Skip to content

Month: February 2025

The Cost of Speed and the Value of TimeA tortoise slowly walks down stone steps in a forest.

The Cost of Speed and the Value of Time

Published by Stephen on 27 February 2025

I witnessed a well-intentioned initiative at a higher-education institution devolve into turmoil. A new academic program—developed in half the usual time—ended up straining students, faculty, and institutional trust. As someone who laboured to salvage the program, I’ve reflected deeply on how this happened and what it taught me about both the value of project management and the dangers of prioritising urgency over process.

A Rush to Innovate

The goal was to create a program aligned with industry needs, and to do it quickly. Leadership saw an opportunity to attract students and increase revenue. In their urgency, they bypassed critical steps that they deemed unnecessary: consulting experienced faculty and assessing feasibility. The program lead outright refused input from colleagues running a similar, long-standing program that had been iteratively refined over two decades. This existing program had already solved many of the challenges the new initiative would face: curriculum structuring, student skill-acquisition rates, and industry collaboration. Yet their battle-tested insights were dismissed as irrelevant in the name of innovation.

This resulted in a misaligned curriculum that may have looked impressive on paper but buckled in practice. Students struggled with concepts they weren’t prepared for. They were pushed too fast and were overloaded. Faculty, already stretched thin, became makeshift counsellors and tutors. The program aimed to prepare graduates for industry, but wasn’t itself prepared to do so.

Who Paid the Price?

While the goal was clear—launch a market-responsive program that produced job-ready graduates—the underlying priorities took precedence: hitting a launch date and accepting new registrations. A baffling blunder was leadership’s choice to ignore the institution’s own history. An existing program, matured from decades of iterative refinements, could have provided a roadmap to guide efforts while avoiding pitfalls. Instead, leadership ineptly reinvented the wheel. Students were promised job-ready skills but received a half-baked curriculum. Faculty, excluded from decision making, became collateral damage, forced to compensate for poor design with unpaid labour and bear the ire of an angry hoard of students who felt swindled.

The stakeholders were in place: leadership, faculty, students, industry. Unfortunately, only the project leader’s voice propelled the plan. When faculty raised concerns about flubbed or missing course content, it was dismissed. When students complained about accelerated, overly advanced content, they were told no one else was struggling. When colleagues from the existing program offered mentorship, they were ignored. The system was never built to listen.

The Missing Project Plan

To undertake such a large project and minimise risk, planning and project management is key. Watt (2014) noted that it’s the vital preservation of balancing the forces of cost, time, and scope—the “triple constraint”—that leads to the most successful projects. In this case, time dominated. The persistent tension between starved time and miscalculated scope resulted in permeating ramifications that diminished quality, strained resources, and exacerbated risk.

If I could redesign this process, I would allow industry input to recommend and influence but not to dictate. I would collaborate with faculty as expert co-designers. Tools like Gantt charts could allow stakeholders to visualise scope, dependencies, and timelines. I would balance time with other forces like quality, scope, and resources. I would also pilot a smaller scale trial of the program to allow for more nimble iteration while mitigating risk.

Why Good Intentions Paved the Wrong Path

The biggest barriers weren’t logistical but cultural:

  1. Leadership assumed goodwill could replace resources. It couldn’t. Faculty burnout was swift.
  2. When students and faculty raised alarms, leadership heard complaints, not data. Marsh et al. (2006) emphasised that data-driven decision-making is critical in education. In this case, qualitative feedback from frontline stakeholders was ignored, which compounded risks.
  3. Industry input matters, but it should be advisory rather than dictatorial. Letting it override academic expertise is like letting a client design the architect’s blueprint. Collaboration, not capitulation, builds sustainable solutions.
  4. Not-Invented-Here Syndrome (Kathoefer & Leker, 2010) led to bias and division. Rejecting the existing program’s input was a costly misstep. Systems change is about building on history, not discarding it. By dismissing institutional history, leadership wasted decades of valuable lessons and alienated allies who could have been eager co-creators.

