The case of Kelsey High School

Change in any organization will be met with resistance and so a good leader will anticipate the resistance and have a solution to combat it (Dr. Bligh).  Resistance is not necessarily, negative as it can force the change agent to question their own beliefs and form a more powerful proposal.   (Gullickson, 2009)This week I looked at the case of Kelsey High School in which the new interim Principal, Rose, tries to make the necessary changes but is faced with resistance (Payne, 2007)

When Rose started at Kelsey High School, some of the major problems at Kelsey High included low test score, teacher vs administration culture, and lack of consistency in disciplining students. After her briefing of the problems at the high school, Rose drew her own conclusions and was excited about embracing the challenge.  She looked at the staff developed strategic plan and came to the decision that all classes should be at the “college preparatory level regardless of student’s post-secondary education plans” (Payne, 2007, 26) Rose’s vision was based on sound research and it was obvious she was very excited about it. However, when she shared this with the staff, and asked them to explore the option, their response was not the same.  She was bombarded with questions and negativity which, in turn, baffled her. She could not understand why the staff would resist “a positive change… a science based practice” (Payne, 2007, 26). In this situation, Rose had made a number of errors. Firstly she created a vision without any input. Secondly she did not anticipate any resistance from the staff and lastly she saw the resistance as negative.  Each of these points needs to be examined separately to understand what Rose could have done differently.

Rose developed a vision for the school, without input from anybody and then expected the staff to embrace her plan. From her debriefing session with the superintendent Rose should have understood, that due to the errors made by her predecessor, the staff would not trust her easily; she would have to build her credibility. The research based idea that, Rose wanted to remodel the curriculum on should not have been announced at a meeting. Instead, she should have focused on the key influencers (Kim, & Mauborgne,  2003) as “ one cannot and should not try to win over everyone (Michelman, 2007, 3) and so she should have focused her efforts where “they’ll have the most impact” (Michelman, 2007, 3).  If she had put the ideas to the department heads and allowed them to explore the idea, she may have had better luck. Although there are many differences between the administration and faculty at Kelsey High, everyone agree with one problem: the low performance of the students on the standardized test. At the meeting, Rose should have started off with this idea and reminded everyone of this common purpose and a common vision (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This would have been a good starting point. Reminding everyone that they are working together for a common goal sets the tone for the meeting. She could have then said that there are a number of ways that student scores could be improved and a college bound curriculum was one of the options that they could look at together.  Making people feel included in the change process helps them understand what is expected of them and how this will affects their role (Beach, 2006)

Rose’s other major problem was that she had not anticipated the resistance she would face from the staff.  Had she been prepared for it, she might have done a better job convincing them of a need for change. With the knowledge of the problems at Kelsey High, Rose should have anticipated that her ideas would cause, at the very least, some resistance. My suggestion to her would have been to play devil’s advocate with her vision. She should have outlined all the negativity people would see in her proposal and should have prepared material to deal with that. In her outline she could have looked at whether resistance would be due to “lack of understanding, different assessments, self-interest, and low tolerance for change” (Hitt, Miller, & Colella, 2009, 498). Maybe she should have conducted a survey as these “can help scout out pockets of resistance among units. Even anonymous polls gauging attitudes toward change can reveal important trends” (Michelman, 2007, 3).   I also believe that change leaders need to be sympathetic when they communicate the idea of change and that any resistance is “bought up by uncertainty and fear” and so Rose could have started the communication with telling the faculty that the idea she has is something the staff should consider to improve scores and she knew that the teachers were working hard and this new idea would assist them in this area.  Then she could have addressed some of the fears of the teachers and shown them that this was not just to assist students but teachers too.  When the resistance arose, Rose could have given them the opportunity to “express the resistance more authentically” which would have helped to “diffuse tension by allowing it to be expressed and addressed honestly (Anderson, 2010, 166). Since she would have already anticipated some of these and prepared for them, she would have been able to deal with them one at a time and make the staff understand her reasons for the choice. Her lack of anticipation and preparation caused Rose to lose credibility.  As a leader, Rose should have understood and prepared for the DADA syndrome (Hitt, Miller & Collela, 2009). Providing support and being persistent during the stages is also an important aspect of leadership. Rose gave up at the denial stage and so could not persist with her research based idea. Had she allowed the DADA syndrome to take its course and as a leader had she provided the necessary support and persistence, I believe the staff would have eventually accepted the change.

Additionally, Rose viewed the resistance from the staff as negative. I believe that Rose had good understanding of the research based, college bound curriculum, but failed to understand her role as a leader. Otherwise she would have understood that resistance “gave us the opportunity to explore, to reflect, to clarify what truly mattered to us (Gullickson, 2009, 8).  

As a leader, Rose should have begun by exploring the culture of the school, instead of relying on just the superintendent. Exploring the culture before the announcement of the vision would have helped her understand the history and status quo (Beach, 2006) and what forms of resistance would arise because of these.  She should have then reflected on her vision to see if she needed to make any accommodations due to this knowledge or if she needed to focus on “areas that needed attention, situations that may have required further thought, ways to use resources that had been overlooked (Gullickson, 2009, 8).  Rose, on the other hand, found herself becoming “frustrated by others” (Gullickson, 2009, 10).  At this point she should have asked herself if the change she wanted really was something that would work. What were her reasons for wanting this particular type of curriculum or was their another possibility that they could explore? What was it?  If she could not answer these questions herself, then she was not convinced of the change herself and needed to work on herself first. If she was able to answer these questions then should have communicated these to the staff.

Although Rose had some excellent ideas as an educator, her leadership skills needed further development as “recognizing resistance is an important skill, and the ability to work it is an even more important skill” (Anderson, 2010, 164). Rose failed to realize that “there is a lot of distrust between employees and management historically and that can be a huge source of resistance to change” (Dr. Bligh). Rose should have worked with the key influencers to explore ways of increasing student scores. Together they could have come up with a common vision and anticipated the resistance the staff might have felt. They could have outlined the advantages and looked at ways of dealing with the negativities. She should have then announced the common vision at the faculty meeting and allowed people to air their resistances.  She should have allowed the key influencers to address the concerns with her and then allowed those that weren’t convinced to go through the stages of DADA, while providing support and persistently pushing the vision. I believe that had she taken these steps, she may have had better results. 

Anderson, D. L. (2010). Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

Beach, L. R. (2006). Leadership and the art of change: a practical guide to organizational transformation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.) by Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. Copyright 2008 by John Wiley & Sons Inc

Organizational Behavior: A Strategic Approach (2nd ed.) by Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. Copyright 2009 by John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Gullickson, B. R. (2009). Working with resistance. Strategic Finance. 90(8), 8–10. 

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 60–69. 

 Michelman, P. (2007). Overcoming resistance to change. Harvard Management Update, 12(7), 3–4. 

Payne, H. J. (2007). Hard times at Kelsey high: Issues of change, climate, and culture. Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 13(5), 25–29. 

 “Resistance to Change” Dr. Bligh