INITIAL CONCERNS OF THE LANDSCAPE

Organizational change models seem to be similar, one to the other.  Identify what needs changing, devise a solution, gather up the resources, implement the solution, test or evaluate progress, adjust the strategy, and, once one determines what works, finalize or “freeze” the solution in place – the new status quo. 

Of course, various models will add to this general pattern.  They will either adjust the overall process to meet the needs of particular staff members – e.g., leaders – or they will be more sensitive to some area of concern – e.g., psychological factors, such as fear or excessive ambition.

This is mentioned because this blog in its current treatment of change, is about to pick up on one of these models.  It does this more out of convenience, as just alluded to, many of them are similar.  But here the difference is that the model will be used more as a guide.  The model was first presented in an earlier posting. 

See posting, “‘A Changing’ We Will Go,” November 20, 2015.  In that posting, this model is described more as a progression of phases, instead of steps.  That is how it will be referred to here.  It will also be the foundation of this and several subsequent postings.  The phases are:  problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” rule making, information gathering, testing, evaluating, negotiating, conflict ameliorating, and finalizing. 

And as it has been emphasized before in this blog, while the phases seem to follow a logical progression, in real life application, they need not follow this order.  This is especially true for the “middle” phases.  For example, conflict ameliorating can happen at any time in a change effort.

The last posting did identify an early need in the change process; that is, a change agent needs to determine how much of an arena or a public square the school site is.  An arena is characterized as being contentious; a square is characterized as being collaborative.  The point there was to indicate that transformative change – change that aims at changing attitudes and values – is assisted by “square” qualities.

The reader is invited to visit that posting if he/she missed it.  Here, the assumption is that the school environment sufficiently supports a square view to be able to proceed with a transformative change effort.  And the other pre-process determination, already reviewed, is the determination that at the school in question – and in terms of this blog’s concern – there exists significant deficiencies in student performance relative to the standards this blog has identified.[1]

This blog will now begin to review these phases:

Problem Identification

In problem identification, that is in identifying a problem that deserves transformative treatment, one encounters a phase that utilizes the standards regarding student performance and accomplishments (cited above).  Some readers might think of other areas of concern could generate this level of seriousness for which this approach could be suited; e.g., traffic problems around the school site, where there might be a safety issue.  Fine, but when it comes to the topic of this blog, curriculum, the concern is the level of student success or, more accurately, the lack of success.

The target problem should be as specific as possible.  This will be further explained as part of the concerns associated with “unfreezing,” a subsequent phase.  But as a foreshadowing message, an example of a suitable target would be bullying that exists on campus. 

Of course, this blog has already conveyed information in terms of problem identification when it reviewed the standards it is applying to school conditions and determining if deficiencies exist.  Therefore, this posting will leave this phase with these cursory words.

Staffing

In terms of staffing, of course, a teacher is not responsible or has the authority to hire people to the school staff.  And that goes for dismissing them.  But he/she can manage, to some degree, who will be most involved with the activities associated with his/her efforts at school-site change.  Again, in a federated approach, the goal is to solicit the active contributions of those who will be affected by the eventual change(s).  In terms of transformative change, that would tend to be more than those who should change their behavior patterns.

This “staffing” consists of identifying those staff members, mostly teachers, he/she can organize into a relatively small cadre of fellow-change agents.  These don’t have to be colleagues who totally agree with the organizer of such an effort.  As a matter of fact, some disagreement is helpful.

In terms of this cadre, the organizer-agent would seek out those colleagues who demonstrate energy for the effort.  Knowledge about change theory is helpful; so is a nurturing parent disposition[2] and a “square” perspective.  It is helpful to have common base of knowledge, especially in terms of change and curriculum, among this cadre.

What if the faculty is predominately either biased toward a strict father morality and/or an arena view of work or life in general?  Does one just throw one’s hands into the air and give up?  Not necessarily so.  But a useful thing to do is to communicate in the language of the audience.  English?  Yes, of course, but what is being referred to is those phrases, words, assumptions shared by the school staff. 

For example, if the staff is partial to arena thinking, then it is more competitive in its “language.”  The change agent can use references to the school’s deficiencies as a reflection of how poorly it is doing compared to other schools, either in the immediate district or in a broader region, such as the state or the nation.  This should be done in as honest a way as is reasonable.  Part of the aim is to shift to a more “square” orientation and a nurture parent morality.[3]  But one does not get a person to even listen if he/she speaks in terms of attitudes and values foreign to that person.