From Risks to Turmoil

Risks became dangers, and dangers became costs.

Risk is always present in projects, and balancing different risk types—people, relationships, schedule, scope, financial, and business (Louder Than Ten, n.d.)—is critical. Here, prioritising urgency over process amplified all six:

  • People: Faculty burnout and student disenchantment.
  • Relationships: Eroded trust between staff and leadership and between students and faculty.
  • Schedule: Continual scrambling due to poor planning and under resourcing.
  • Scope: Flawed curriculum design.
  • Financial: Costs ballooned from reactive fixes (e.g., repairing/replacing flawed content).
  • Business: Reputational damage threatened future enrollment and school’s standing.

Risks became dangers, and dangers became costs. This aligns with Watt’s (2014) caution that failure to assess risks upfront assures they will metastasize.

Lessons for The Future

This experience reshaped how I view project management. Here’s what I’ll do differently:

  • Start with feasibility, not ambition. I’ll examine early if needed resources are available. I will proceed once a plan involving the right people is in place.
  • Design with data, not assumptions. Marsh et al. (2006) showed that data-driven decisions reduce risks. I’ll treat feedback from students and faculty as valuable qualitative data, not complaining.
  • Iterate and collaborate. Agile approaches use regular check-ins to identify what is working, what needs help, and what is in the way. Smaller pilots or prototypes could have revealed flaws early.
  • Measure student stress levels and faculty workload through each semester.
  • Honour institutional knowledge. Historical data and insights are foundational. I will let eager allies share their experience.

This program’s launch taught me that systems change is about direction, not speed. Next time, I’ll advocate for prioritising time: to listen, to co-create, and to iterate. An African proverb provides a good reminder: “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.”

Resources

Kathoefer, D. G., & Leker, J. (2010). Knowledge transfer in academia: An exploratory study on the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 658–675.

Louder Than Ten. (n.d.). Project risk analysis. Louder Than Ten. Retrieved February 26, 2025, from https://louderthanten.com/resources/risk-management/project-risk-analysis

Marsh, J., Pane, J., & Hamilton, L. (2006). Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND Research. RAND Corporation.

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

Attributions

Lema, D. (2024). A turtle is walking down a set of stairs [Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-turtle-is-walking-down-a-set-of-stairs-27500672/

Leave a Comment

Addressing Change in Digital Learning Environments

Published by Stephen on 15 February 2025

Change initiatives often stumble, with Al-Haddad & Kotnour (2015) noting a failure rate of over 70%, often due to poor planning, resistance, and misalignment with organisational culture. In digital learning environments (DLEs), rapid technological innovations and varying pedagogical demands mean that leaders must balance economic efficiency with organisational values. As culture expert Jessica Renée has observed, a failure to strike this balance without both empathy and transition support for the end users impacted by the change can lead to resistance and lack of adoption (personal communication, February 12, 2025). She further noted that this type of failure can greatly prolong the change implementation timespan, leading to cost overruns and undue stress on organisational culture. Success relies on a structured plan that mitigates stressful impacts of uncertainties that are associated with change, considering the needs of the organisation, the people involved, and the work that they do.

Change Models

Many established change models share a similar basic structure: recognise the influence for change, formulate a strategy to introduce the change, and adopt the change as a permanent transformation of your organisation. Informed by these models, Figure 1 illustrates how leadership might address guiding change in DLEs. Multiple change theories influenced this visualisation.

Kotter’s 8 Steps

Steps 1–3 create urgency and vision, while Steps 4–7 reflect coalition building and institutionalisation (Kotter, 1996).

Lewin’s Model

The succinct unfreeze-change-refreeze model (Lewin, 1947) is reflected in the colour coding of the visualisation.

TPSH Model 

The sequence of Threat, Problem, Solution, Habit (Biech, 2007) is reflected in Steps 1 (Threat), 2–3 (Problem), 4–6 (Solution), and 7 (Habit).

Participatory Action Research (PAR)

Step 4 engages stakeholders, ensuring perspectives and lived experiences co-create solutions, reducing resistance and increasing buy-in (Reason & Bradbury, 2008).

