MODELLING A CHANGE STRATEGY

This blog has reviewed or reported a number of organizational change models.  For example, in the posting, “A Changing We Will Go,” November 20, 2015, this writer presents a model that identifies phases, as opposed to steps, and in so doing attempts to indicate that a change process, given all the factors this blog has identified, cannot be reduced to “steps.”  Perhaps a better term to describe this notion of how one accomplishes change is to refer it as a strategic process.

          In that earlier model, the following phases are identified:   problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” rule making, information gathering, negotiation, testing, evaluating, conflict ameliorating, and finalizing.  As pointed out with that earlier review, “those who engage in these categories of activities can testify, they involve a lot of going back and forth as conditions change, goals and aims are altered, experiences reveal unforeseen problems (including interpersonal antagonisms), and even the introduction of previously unplanned technologies.”

          Another model is found in the posting, “The School District Maze,” December 13, 2016, and is offered by Michael A. Roberto.  It consists of the following:

·        Establishing a compelling direction, a vision for the future, and the strategies for how to get there.

·        Aligning people, communicating the direction, building shared understanding, getting people to believe in the vision, and then persuading and influencing people to follow that vision.

·        Motivating and inspiring people to enact the kinds of changes and vision that [a leader has] … articulated.[1]

Roberto offered this model as the doings of an idealized, effective leader.  Each of these models assumes that subjects and leaders conduct their duties with a fair dose of rational thinking while a change strategy is implemented.  This blog has questioned such an assumption as it has indicated the complexities involved with organizational change.

          This posting and a set of subsequent postings sets out an approach to institute change at a school site.  This approach reflects a three-dimensional reality:  the structural foundation of a school, the potential change landscape, and the interpersonal dynamics.  This last dimension is on two plains:  a change agent-professional staff plain and a change agent-individual subject plain. 

These postings will use this outline – with its indicated progression – to organize its presentation.  What should be remembered is that this is not a recipe for successful change; it is what needs to be accounted for to potentially achieve success. 

Before relating, in the next posting, the first of the three dimensions, the structural foundations of a school, certain assumptions should be pointed out.  These assumptions affect all the dimensions, but the effect on how a change agent sees the structure of the school, both internally and how a school is situated within the overall education system of the nation, is particularly acute.

          This first assumption is that the change agent referred to here is a classroom teacher.  He/she is disposed to striving, beyond his/her responsibilities to prepare instructional plans and implementing them, to improve the effectiveness of the school to which he/she is assigned. 

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.

To the point that his/her school falls deficient in one or more of these areas, the teacher is predisposed to analyze that deficiency and work actively to change those aspects of the student body so that improvement can be achieved.

          Can a parent or a community member be a change agent?  Yes, and what follows can be applied if such a person takes it upon him/herself to work toward change, but with whatever obvious adjustments need to be applied.  For one, a lot of what follows presupposes a great deal of exposure and interaction within the confines of a school. 

Unless a parent or a community member makes the necessary arrangements to allow such exposure, a good deal of what is described will be near impossible to perform.  If such a person takes on a volunteer position, such as being member of the schools advisory committee (most schools have these) and has a principal that would allow for such interaction, perhaps such a person can function in the ways outlined in subsequent postings.[2]

As stated above, the next posting will pick up on this treatment of change strategies by looking at the structural dimension.  Actually, a lot of that posting will be a relook at what has been posted before but contextualized in terms of presenting a strategic process.

---

[1] Michael A. Roberto, Transformational Leadership:  How Leaders Change Teams, Companies, and Organizations, (Chantilly, VA:  The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, 2011), 20.

[2] An extra word needs to be added:  most districts, for safety and security, have a process by which non school personnel can have unescorted access to the school facility.