Change management is approached through the lenses of theories, strategies or frameworks, models, and then adapted approaches to an organization’s culture (Biech, 2007). The change management theories that best align with my approach to leadership in a K12 digital learning environment are: systems theory, whereby all components and people in an organization are considered part of an interrelated system; and Theory O – revolving around organizational capabilities (versus Theory E – revolving around economic value) (Beer & Nohria, as cited in Biech, 2007). The long-term approach of Theory O, combined with its focus on “performance by fostering a powerful culture and capable workforce” (Biech, “Theories, Strategies”, para. 6-7) are particularly well-aligned to a K12 organizational context – at least from the perspective of a teacher. The perspective and financial priorities of a leader of provincial government (i.e. current Ford government in Ontario), Board of Trustees Members, executive management at a school board (i.e. directors, CIO), or school directors or principals with budgets to manage, with respect to a K12 educational environment may be very different than mine as a teacher. As an educator, systems theory and Theory O best align with my ethics and priorities that lead to change models that are holistic and learner-centred.
The change models that best align with my approach to leadership in this K12 space are Kotter’s Eight-Step Model and Biech’s Six-Step CHANGE model. Kotter’s Eight-Steps (1996) are consistent with systems theory and a holistic, adaptive leadership theory for change that resonates with my values and experience in K12 public schools:
- CREATE a sense of urgency
- BUILD a guiding coalition
- FORM a strategic vision and initiatives
- ENLIST a volunteer army
- ENABLE action by removing barriers
- GENERATE short-term wins
- SUSTAIN acceleration
- INSTITUTE change (“Kotter: 8 Step”, n.d., para. 3).
I also really appreciate the components of Biech’s (2007) Six-Step CHANGE Model:
- Challenge the current state
- Harmonize and align leadership
- Activate commitment
- Nurture and formalize a design
- Guide implementation
- Evaluate and institutionalize the change (“Overview of the CHANGE Model”, para. 1).
I recognize Biech’s step five of six, “Guide implementation,” as being a change model that is best adapted to take into consideration our current technological and societal contexts. “Implementation” is a step that uses language more aligned to technological systems, or educational technology. While the most basic language of “challenge, harmonize, activate, nurture, guide, and evaluate,” speak to more consensus (at its best) or community-driven mindsets, acknowledging a culture that needs to be reckoned with in the process(es) of change (Beich, 2007, para. 19-20). A framework such as McKinsey’s Seven-S Framework identifies hard and soft elements that are useful in trying to determine a design for change that connects with the culture of an organization (Biech, 2007). Understanding the culture of an organization is to recognize the unique challenges that are an inevitable part of change for that specific organization, unique challenges that theories and models can not necessarily predict or articulate.
The unique challenges in managing change for learning in digital environments are multi-faceted, based on psychological (cognitive and motivational), technical, and structural constructs (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Weiner, 2009). One psychological perspective on the unique challenges for learning in digital environments is the multi-generational participants. Speaking about being part of an age-demographic born before 1985, Harris (2014) reminisces about life before the Internet. He speaks of a generation that knows life with and without the Internet, a “straddle generation,” he calls this group (p. 15). This is by no means to say that people born before 1985 are any less digital natives (Prensky, 2001) or digital residents (White & LeCornu, 2007) than people born in 2002; nonetheless, we have many different participants, with different life experiences, and technological backgrounds and perspectives, that are leading us into the future of digital learning environments. Therefore, one of the unique challenges that I see for managing change in K12 digital learning environments is the scope of organizational change that is necessary to build productive digital learning environments that instill 21st century learner competencies amongst K12 students. A second unique challenge is the many layers of participants from government, to school board trustees, executive school board administration, school leaders, and educators. We return to context! Who are the leaders? In what capacity are they leading, and how much control over resources and distributed leadership teams do they have? The role that leadership plays in managing change is momentous. Leadership needs to gauge, amongst many factors, organizational capacity, organizational readiness for change and the culture of an organization, before attempting to implement change types and change methods (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Beich, 2007; Weiner, 2009). Students are ready — are the leaders?
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. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
Biech, E. (2007). Chapter 3: Models of change. In Thriving through change: A leader’s practical guide to change mastery. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development. [Skillsoft version] Retrieved from https://royalroads.skillport.com/skillportfe/assetSummaryPage.action? assetid=RW$1544:_ss_book:22651#summary/BOOKS/RW$1544:_ss_book:22651
Harris, M. (2014). The end of absence. Toronto, ON: Harper Collins Publishers Limited.
Kotter: 8 Step Process. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.kotterinc.com/8-steps-processforleadingchange/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). MCB University Press. Retrieved from https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
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
White, D. S., & LeCornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/ article/view/3171/3049
Attribution
Photo by Kobu Agency on Unsplash
February 16, 2020 at 4:21 pm
Hi Leigh, thank you for sharing your viewpoint on one of the change theories (system theory) and how it is impactful in K-12 world and their leadership styles. It is important to be able to recognize these subsystems, because understanding this interdependence is vital to developing a complete system. As your writing indicates that one of the most important concepts in Systems Theory is the notion of interdependence between systems (or subsystems). Systems rarely exist in isolation.