Beer and Nohria’s Theory E and Theory O

Balances economic efficiency (Steps 2–3) with cultural alignment (Steps 4–5), addressing both hard and soft aspects of change (Beer & Nohria, 2000).

Figure 1
How Change is Addressed by Leaders in Digital Learning Environments

Flowchart of seven steps. The first three are in red: Identify Catalyst for Change, Analyse Impact on Current State, and Assess Need for Change. This is followed by two in yellow: Engage & Activate Impacted People, and Design & Plan Elements of Change. Finally, in green: Implement Change Plan, and Assess the Results.

1. Identify Catalyst for Change

Recognise the catalyst for the change. This could be an external force, such as market demand, technological innovation, or a pandemic. It could be due to an internal force, like an organisational change, feedback from stakeholders, or an identified performance gap. Gather data and evidence to understand the catalyst.

2. Analyse Impact on Current State

Assess the existing digital learning environment to identify strengths, vulnerabilities, and gaps that relate to the catalyst for change. Use tools like SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to understand the impact on organisational goals. 

3. Assess Need for Change

Balance economic priorities (e.g., cost-effectiveness) with organisational values (e.g., alignment with mission and values). Evaluate the urgency of the transition, as well as the impact of delaying the change.

4. Engage and Activate Impacted People

Involve stakeholders (educators, learners, IT staff, leaders) in the change planning. Consult those affected by the resulting actions of the change. Potential solutions can be co-designed through Participatory Action Research (PAR). This helps to build consensus while increasing buy-in and commitment.

5. Design and Plan Elements of Change

Identify the resources required to design and plan what is required to implement the change (e.g., funding, technology, training). Personnel needed to implement the change should be identified and consulted. Consider the communication strategy to update relevant materials like marketing and recruitment collateral. The plan should also include how a successful change implementation will be measured.

6. Implement Change Plan

Execute the change plan. Monitor progress and address challenges that arise; adjustments may need to be made during the implementation that were not anticipated during the planning stage. Allow feedback to inform mid-stream refinement.

7. Assess the Results

Evaluate the outcomes of the implemented changes against goals of the change plan. If the goals were not satisfactorily met, identify the cause of misalignment. Gather feedback from various perspectives to inform your assessment. The duration of this assessment period may vary. If adjustments are needed, determine what stage of the process needs to be revisited so corrections can be made.

“Change” suggests the transformation from one state to another. Given how modern environments are in a continual state of change, educator Frank Bergdoll suggested that he prefers to think of change management as “evolution management” to acknowledge our constant state of growth, change, and adaptability (personal communication, February 12, 2025). Change and evolution are a certainty. The scope of the change often demands that it be carefully managed by a focused, intentional process to encourage a successful outcome.

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.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review.

Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD [Retrieved from Skillsoft e-book database]

Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community. Prosci.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Leave a Comment

Leadership Reflections

Published by Stephen on 1 February 2025

Leadership is a constant presence in our lives, shaping us from childhood through adulthood. Our first encounters with leadership often come from our parents—not just as caregivers but as role models who influence how we navigate the world. These early interactions shape our ability to handle adversity, resolve conflicts, and express ourselves. As we gain independence, our leadership influences expand to include friends, neighbours, and community members. The influences eventually include teachers, teammates, coaches, coworkers, and bosses. Each of these interactions contributes to our understanding of leadership and shapes how we engage with others.

It can be difficult to articulate the nuances between leadership and management. Leadership is often described as an art focused on inspiring and guiding change, while management is seen as a science centered on maintaining order, consistency, and using structured methods (Grimm, 2010). Management is the head and leadership is the heart. Both involve making decisions, building teams to achieve organisational goals, and ensuring tasks are completed effectively.

