Responsibilities of Change Leaders

If change is to become part of the culture of an organization, then change leaders must take the necessary steps to ensure success. Without these steps change may not be lasting and end up being a fad. Schools are actively changing organizations. There are so many internal and external factors that affect it that there is always some change that is taking place. I would like to discuss such a change that took place in my school. I will look at the six responsibilities of leaders (Beach, 2006) to evaluate the change process.

Assessment

The purpose of any school is to provide a quality education and its prime responsibility is to ensure that students have opportunities to learn. If there are factors that are affecting the learning process then they need to be dealt with. For the past three years, our school has been exploring brain based learning. As the brain in seventy eight percent water dehydration impairs “attention, critical thinking, learning and memory” (Jensen,2007, 73,).  It was decided by the administration that students needed to drink water to increase student performance. The brain based approach emphasizes much on water and there are many studies to support this. The administration used this “to create a sense of rational for the change process (Dr. Bligh)

Culture

The school believes that students need to stay in class to learn. There has been a system in place for many years that allows students to leave class, in emergency situations, with a green hall pass.  This system is part of the schools culture and every teacher follows this system. New staff members are also made aware of this. This has also been built into our teacher appraisal system i.e. when an evaluator is present, they will watch how many students leave the classroom and why.  With new initiative, some changes would need to be made to the culture.

Vision

There were many meetings and professional development sessions associated with brain based learning and each one reinforced the same idea: a dehydrated brain performs poorly. The majority of teachers all understood and accepted the need for change.  There were some that were skeptical of the whole idea but played along as administrators created minor levels of anxiety by saying that they would note this during walk through evaluations. (Hitt, Miller & Colella, 2009)  

Plan

With the new knowledge, the administration knew it had to make changes to the hall pass system. Teachers were told that if students needed to drink water then they should be issued with a hall pass to allow them to do that. Hall monitors and Assistant Principals would monitor students to ensure discipline. Water bottles would be provided by the Principal on state test days. The library, cafeteria and vending machines would sell bottled water to the students.

Implementation

At first, things went smoothly. It seemed the change was a success. Teachers were issuing hall passes to students who wanted or needed water. Hall monitors and APs were making sure that discipline was kept at all times. The administrators walked through classrooms to make sure teachers allowed students to access water during the period. 

The problems first started with business classes. Normally these classes did not any liquid into their classes as spillage on the equipment would be problematic. With the new vision in place, they were told to follow suit. Students started bringing water bottles into the classes and within the first week water spillage had caused damage to some equipment. In other parts of the school, water bottles and lids were littering hallways and classrooms. Teachers were complaining that they were spending a lot of time picking up bottles and lids. Some students were constantly keeping them in their mouths like feeding bottles, which was becoming a distraction. Teachers felt that they spent more time writing passes than teaching. The other major problem was that some students would ask for a hall pass to go to the water fountain and instead meet up with friends in the hallway. Increase water consumption also increased restroom breaks. Due to these physical altercations between students increased, especially in restrooms where APs and hall monitors were not present.

Institutionalizing

The change never reached this point. Within a few weeks, administrators made the announcement that hall passes would again be kept to a minimum; students would not be allowed out of the classroom unless it was an emergency. Although, the administration did not admit it openly, the teachers “read between the lines for real messages and their true intent” (Lee, 2008, 24).  Teachers understood the change to be a failure. Students were not allowed to leave the classroom to drink water. The problem with the water bottles was deemed a classroom management issue and teachers were left to deal with it.

How could the above situation improve?

I believe the change was valid and necessary. I think the problem was with the plan and the implementation. Firstly, students should have been reminded that they need to drink water between passing periods. As each period is only 50 minutes, students do not need to take water into classrooms with electrical equipment. There should a recycling bin, for plastic bottles, available in the hallways and classrooms. In the classroom, students should be told to keep their water bottles in their back packs and should only take them out when necessary. Every teacher should ensure before the end of class that all trash has been taken care of. Administrators can provide incentive to senior students for taking responsibility of the trash i.e. a contribution, from the Principal, to the prom fund.

I think the administration should have had “periodic team meetings” (Anderson, 2010) with department heads to see how the change was progressing and to give feedback from teachers about making changes to the plan.

I think when a change fails and the leaders do not attempt to acknowledge the failure, it creates resistance for any future changes. I think it is very important for leaders to admit failure and propose alternative plan (Beach, 2006). In this case the administration should have looked at the failing aspects of the plan and made changes.

Would anybody have taken a different approach?

 Please note: water in the classroom was just a small component of the brain based learning initiative. There were many other changes that were more successful and our administration does a wonderful job with many changes. I picked this one to discuss this week as it highlights some problems with change in organization.

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

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

Jensen, E. (2007). Introduction to brain-compatible learning(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lee, T. J. (2008). Actions speak loudly. Communication World, 25(4), 24–28. 

Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change by Anderson, D. L. Copyright 2010 by Sage Publications,

Video Program: “Sustaining Change” Dr. Michelle Bligh 

The Case of Principal David King

Change is a difficult process for anyone. It is particularly difficult for the person making the change and for this reason strategic planning is required to make the change a lasting one.  A transformational leader has the skills to show people the issues, the vision, necessity of the change and then gets members on board to bring changes to the status quo. The four characteristics of intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, inspirational appeal and individualized considerations, are essential in helping the leader bring this about (Dr. Bligh). These skills are reflected in the case of Principal David King (Bolman & Deal, 2008) with a high degree of success.

            David King assumed the role of transformational leader, by giving individualized considerations to the faculty, through the interviews that he held. He understood how each one felt about their role and the role of others at the school. This allowed him to see and understand the reason for conflict and was the basis of his notes. Key issues regarding the culture and the lack of tradition were highlighted in these interviews. He was able to evaluate each individual’s efficiency against the role they had to fulfill. He concluded that there were people who had excellent skills but were given the incorrect position. For example Housemaster Perkins was excellent at scheduling but was not a very good housemaster. He used this knowledge to create a better position as he understood that improvisation from people who lacked certain skills was part of the problem (Beach, 2006). King also understood that some of the housemasters had a lot of support and for any change to take place he had to get them on board as “individuals with power based on their formal positions can block or at least slow it down (Hitt & Colella, 2009, 496).  King proved that individualized considerations was a strong element of his leadership skills.

            Although intellectual stimulation is an important aspect of transformational leaders, King’s attempt to get the faculty to actively participate in the change, through discussion of the conflict, created a serious situation for him. In the Friday afternoon meeting, Carver threatened Dula over an issue, an issue that could have given an uprising to racial and gender tension. I think King could have dealt with this situation differently. Communication between management and subordinates is very important (McAllaster, 2004) but communication between conflicting members is dangerous, as was proven by the Carver-Dula situation. It would have been better if King had worked on his vision first and then called a meeting to discuss the proposed changes. He could have shown them “how the new vision and plan will affect the person’s own unit and his or her own job” (Beach, 2006, 79). The lack of vision at the meeting was the basis of the problem (Kotter, 2006). I also think that this situation affected King’s credibility and gave Bill the opportunity to see King as “not having the stomach or the forcefulness to survive at Kennedy” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 421).  Later on King realized that intellectual stimulation needs to be backed by a powerful and common vision (Bolman & Deal, 2008) otherwise it can escalate the conflict. Intellectual stimulation was an element that King initially misunderstood. He was, however, able to use it effectively later on.

           

King used inspirational appeal to help him motivate others for the necessary change. After the staff meeting conflict, King took some time to “reflect and reframe” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 421), which was necessary to improve the situation. During this time he formed the vision but before he could do that he had to go over the problems at the school. He noticed that there was a huge structural problem with Kennedy and that the roles of people were not clearly defined. Due to the newness of the school, there seemed to be a lack of culture and tradition and so he created something to help them unify: “excellence and caring” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 428).  This was to become the core of his vision.  He focused on the purpose of them being together. He also understood that they wanted to participate in the change process instead of being told what to do and that “the more people involved, the better the outcome (Kotter, 2006).  King organized his ideas into a chart and so was able to produce a plan which allowed him to define the roles of the faculty and assign them a more appropriate one. (Beach, 2006). I think King’s strongest element was his inspirational appeal and that is where his predecessor, Weis, had failed. Weis had created more conflict and had not established a culture or a tradition. King, on the other hand, had realized the importance of culture and establishing a common cause at the core of it.

           

King’s role as an idealized influence came into effect when he called Dula and Carver and reminded them of their reasons for being at Kennedy and the importance of their contributions. This helped each one to understand the vision and made them see the big picture in which their conflict was irrelevant. King knew that as a leader he had to show that he cared and this helped to build his credibility as he established relationships. This was particularly important for him as “individuals who have credibility are admired and respected and can be effective in selling change (Hitt & Colella, 2009, 496). He set up a task force to deal with the structural issues. That meant that the faculty would actively participate in the change process and would feel valued. It would also communicate to them “about what is expected of them (and why) and communication from them about the success of their efforts” (Beach, 2006, 85). Even though King was relatively new in his position, the element of idealized influence was a very strong aspect of his leadership as he was able to convince them of the need to change and to believe in the new vision.

            King’s role in the case study certainly shows he was able to assess the situation and provide the solutions. These are traits of good leaders as “Real change occurs when a leader and a manager understands the organization (its strategy, people and culture), identifies the problems, and seeks solutions that will work” (McAllaster, 2004, 322).  He may have made a mistake with allowing people to vent their conflicts in public, but he soon turned that situation around to his advantage. He was able to make these changes as he created a vision based on assessment and then communicated the vision to the faculty (Kotter, 2006). His ability to turn around Kennedy High School showed that he was a transformational leader.

McAllaster, C. M. (2004). The 5 P’s of change: Leading change by effectively utilizing leverage points within an organization. Organizational Dynamics. 33(3), 318–328.

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

Kotter, J. P. (2006). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail (chap. 10, pp. 239–251). In Gallos, J. V. (Ed.), Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Organizational

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

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

Video Program: “Transformational Leadership”