In education, one goal is to maximize compatibility between an educational system and its mega-system. Compatibility is defined as commonality between system feed-in and feed-out. If compatibility is high between an educational system and its environment, then this
kind of symbiosis is occurring. One of the reasons there is such concern about our K-12 educational systems in the US and Canada is that many leaders in business and industry have found our graduates to be ill prepared for the kinds of jobs available. That is, from their perspective compatibility is too low – too many students who
feed-out of the educational system do not have the qualifications needed for successful participation in the workforce. I am curious your take on this subject which of course gets people spirited in a lot of professional circles.
I concur with the father of modern social psychology, Lewin (1951), “There is nothing so practical as good theory.” If we are going to systemically change education, we need to know what we are doing. A good educational systems theory can increase the chances that we will succeed – that we increase student learning achievement and that our graduates will help improve the quality of life.
References
Frick, W., T & Thompson, R, K. (2004). Developing an Educational Systems Theory to Improve Student Learning and the Quality of Life.
Lewin, K., (1951). Field Theory in Social science.
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 20, 2020 at 6:56 pm
Hi Tehreem,
Thanks for sharing your thoughtful response to my post. You mentioned that you were curious about my take on your following thoughts: “One of the reasons there is such concern about our K-12 educational systems in the US and Canada is that many leaders in business and industry have found our graduates to be ill prepared for the kinds of jobs available. That is, from their perspective compatibility is too low – too many students who
feed-out of the educational system do not have the qualifications needed for successful participation in the workforce.” I believe that many graduates are ill-prepared for the kind of jobs available today for many reasons. Two of these reasons are that not all students are immersed in digital learning programs, and STEM initiatives (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) are just really starting to gather momentum. Both digital skills intertwined with 21st century competencies, and STEM learning and activities will better support and prepare students to be successful in the workforce. I strongly believe that 1:1 (laptop:student) programs are important to build these 21st skills and competencies, as well as to narrow the participation gap and digital divide in our country, and around the world.
As I mentioned, in public K12 education, the scope of organizational and the many layers of participants involved in systematic change in education of complex, intertwined, numerous, and often very political as well.
And I whole-heartedly agree with you when you say that “If we are going to systemically change education, we need to know what we are doing. A good educational systems theory can increase the chances that we will succeed – that we increase student learning achievement and that our graduates will help improve the quality of life.” An “educational systems theory” would be great, but from what angle? The way I see it, we have “educational institution issues” and “learning and pedagogical issues” (L. Sander, personal communication, February 20, 2020) – each called for their own systems theory and models for change. I have tried to approach them together (i.e. in Assignment #1 – External Scan) and it is very challenging, if not totally realistic.
I appreciate your thought-provoking questions.
Best regards,
Leigh
February 16, 2020 at 4:50 pm
Hi Leigh,
I am watching the current educational climate in Ontario and can appreciate that times are exceptionally challenging for educators and students. The need to innovate our classrooms and implement learning technologies to provide best learning experiences makes Biech’s (2007) first step all that more relevant – challenge the current state.
As you have stated in your blog, there are multiple players at various levels who are the deciders. Forward-thinking leaders will be needed to challenge processes and products that will shape the changes in digital learning environments. Are our leaders prepared to challenge systems and barriers and implement progressive change? Can we lead up and support those in these positions? How can we challenge the current state from the peripherals?
Much to contemplate.
Thanks for sharing,
Lisa Gedak
February 20, 2020 at 7:17 pm
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for sharing your reflections and great questions!
Your questions: “Are our leaders prepared to challenge systems and barriers and implement progressive change? Can we lead up and support those in these positions? How can we challenge the current state from the peripherals?”
In response to your first question, as you have identified, there are so many layers of decision-makers and policy-makers in education. The leaders in my school are ready to implement progressive change, but often the financial resources are not available. OR, the decision-makers at the Board Level may have decided that funding for EdTech goes to areas that might not be as “desirable,” relevant or accessible as one might hope. An example is some of the work that I have been involved with in promoting access to 1:1 programs with our school board. I have been told that this will not happen in the foreseeable future due to the cost. However, my school board has identified STEM – now STREAM (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics!!!) in my school board – initiatives and projects as the top priority for funding. The Board has started to promote Design-Thinking, creating an interesting learning curve and potential shift in pedagogy and planning than most teachers have been exposed to. So that is the focus. There are Chrome Carts to sign-out, and many EdTech devices to sign-out for daily use, but I am still partial to the add on of 1:1 programs, for a multitude of reasons.
In response to your second question: I do believe that we can lead up and support people in leadership positions. I believe that it is necessary. Even if I don’t share exact priorities, working together towards change will benefit everyone – namely the students, in whatever for leadership decides that it should take.
In response to your third question: Absolutely! We need to challenge the current state from the periphery. I am heading to Queen’s Park (Provincial Government – Legislative Building) in Toronto tomorrow. Thousands of teachers are expected there to protest the Ontario government’s (Ford) proposed cuts to education (increasing class sizes, few funds to support students with special learning needs, mandatory 4 e-learning courses for high school students — I am on the fence about that one — not ALL students are ready for this in high school — but I am willing to discuss 🙂 ). And on smaller levels, I believe that respectful dialogue and leading by example are always productive.
Thanks, Lisa!
Best regards,
Leigh