February 2019 – Amanda's Blog

External Scan

Figure 1. Change In Digital Learning Environments. Created by Amanda Dunn. February 2019. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Two separate interviews were conducted with colleagues regarding their recent experience with change. Although both interviewees were from the same organization, they chose to focus on different changes. One (Case A) chose to focus on the implementation of new curriculum, which was changed drastically. The second (Case B) chose to discuss a procedural change that happened at their school. Although they were different in their context and level of organizational readiness for change, both cases resembled Biech’s (2007) CHANGE model and how it can be used to implement change, and both utilized change management Theory O.

One of the main differences between the two cases discussed, was the amount of organizational readiness for change found within the workplace. Weiner (2009) discusses organizational readiness for change and how it is developed. Weiner (2009) explains how change efficacy, “task demands, resources availability, and situational factors” (para. 15), and change valence, the value members place in the change, impact the implementation of change. In Case A, it appeared that there was a lack of organizational readiness, which resulted in issues with implementation, some of which are still being experienced. This was discussed as being due to a lack of time to implement the change, as well as, a lack of understanding of the tasks needed and what impact they would have. In comparison, Case B seemed to have much higher level of organizational readiness. The motivation for the change was discussed well in advance allowing staff to get behind the change, and sufficient resources were given to support the change. This gave staff higher change efficacy, which allowed for a smooth implementation (Weiner, 2009).

Both interviewees discussed how they were motivated and felt proud to be a part of the change that happened. This was a result of using the change management Theory O: “long-term approach that aims to create higher performance by fostering a powerful culture and capable workforce” (Biech, 2007, Theories section, para. 5). In Case A, the teacher was clear that they believed the new curriculum would be a benefit to the students. They were given multiple opportunities to make suggestions and work with leadership to make further changes. In Case B, the procedural change was started by employees and brought to the employer. By utilizing the softer approach with more employee participation, employees were proud of their participation, and their place in the organization (Biech, 2007).

The CHANGE model, or a variation of it, was used in both cases as the step by step structure of the change. Case B was more in-line with the CHANGE model, and used a combination of attitudinal, informational, and facilitation strategies in their approach (Biech, 2007). Case A lacked an attitudinal strategy at the school level, which resulted in some push back and issues raised by members. The CHANGE model is broken up into 6 steps starting at C (see Figure 1). In Case A, the first 3 steps were not taken at the school, but instead at a ministry level. This left the leader of the implementation at the school starting at step 4. Although the previous 3 steps had been taken, they did not include leaders at the school levels. Biech (2007) discussed how this is a common step organization start on, but can often lead to challenges, which was seen in this example. In contrast, Case B successfully followed the CHANGE model. It started at the school level with one member challenging the current way of handling paperwork (step 1). Significant time was taken to get both members and leadership on board (steps 2 and 3). Support process were created before implementation to ease the transition (step 4) and the change was successfully implemented (step 5). The reasons given for the change were enough that when the change was finally implemented, the organization was ready, motivated, and properly supported. Both cases are still relatively new, and thus still experiencing modification to their designs. However, both of them are accepted as the new reality within the organization and any further change would be seen as moving forward (step 6).

Even though both cases experienced different changes, their approach to change was similar. DL environments are often tasked with fitting in to a world designed for traditional face to face schools. As education changes, it is important that DL environments are ready for these changes, and are able to successfully implement them. By following the CHANGE model, or adapting it for their specific needs, they will be able to stay current and adapt to the new world, and be prepared to handle the next organizational change that may come their way.

References:

Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD [Books24x7 database]

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

Manage change or motivate change?

As LRNT 525- Leading change in Digital Learning moves on from the traits of leadership towards leading change, I am left thinking about how change is handled within my own context.

Weiner (2009) discusses organizational readiness and uses motivation theory and social cognitive theory to demonstrate how organizations can be prepared for change. The readiness to change is dependent on the demanding nature of the task, the availability of resources, and specific situational factors (Weiner, 2009). Having previously read about these theories in LRNT 522, I was very much intrigued on how motivation theory, which is individualized and based on intrinsic motivation, can be applied to the entire organization (Keller & Suzuki, 2004). My original thought was echoed by Weiner (2009) discussing how commitment to change is more successful when individuals want to, and not because they are feeling told to or have to as a job requirement. This is an interesting concept for me to consider, because unless you have full autonomy in your give job, there will be some aspect of change because you are told to.

As someone who works for in public education in BC, we are at the end of a major change to our curriculum. So when Weiner (2009) discusses the “internal political environment” (para. 16) and how that can have an impact on implementation, I think of some of the polarizing discussions that have come out of the new curriculum change. It is safe to say that within the entire province, not every teacher agreed with the curriculum change. Furthermore, much like discussed by Weiner (2009), the time given to implement these changes was not adequate and resulted in more dissent and delays to final implementations (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2017).

This lead me to consider the following prompt: What role does leadership play in managing change?

If leaders are to manage change, and therefore motivate followers to change, can we use similar motivation theories that are applied to learning?

