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.
No comments:
Post a Comment