Category: LRNT 525

Reflecting on the entire LRNT 525: Leading Change in Digital Learning course and the first post that I wrote about being a good versus an admired leader (Dunn, 2019), I was given a few prompts to consider.

1. Think back to your initial post on leadership – has your perspective changed?

My perspective regarding how leadership should be approached within my own context has remained the same. As mentioned in my previous post, utilizing a combination of reflective and distributive leadership would be the best option for my own context (Castelli, 2016).  

1. In your current role, how can you help lead a change within your organization?
   
   One of the main things that I can do to help lead change, is work towards getting myself and other more comfortable with the idea of change. As discussed by (Weiner, 2009), an organization’s readiness for change has a huge impact on if change will be successful. Understanding that we are in a time where change should be expected, we can now start to condition ourselves.
2. What can you envision doing in the future?

For me, I can envision taking leaderships role with more formality. Understanding that the success of changes within organizations are impacted so heavily on the state before the change even begins (Watt, 2014; Weiner, 2009; Weller, & Anderson, 2009). In reflection, I believe I am someone who use to jump right into projects, and did not fully assess the current situation. Throughout this course, it was clear that spending more time laying the groundwork  is beneficial to leading successful change. This can be done by assessing and improving organizational readiness, working on the resilience to change, as well as making sure to have a good understanding of the important areas project management. Lastly, due to my school already utilizing an LMS that gathers data information, it would be interesting to better utilize learning analytics a the potential there seems great (Sclater, Peasgood, & Mullan, 2016).

It is interesting considering leadership traits, as someone who has no formal training in leadership, but often put in those roles, there are some things that I have inherently done, and others I am noticing that I should put more energy into. In your own leadership journey, are there skills/traits that you have always done just because, and then later realized they were part of being a formal leader? If so, what were they?

References

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

Dunn, A. (2019). What makes a good leader versus an admired leader? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0052/what-makes-a-good-leader-versus-an-admired-leader/.

Sclater, N., Peasgood, A, & Mullan, J. (2016). Learning analytics in higher education: A review of UK and international practice. Jisc.

Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.

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

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

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).

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)