Overall – and it was restated above and will be again – one should remember that these phases, while presented in a somewhat logical progression, don’t need to be followed in this order.  So, “staffing” doesn’t have to proceed problem identification.  It can proceed it.  But as listed here, the phases do seem to follow a logical progression.

“Unfreezing”

And logically, the next phase is “unfreezing.”  As the term indicates, the purpose here is to bring that aspect of the status quo under question among the staff members.  The assumption here is that a problem has been identified and, as part of this unfreezing, those conditions that are deemed responsible, in part or in whole, are also identified.  In other words, a target is determined and those physical or social factors that allow it, become the subjects of the change effort. 

Again, specificity is helpful; the aim should be some specific condition or relationship within the school’s operation.  Broad or philosophic qualities should be accounted for, but not the verbalized subject of what needs to be changed.  For example, low math scores could be an ultimate target, but not how the faculty uses modern thinking in math education.  The first is the ultimate aim of the change effort, the second might be, if relevant, an intermediate goal.  And never should a fellow colleague be the target, his/her behavior perhaps, but not the person.

Unfreezing supposes that beyond identification, an initial remedy is devised.  Now this might be initially vague and be subject to further development, e.g., in negotiating, a subsequent phase, but at this juncture, serious developmental thinking and planning should be done.  For example, by this point, if not before, the principal should be in on the planning which presupposes some level of support by him/her for what the cadre is working to accomplish.

In turn, that conversation, which includes the principal or his/her representative, is an important one since it will determine to a large measure the parameters of any change effort.  It should also indicate that what is being considered is within the legal limits of what a school can do.  Here, a concern is:  does any proposed change fall within the state’s curricular standards?  Those standards are usually written in broad language – allowing quite a bit of leeway – but one can still think of proposals that go beyond its vague limits.

The next posting will continue reviewing these phases.  Some of these phases have to do with the potential change landscape and a couple of them will have to do with interpersonal dynamics.  The phases highlighted in the next posting will be rule-making and information gathering.

---

[1] Effectiveness is defined in terms of student conduct and measures it by the levels students of the school: demonstrate learning curricular content; demonstrate learning skills in acquiring relevant knowledge associated with curricular content; demonstrate dispositional outlook supportive of being a productive member of the student body; perform their student roles in a civil manner; and follow, in a collaborative fashion, those behaviors that abide by the reasonable policies of the school and school system.

[2] This picks up on George Lakoff’s distinction between strict father morality analogy and nurturing-parent morality analogy.  See George Lakoff, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2002) AND posting, “A Non-Rod Sparing Zone,” December 8, 2017.  This is not to say that change agents need to be liberals, but they do need to be empathetic and accommodating while avoiding judgmental characteristics.

[3] Actually, any morality bias should be toward a partnership view or analogy.  Uses of family images or analogies are a bit counterproductive – fellow staff members are not family members, but they are partners in the sense they share common interests in the school doing well.  After all, a federated approach is one that attempts to have staff members federate themselves one to another.  The applicable analogy is one of partnership.

THE POTENTIAL CHANGE LANDSCAPE

This blog, of late, has again taken up the topic of change.  This fits in the overall goal of the blog, promoting federation theory as the guiding construct for civics education and its adoption that calls for change.  That would be organizational change at the school site.  In addressing this topic, the blog has reviewed the first of a three-dimensional approach to change, the structural foundation of schools and school districts.

          The blog has also provided a list of standards by which to determine whether a school needs to change its curriculum.[1]  Unfortunately, reported performance levels of American schools indicate deficiencies relative to these standards exist.  Once deficiencies are identified, analyzed (either quantitatively or qualitatively), described, and explained, a change agent is ready deal with the social (as opposed to the structural) landscape in which potential change will occur. 

This is usually the school site.  If the problem(s) is of sufficient seriousness to justify a transformative change, then the change agent can begin visualizing the school site as a landscape full of obstacles.  This judgement is not stated in an excessively negative sense.  After all, that site is where fellow employees/colleagues work and spend a great deal of time.  It is where a lot of personal conversations – shared confidences – take place. 

The image is not of one putting on battle fatigues, but, in terms of accomplishing meaningful change, it is one of which where many obstacles will exist.  Why?  Well, as alluded to earlier in this blog, what exists, exists for a reason.  People grow use to or benefit from how things are done.  They might not see or understand how what is done or exists contributes to any problems or even if problems exist.  Or they might have rationalized the problems away – “yes, they exist, but there is nothing that can be done.”