When previously discussing motivation, teachers motivating learners were discussed, not leaders motivating followers. For example, the ARCS model (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) can be used to develop motivation for e learning ( Keller & Suzuki, 2004). By using this model, the leader should focus on specific aspect, such as overall job satisfaction, in the hope to increase motivation.

Considering what we know about motivation and how teachers motivate students to learn, can leaders use the same model to implement change in the workplace? Could you see yourself using this model to manage change?

Amanda

References

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2017). New curriculum transition extended for graduation years. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017EDUC0103-001803.

Keller, J., Suzuki (2004). Learner motivation and E-learning design: a multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239.

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

What makes a good leader versus an admired leader?

What makes a good leader versus an admired leader? Is Context important?

As our first unit wraps up for LRNT 525: Leading Change in Digital Learning and we are tasked with reflecting on our own experiences and opinions on leadership, I am left pondering the above questions. To introduce my context, I have been a teacher for 4 years, and although I have some formal experience with leadership in the workplace (Curriculum Department Head and occasional Teacher in Charge), the majority of my professional leadership experience has been informal. My current teaching position is at an online distributed learning (DL) school, and involves teaching multiple subject areas. Similar to many DL schools, the number of staff is relatively low, but subject materials, and our experience and comfort working online is varied.

Given my context, the questions above lead me to consider what it is that I admire in a leader. Initially, as we determined important traits of admired leaders, the word admired greatly influenced my opinion. The Oxford English Dictionary defined admired as someone who is “considered praiseworthy or excellent; highly regarded, esteemed” (Admired, n.d.). The vision of great leaders of social and political movements came to mind, such as Martin Luther King, and the traits of inspiring, forward-looking, supportive. However, as I shift my focus on leaders of digital learning environments, the traits that I envision them prioritizing are not the same, at least not all of them. For example, for me to admire a leader in digital learning environment, they still need to inspire, but not at the same level. Furthermore, not only do the traits slightly differ, but the theories that support the traits differ as well, as digital learning environments require different skill sets when compared to other learning environments. Sheninger (2014) discusses how trust becomes a priority as “leaders must give up control and trust to students and teachers to use real-world tools” (p. 2), a trait that I had not prioritized earlier. To establish the trust, I believe that a reflective leadership approach combined with a distribution of leadership tasks would allow for these changes to be implemented.

Trust is something that must be maintained over time. A reflective leadership approach “is the consistent practice of reflection, which involves conscious awareness of behaviours, situations and consequences with the goal of improving organizational performance (Castelli, 2016, p. 217). Using this leadership approach will allow for the needed space to ensure that trust is maintained. Furthermore, as discussed by Castelli (2016), reflective leadership improves performance, reengages staff interests and efforts, and further motivates them. In my context, this could be beneficial to the teachers and students with improvement to the learning environments, as well as beneficial to the Principal for overall school performance and funding. By utilizing reflective leadership, leaders are seen as supportive due to “raising the self-esteem and confidence levels of followers” (Castelli, 2016, p. 228) which translates to trust. The trait supportive was prioritized as one of my top traits of an admired leader, and is heavily intertwined with trust. Due to the ever changing nature of technology, it is crucial that educational leaders are even more supportive of followers as they experience change. Within my own school, not all staff are comfortable with technology and the learning curve associated with new technology can be difficult. Therefore, for our school to be successful when experience change, it is important that all staff feel supported, either by the Principal, or by other staff filling in informal leadership roles.

Due to the diversity of digital learning environments, and the staff that works in them, Principals may not always be the best choice to take on every task. Klar, Huggins, Hammonds, and Buskey (2015) discuss distributed leadership and how it can be used as “A purposeful approach to increasing school effectiveness through the involvement of other formal and informal school leaders in leadership activities” (as cited in Huggins, 2017, p. 3). Having a leader who understands this, and is able to distribute leadership tasks, supporting staff as they go, will allow for the entire team to function with more synergy. However, the risk of failure becomes more present when leadership positions are taken on by other people with less experience (Huggins, 2017). Whenever there is change, there is risk and fear of failure, and leaders must be supportive of potential pitfalls so that others may grow in their own leadership capacities. The Principal in these situations should be forward-looking, and consider that the minor pit falls now, will make their staff better leaders in the future. This mirrors Huggins (2017) discussion on how building leadership capacities in a process, and is one that takes time to develop.

As the digital learning environments continue to evolve, it is important that the leaders of these environments are able to guide us through the unknown. As every situation is different, ideas and solutions may differ depending on the situation. Therefore, it is important that leaders are aware of their strengths and weakness, and utilize their team’s strengths. To be able to do this, among many things leaders must be trustworthy, supportive, an forward thinking as discussed here. By utilizing reflective leadership, and trusting their team with distribution of the leadership, leaders will be able to successfully implement change within their digital learning environments.

Amanda

References

Admired. (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/view/Entry/2572.

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.

Huggins, K. (2017). Developing Leadership Capacity in Others: An Examination of High School Principals’ Personal Capacities for Fostering Leadership. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 12(1).

Sheninger, E. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership. International Centre for Leadership in Education.