The theories and models created for change often seem to involve numerous steps and elements to get ready for coming change. This is great in an environment where change can be planned, researched, carefully and methodically implemented. That’s not the case anymore when looking at the rapid changes happening in the current technological, economic and societal contexts.
In his theory, Bryan J Weiner (2009) discusses the work that needs to be done to establish and overall readiness amongst an organization before making a change. He asserts that in order to make change, there needs to be a commitment and that members need to be both “psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action (i.e., willing and able)” (2009, p. 2). This would be ideal but when looking at how quickly change is happening within areas like technology it is easy to see how waiting for all members to come on board would simply be unsustainable in long term practice within these fields. A more granular example of the speed of this change can be seen when looking at the number of updates in two years of the popular programming language Python (https://www.python.org/downloads/). Since 2017 there have been over 20 different releases of this program, almost one every single month. This makes most of the current models for change too slow. That said the idea of resilience in relation to educational change as suggested by Weller and Anderson (2013) works extremely well and gives a flexible approach to change while still watching for the threshold of reasonable change.
When looking at these elements I found that the approaches brought up by Weller and Anderson (2013) also fit best with the approach I aim to bring to my own personal work. Working in the technology education field there is a constant look at the latitude of change possible within a system and pushing against a system that is relatively resistant to change. This means that typically that I am pushing precariously close to the limit of the system we are within and always measuring how close we can get to that line while still ensuring that we have organizational support. For me this means looking at how we can potentially utilize new innovative digital elements for teaching, such as Open Education Resources (OERs) while still maintaining our work within a restrictive Learning Management System (LMS).
The role of the leader in ensuring change is smooth and adopted by a team is to watch the limits of the organization while still looking at how to push forward. It’s easier for a leader to stay within the status quo but it takes a good leader to look how to evolve and potentially improve. It’s also the job of a leader to ensure that they are ensuring that support is given to their followers. As is discussed by Ken Udas (2008) the leader needs to understand that there is an established system and organization that needs to be followed but also that it is their responsibility to foster and support change as needed. An example of this would be to understand that there may be a legacy system, like an LMS, that is expected to be used. As Michael Feldstein (2014) discusses, there should be leeway for a teacher or learner to develop their own control on the learning environment but this is often not the case within an LMS system. It is the job of a leader to help look at how these walled gardens can be utilized to connect and work with outside tools, rather than against them. Feldstein (2014) follows up on this in his discussion of taking the LMS and making it more open and adaptive to allow greater control for both learner and teacher. In the case study proposed by Felstein (2014) he advocates as a leader to actually abandon the traditional LMS for a Learning Management Operating System (LMOS) that allows modularization further modularization and customization.
Overall the rate of change within the digital learning environment is one that will always present unique challenges that are hard to anticipate. The best way to work with these is likely to look at building the resilience within a team. With that in mind the case study of Feldstein also shows that resilience and persistence is sometimes also necessary from a leader. Feldstein (2006) and his work to remove the restriction of the LMS can be seen 2006, which is proof that a strong leader also needs to stick to their goals and advocate for the change they believe in.
Download Python. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.python.org/downloads/
Feldstein, M. (2017, February 23). On False Binaries, Walled Gardens, and Moneyball. Retrieved from https://mfeldstein.com/false-binaries-walled-gardens-moneyball/
Feldstein, M. (2017, February 23). Dammit, the LMS. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/dammit-lms/
Feldstein, M. (2018, September 19). A Flexible, Interoperable Digital Learning Platform: Are We There Yet? Retrieved from https://mfeldstein.com/flexible-interoperable-digital-learning-platform-yet/
Udas, K. (2008, June 30). Distributed Learning Environments and OER: The Change Management Challenge. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160309200155/http://mfeldstein.com/distributed-learning-environments-and-oer-the-change-management-challenge/
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science,4(1). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
Weller, M., & Anderson, T. (n.d.). Digital Resilience in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2013&&article=559
February 18, 2019 at 4:54 pm
Great post Jeff; I particularly like the photo!
You mentioned that within your own work you are constantly pushing close to the limits of the tools and digital elements available to you. This reminds me of Rogers’ categories of adopters where people are divided into five categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, as cited in LaMorte, 2018). I am thus wondering how you think this relates to leadership; should leaders in education determine the direction of an organization, or would the organization be better served if they supported innovators and early adaptors in the directions they choose? Personally, I think the ideal combination is a mix of these two options. Leaders need to ensure organizations stay current and move forward strategically; however, innovators and early adopters could also provide guidance on what direction to take and what technologies to pilot and adopt. Weiner (2009) notes that change commitment (employee support for the proposed change) is a key indicator of change readiness. I think that if leadership takes cues from those innovators and early adopters working in the field, it will be much easier to achieve change commitment as employees are likely to value the experiences of their peers.
References
LaMorte, W. (2018) Diffusion of Innovation Theory [Learning Module] Retrieved from http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories4.html
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
February 18, 2019 at 5:32 pm
I think you make a great point when looking at who runs the innovation within an organization. The innovators and early adaptors often have difficulty working within constraints (especially within the typically tight educational setting) and often try to go around the “red tape” that almost always exists. I think it’s the job of the innovator to promote and suggest the ideas, but it becomes the role of the leader to look at the actual need vs. the perceived need. That’s where the strategy and guidance that you mentioned comes in. It puts the leadership in a difficult position of not wanting to block the innovation but also looking at logistics.
Henry Chesbrough and Adrienne Kardon Crowther (2006) talk of innovation coming from outside of industry which also supports what you said about the mix that makes change successful. In my workplace we’re currently we’re looking at Competency Based Education (CBE) and how to successfully implement it. This also means that the leaders need to work with outside groups to allow more innovation and look at how the changes can be implemented strategically. These are some of the top lessons talked about by Book (2014) when looking at how to implement CBE. So many interesting things to look at and figure out, along with many different issues for leaders.
Book, P. A. (2014). All Hands on Deck: Ten Lessons from Early Adopters of Competency-Based Education. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&d Management, 36(3), 229-236.