          Of course, a change agent believes that there are problems, that something can be done to solve or alleviate the problems, and that the resources – including the personnel – are present so that a change effort is worth initiating.  He/she doesn’t assume success in any change effort but does believe a chance for it is there – a chance big enough to exert the effort.

          For a more comprehensive description of how a landscape can be challenging or how a change agent should view such a landscape, the reader is referred to the posting, “In This Place,” November 17, 2015.  There, the text identifies a quote by the sociologist, Philip Selznick, and his warning that there are times when a coercive approach is warranted.  But he further warns that such an approach is too readily employed – often when it is not warranted. 

To institute meaningful, lasting change, one needs to change values and attitudes – i.e., to institute transformative change.  That is difficult to do, and attempts will face obstacles.  It is harder still if one adopts a coercive strategy.  This account offers a consideration:  it is in an either/or form regarding how the change landscape is characterized; this option reflects a source from which obstacles emanate.

That is, is the landscape an arena or a square; is it more akin to a boxing arena or a public square?  Of course, this is not an either/or choice, it reflects degrees in the political dispositions among the staff members in a school.  The first image is one of conflict and the second of consensus.

So, the question or obstacle is how much the social environment is one in which subjects are competitive, at odds, and/or contentious.  These are considered problematic and the more it can be described as such, the more it is an arena; the less so, the more it is a square. 

          An arena is enhanced by ego challenging interactions, coveting attitudes and behaviors, competitive approaches, vertical power relations, formal roles, structured processes, strange physical and social surroundings, and definite expectations.  A square is enhanced by ego accommodating interactions, soliciting attitudes and behaviors, collaborative efforts, horizontal power relations, informal roles, spontaneous processes, familiar physical and social surroundings, and open-minded expectations. 

Transformative change and a federated change approach ultimately relies on “square” qualities and their related beliefs.  A change agent, therefore, is helped in any subsequent activities to identify staff members who are prone to be “square” actors, identify and develop ways to deal with “arena” staff members, thinking of ways of advancing those square-enhancing qualities such as collaboration, and convincing administration members to think in “horizontal” ways. 

A self-appointed change agent will find these aims as challenging, but it is a good way to determine if the landscape is sufficiently apt to becoming federated and, in turn, how open it is to transformative change.  These “square” qualities are so important, that if the change agent feels there is not enough of it among the faculty, increasing it would be one of the first steps toward transformative change. 

And to do that, a constant communication strategy should disseminate the evidence of how and, if known, why the deficiencies in the school exist.  Honest communication does not only communicate the deficiencies, it also says that the recipient of the information is part of the solution – a “square” messaging.  This is but one way a more “square-ness” disposition is encouraged.

This should be done, as much as possible, in a professional manner; avoid threatening language; and not, at that point, argue for a specific change agenda or policy.  Instead, the message should be:  “there’s trouble right here in River City Elementary/Middle/High School.”[2]  And to do so, solid evidence – like test scores, testimonials from teachers or parents, and/or related statistics – is needed. 

It is felt that if a preachy message is also needed to be communicated to the faculty and/or to the administration, it should be that the school exists to meet these identified standards.  Short of that, the school is not meeting its communal responsibilities.  It is, in effect, shortchanging the taxpayers of the district and that should not be sustained. 

Oh, by the way, not only is one interested in whether the standards are met, but whether the measures used in judging whether they are met – measures of student performance – accurately do so.  If not, voila, one has the initial, specific problem to be addressed.  Evaluation of school performance, as reflected by student performance – is something districts and states have become more aware of in recent decades and there is professional literature regarding this concern.[3]

---

[1] Effectiveness is defined in terms of student conduct and measures it by the levels students of the school: demonstrate learning curricular content; demonstrate learning skills in acquiring relevant knowledge associated with curricular content; demonstrate dispositional outlook supportive of being a productive member of the student body; perform their student roles in a civil manner; and follow, in a collaborative fashion, those behaviors that abide by the reasonable policies of the school and school system.

[2] Adopted from the musical/film, The Music Man.  Meredith Wilson and Franklin Lacey (playrights), The Music Man (Broadway, 1957).

[3] In Florida, for example, schools are given an overall grade reflecting how well their students do on state tests.  Some argue that these evaluations are too much based on testing and does not give a sufficiently broader view.  That controversy is a topic for another book, but it is a question that a staff can ask, debate, and ameliorate by instituting appropriate policies within a school, a school district, or at the state level.