This week, I was reading about methods and theories of change management. I want to share my thoughts on how change models and theories have developed, which align best with \u00a0post-secondary education institutions and what role leadership plays within a context of change management. Additionally, I want to address how change management applies to a shifting digital learning environment and identify qualities beneficial to facilitate change management within the context of post-secondary education.<\/p>\n
The term, change management, indicates how methods and theories evolve and change to support the needs of the environment (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Lewin (1946, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) contributed his findings on human behaviour to the field of change management. He observed how organizations moved from an individual focus to a group approach and believed, in order to influence organizations, structures could only be affected through a group focused approach. However, even within a group, one must consider that change can only occur when the individual himself is open to change (Cummings & Huse, 1989; French & Bell, 1984 as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Additionally, Weiner (2009) offers organizations themselves need to be ready for change to ensure success. A further factor to consider in change management is the influence of the external environment. With the arrival of Web 2.0, institutions deal with the ever more encroaching influence of the internet. Gone are the days when institutions could function primarily within the isolation of their walls of education. Today, we live in a world where the external environment has penetrated these walls of exclusivity, aiding the arrival of the open system school concept. The open school view considers the influence of both, the external (internet) and internal (individuals and groups) environment (Buckley, 1968; Scott, 1987 as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), when seeking solutions to arising challenges. In 2011, Lalonde reflected on this view and argued \u201cthat the open systems require ongoing change to adapt to the revolutionary environment and this creates a strategy of continuous learning that becomes integrated within the organizational structure\u201d ( p. 236, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), thus addressing today\u2019s need for change management.<\/p>\n
Change management methods offer a road map for post-secondary education institutions to use its people to implement change, using a shared vision, while maintaining adherence to institutional structures and mission statements (Grover, 1999 as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). This creates consistency within change, gives ownership to the people directly involved and affected by the change, and addresses Miller\u2019s (1982, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) concern that change can cause a great deal of insecurity, and because of this, anxiety within individuals and a group. I believe, the theory aligning most closely to the environment of post-secondary education, reflecting Grover and Miller\u2019s findings and addressing Weiner’s (2009) beliefs, is Luecke\u2019s Method (2003, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Luecke’s Method proposes, leaders create ownership within individuals or groups to identify problems to keep institutions competitive and to find solutions that include organizational details. He suggests, to change elements from the outside in one must avoid a top down approach, focus on results and use positive outcomes to change policies and procedures within the institution. A review of those policies and procedures supports a responsive approach to change in the environment and ensures proposed changes are implemented.<\/p>\n
Applied in post-secondary education, Luecke\u2019s Method (2003, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) can be perceived as threatening to management, as leaders are asked to relinquish a top down approach and hand over solution finding and decision making to employees. I believe, for the most part, I have been able to experience Luecke\u2019s Method of change management within my working environment as working groups develop new structures in response to external changes within my institution. Leaders, within a change management environment, may also want to consider Kouzes and Posner (1995, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), who offer a leadership approach that addresses empathy. They deem \u201cmodeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act and encouraging the heart\u201d (p. 13) as an effective leadership approach. This takes the affected individuals into consideration, and inspires human centred leadership.<\/p>\n
Human centred leadership and change management within a fast changing environment of digital learning, may pave the road to allow institutions to be able to adjust to new conditions. Weller and Anderson (2013) suggest resilience to be an aptitude leaders need to consider when working within a world of rapid changes that require responsiveness. In addition, Taleb (2012) offers a view of antifragility, pushing for risk taking in a world of post-secondary education, intolerant of mistakes. He offers an interesting argument when he states, antifragility flourishes under turmoil and ambiguity, growing sounder because of it, whereas resilience merely survives without changing its structure. Digital learning environments are exposed to rapid changes in technology, and Taleb suggests \u201cthe process of discovery (or innovation, or technological progress) itself depends on antifragile tinkering [and] aggressive risk bearing\u201d (para. 4). Additionally, he states \u201ceverything top-down fragilizes and blocks antifragility and growth, everything bottom-up thrives under the right amount of stress and disorder\u201d (para. 4), supporting Luecke\u2019s Method (2003, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) of resisting a top down approach within change management. Considering the need for risk taking when change is required, I deeply relate to Taleb\u2019s statements and would add antifragility as a quality to support change management.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Al Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015).\u00a0Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0Journal of Organizational Change Management<\/em>,\u00a028<\/em>(2), 234-262.<\/p>\n Taleb, N. N. (2012).\u00a0Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder <\/em>(Vol. 3). Random House Incorporated.<\/p>\n Weiner, B. J. (2009).\u00a0A theory of organizational readiness for change<\/a>.\u00a0Implementation Science<\/i>,\u00a04(67)<\/i>.<\/p>\n