Ineffective Leadership

Ineffective leadership cultivates stress, erodes trust, and destabilises well-being and motivation (Jacobs, 2019). Dishonesty, hypocrisy, tyranny, and exploitation are some destructive leadership behaviours that can undermine the health of the leader-follower dynamic and lead to a hostile relationship as well as being counterproductive to the efficiency of organisational efforts (Jacobs). I have worked under leaders who prioritised control and self-aggrandisation over collaboration and transparency, dismissing innovation and feedback. I have seen talented, motivated individuals leave—not because they lacked ability, but because they could no longer tolerate being undervalued and unheard.

Effective Leadership

Leadership that balances motivation, inspiration, strong management, and strategic thinking fosters higher employee satisfaction, which directly enhances organisational effectiveness (Hurduzeu, 2015). Castelli (2016) and Khan (2019) found that effective leadership approaches embody human-centred values to respect and motivate followers while connecting them to organisational goals. They determined that followers are motivated by having involvement in decision making, engaging in open communication, and being provided with challenges beyond immediate rewards.

My Perspective on Leadership

My engagement with organisational structures has been shaped by my experiences with both ineffective and effective leadership. Studying leadership more intentionally has helped me make sense of my experiences—why I thrived in one organisation yet felt burned out and resentful in another.

Individuals don’t need to be bestowed with a position or title to be leaders. Julien et al. (2010) found that Indigenous perspectives on leadership are about responsibility, not as a vehicle for creating success for oneself—something described as “ego-less leadership” (p. 121). Regardless of title, we each play a role that contributes to a greater effort. Within that role, we can model leadership without a formal title endowment.

Wiseman (2010) spoke of “multipliers” as those who motivate and elevate those around them by recognising and amplifying the proficiencies and devotions in others. These are leaders who encourage and acknowledge their colleagues’ contributions—growing and extending others’ intelligence. These leaders seem to have a gift for not only building performant, satisfied teams but for attracting people who want to work alongside them. I have been fortunate to work alongside this type of leader and it is the type of leader I aspire to be.

Leadership in a Digital World

In a digital learning environment (DLE), leadership is even more challenging. The more digitally connected we become, the more disconnected we can become as people. We must bridge the digital gap with intent to foster our connections. I consider these leadership attributes to be the most important:

  1. Trust. Trust is the foundation of effective leadership, particularly in remote and digital environments where leaders must empower their teams without constant oversight.
  2. Value. People contribute their best work when they feel valued; recognising and celebrating contributions fosters motivation and engagement.
  3. Care. Leaders should acknowledge that people have lives outside of work and learning. Supporting work-life balance enhances well-being and productivity.
  4. Humour. Levity can diffuse tension, create stronger relationships, and reinforce the humanity of a team.
  5. Inclusion. Knowledge and intelligence are not the domain of an elite few; the best ideas come from diverse, collaborative efforts.

We can bring these intentions to all of our connections, inside and outside of DLEs. Leadership is a responsibility, not a title. A leader should not lord over their followers, they should sit at the same table. Whether in physical or digital spaces, the best leaders amplify the strengths of those around them. Effective leadership has a ripple effect—and ripples spread across a pond, not down a waterfall. I strive to model this kind of leadership—one that values trust, inclusion, and empowerment. If a former student or colleague reflects on the leaders who shaped their journey and thinks of me, then I will have led well.

References

Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2015-0112

Grimm, J. W. (2010). Effective leadership: Making the difference. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 36(1), 74–77. https://www.jenonline.org/article/S0099-1767(08)00399-1/abstract

Hurduzeu, R.-E. (2015). The Impact of Leadership on Organizational Performance. SEA–Practical Application of Science, 3(7), 289–293. http://seaopenresearch.eu/Journals/articles/SPAS_7_40.pdf

Jacobs, C. M. (2019). Ineffective-Leader-Induced Occupational Stress. Sage Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019855858

Julien, M., Wright, B., & Zinni, D. M. (2010). Stories from the circle: Leadership lessons learned from aboriginal leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.009

Khan, N. (2019). Adaptive or transactional leadership in current higher education: A brief comparison. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.3294

Wiseman, L. (2010). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (1st ed.). HarperBusiness.

2 Comments