Q1: How have the theories/models for change adapted to take into consideration our current technological, economic, and societal contexts?
Change management theories have become more complex over time. Al-Haddad & Kotnour explain, “Change theories traditionally have promoted incremental process adjustment and infrequent small transitions that are mainly planned and steered by management … more recent change methods have become more systematic, cyclical and integrative, involving higher scales of organizational change” (2015, p.245). What this suggests is that more recent change management theories are capable of accommodating unique situations, like the COVID-19 pandemic, by allowing for specialized change implementation strategies to be deployed and continually revisited. For instance, Beer et al’s six-step method, introduced in 1990, promotes the concept of “task alignment,” (p.247) which involves “reorganizing employee roles, responsibilities, and relationships to solve specific business problems” (Al-Haddad et al, 2015). During the pandemic and shift to digital learning, my current higher education employer needed to restructure the organizational hierarchy, requiring additional operations staff to support various needs and challenges associated with online learning, such as instructor and student support. With a more complex, systematic, and integrative change management method to follow, such as Beer et al.’s six-step method, organizations are better equipped to adapt to current technological, economic, and societal demands.
Q2: As we consider the rapid responses that have been required due to COVID-19 and the large- scale moves to remote learning and working, what lessons can we take away about introducing rapid change. What lessons did you learn in your own context?
Educational Institutions need to be prepared internally for change to be deployed successfully. An organization’s preparedness to change can be understood through Weiner’s “readiness for change” theory: “Readiness for change refers to organizational members’ shared resolve to implement a change (change commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy)” (2009, p.2). Weiner’s perspective suggests that the implementation of complex organizational change involves collective action by many individuals who contribute something to the implementation effort (Weiner, p.2), but creating value or buy-in for the proposed change prior to implementation is essential to the success of such change.
An example of an organization’s preparedness for change, or a lack thereof, can be seen in my current higher education employer’s transition to online delivery during the covid-19 pandemic. The need to socially distance throughout the pandemic forced my organization to restructure its educational services and organizational hierarchy to accommodate distance learning through the implementation of digital learning environments (DLEs). Such change required everyone involved to adapt on a systemic scale, but it was implemented in unprecedented, rapid succession, which proved to be the source of a variety of challenges. For instance, with very little warning the instructors had to prepare for virtual classroom instruction, students to become familiar with using learning management systems, and courses to be appropriated to the DLE.
Many students and instructors were ill-prepared to cope with the technical and psychological challenges imposed by digital learning. Some students felt isolated learning at home or frustrated with their limited computational skills, which ultimately inhibited their academic performance. In addition, when instructors were unable to communicate through digital means or successfully implement virtual classroom instruction, they were laid off due to their inability to adapt to the DLE.
What these examples demonstrate is a lack of organizational preparedness for change and that there were critical steps in the organizational readiness process that were missed by the organization. Successfully working through the transition period of change depends on the organization’s ability to coordinate, and respond to, the three determinants of preparedness for change: task demands, resource availability, and situational factors (Weiner, 2009). More needs to be done to prepare and support each agent of change, including preparing students, instructors, and operational staff, for the transition to digital learning. Moreover, the preparation of each agent of change would likely limit the potential of operational members, such as academic support and teaching and learning staff, from becoming overwhelmed and over-stressed from an increased and unmanageable workload. In sum, a culture of organizational readiness and continuous improvement is required to respond successfully to rapid change, like the changes in higher education instigated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q3: Which theories/models do you think best align with your own approach to leading in a digital learning environment? Do these approaches align with your organizational context? Thinking again about how quickly shifts can occur, what ideas about introducing change would you take into future planning?
Looking at each major approach (Haddad et al., p.249) in the context of my organization transitioning to virtual delivery in response to COVID, certain preliminary steps were missed. After reviewing the methods presented by Haddad, the key steps that were neglected include those related to creating a vision and mobilizing the actors; while these were likely missed due to the rapid nature of COVID-related change, this resulted in an overall lack of organizational readiness and a challenged response.
Jick and Kanter, Luecke, and Kotter’s methods all have great points on creating a clear vision and getting everyone to work together towards that vision. These two concepts are valuable and are highly applicable in facilitating (and enforcing) meaningful change in a DLE. With regards to my DLE organization, it has since applied these two concepts post-COVID transition to help make the changes implemented stick and support the organization “refreezing” its new way of operating in a more efficient and effective way (Haddad, p.249). As a result, I would suggest any of these three models could have the potential to serve a DLE, including my own organization, well through change.
The theory of organizational readiness applies here as well; the organization needs to be in a state (and have a culture) of readiness to respond to rapid change (Weiner, p.1). Seeing the impact of lacking readiness in my own organization demonstrates this characteristic, while not a method, is absolutely necessary for organizations to change rapidly with success. It is challenging for individuals to value a change if they’re not ready, and when there was no vision created beforehand; similarly, if the resources and teams were not mobilized until after the change occurred, their buy-in is forced, rather than offered.
Q4: What role does leadership play in managing change?
Being a leader, in my experience, has meant creating a vision, and motivating and engaging others through transformative experiences. For managing change as a leader, the leader needs to know the organization well enough to match the best method and approach for the organization, as this heavily depends on the readiness, culture, and needs of the organization. Approaches to engage and motivate those impacted by the change in a meaningful way include Appreciative Inquiry (problems solving), and Active Research and Learning (iterative research-action process), as well as valuing and working with the Change Response Cycle (the cycle of those impacted by change experience), and the Organizational Culture (the nuances, norms, language, and expectations of an organization) (Biech, 2007).
Q5: What are the unique challenges in managing change for learning in digital environments?
The change management process, although adaptable, is largely similar whether instigating change for campus-based or digitally-mediated education. In either scenario, the literature on change management speculates successful organizational change to involve unfreezing or challenging the current state, aligning leadership and constituents, creating buy-in and activating commitment, designing and supporting implementation and evaluating (Al-Haddad et al., 2015; Biech, 2007). However, digital technology is notorious for innovation and change, so one could argue that change management in the digital education domain would emphasize the cyclical and integrative actions suggested by Al-Haddad et al (2015). To this extent, leaders working with digitally-mediated educational institutions should prepare and support the entire organization for repeated and continual small-scale change, and when the situation calls for it, like another pandemic, large-scale, organization-wide restructuring.
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. https://www-emeraldinsight-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/doi/full/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
Biech, E. (2007). Models of change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s practical guide to Change Mastery (p. 8). https://viewer.books24x7.com/assetviewer.aspx?bookid=22651&chunkid=584631078#
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67). https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
