team to develop and lead the change, facilitating the development and communication of a vision and enabling people by removing obstacles (Kotter, 2012). I also do focus on creating small or quick wins early in the change process as my experience has shown this is inspirational and creates motivation to fully implement or continue the change. This method is actually one that I currently employ in change management. Recently we introduced our new Instructor Professional Development Program. I created a sense of urgency by expressing using literature and quotes from instructors why implementing the program was so necessary. I hired two Masters of Education students to form part of the program development team (along with my existing staff). Together the team refined the vision of how the program would work and specifically developed the introductory session. I focused on removing barriers for the Instructors within the program and ensuring it would be a positive, beneficial experience which we started by focusing energy on developing an engaging introductory session that involved learning and self reflection. Feedback from this session was excellent, so it was a short term win. We ensured that we followed this session up with an e-mail summarizing their learning and providing them guidance on their next step. It works well within my current organizational context because I work with a lot of specialists with knowledge, skills and experience to contribute to the vision and leading change itself.
What role does leadership play in managing change?
Weiner (2009) states that the consistent messaging and actions of a leader makes team members more confident that they can succeed in change as well as more committed to the change itself. Kouzes and Posner (1999) actually outline five practices essential to exemplary leadership and these items coincide with many of the change models (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). So with respect to change, leaders do in fact “challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way and encourage” (Kouzes & Posner, 1999, p. xiii).
What are the unique challenges in managing change for learning in digital environments? Weller & Anderson (2013) offer a model based on resilience. What attributes do you think would work well within your own context?
I believe communication and collaboration are two of the biggest challenges in managing change for learning in the digital environment as often face-to-face communication with all stakeholders is not possible. The organization that I currently work in supports airworthiness. The Air Force has several different systems in place to manage change related to airworthiness (Sharpe & Leversedge, 2014). There is the flight safety system which responds to accidents or incidents by ensuring the route cause is discovered, tracked and actioned. Additionally AF9000, the Air Force quality management system promotes continuous improvement related to technical procedures. The DND Airworthiness program as well as procurement processes supports change management related to air assets. These systems are all designed to enable change within the system itself as well as change within knowledge, procedure or physical assets, that is they have a high degree of latitude (Weller & Anderson, 2013). They are also designed to make change as straightforward and simple as possible while maintaining safety of flight, so they are reasonably resistant (Weller & Anderson, 2013). To maximize operational capability, systems are designed to operate close to the threshold of the acceptable level of safety, so they are precarious (Weller & Anderson, 2013); however, they are also very resistant to any external factors (Weller & Anderson, 2013) as the programs are very strong. In addition to these systems, the Air Force has recently Operation Innovation focused on enabling innovation and change (Thatcher, 2017). Among other things, the program enables pitches and suggestions from all levels to be heard by the decision makers (Thatcher, 2017). Some of these pitches have already been successfully embodied.
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
Biech, E. (2007). Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=cFJ3iwaE7MwC&pgis=1
Kotter, J. P. et. al. (2012). Leading Change : Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, (June).
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1999). Encouraging the heart: a leader’s guide to rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sharpe, E., & Leversedge, T. F. J. (2014). A Knowledge-Management Proposal for the RCAF. The Royal Canadian Air Force Journal, 3(2), 39–50.
Thatcher, C. (2017). Operation Innovation. Skies, January/February, 24–35. Retrieved from https://assets.skiesmag.com/digital/2017/CSV7I1/html5/index.html?page=1&noflash
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67