Leading Change from within
Change leadership and sustainability
Change is inevitable, a constant evolution. As our learners change, so must we. The role of the educator no longer falls within an industrialised model of education. Students are different, their learning is different and so must our teaching be. Leading change remains at the core of my practice. Enabling it through distributed leadership and positioning myself carefully to be the most effective I can be sit at the centre of my philosophy. Every voice must be heard with every avenue explored in the best interests of keeping learners at the centre of learning.
Whether beginning within or adapting to the change of others, the inevitability that our practice must evolve and transform remains.
From my blog post 'Change starts in the Middle'
Leading change is a fantastic minefield of resistance, validation and challenging conversations. If it weren’t you’d have to ask yourself the question, ‘am I actually changing anything?’ Change in its very nature can feel very challenging to some. The reasons behind the challenge may differ from person to person. It could simply be the sheer size of change and level of difference. However, it could be as a result of exposing one’s own vulnerabilities, an admission that one has not been doing everything they could have. As a result the resistance begins to build and without careful management, can lead to some very difficult situations. So where does change begin? To me, change starts in the middle. This is an odd phrase but what I mean is that middle leaders and management often hold the key to actioning positive shifts in a whole staff. It’s the middle managers that are often the go-between between senior leadership and the chalk face. I remember feeling like a buffer at times when sharing a shift or a direction that I knew a team member might not like. But, as a manager, I listened, I validated and I took the time to consult. A quote I’ve used many times recently comes from a piece of research by Dean Anderson in which he stated:
“Mandating the change, which squelches participation and increases employee resistance;” (Anderson 2001)
Change in strategy or direction that comes from the top down can sometimes feel like it’s being mandated. It’s here that the middle manager has their pivotal role in facilitating shift. They are change agents. Ben Trowbridge, the CEO of Alsbridge Inc, has championed middle managers as facilitators of change and leaders in their own right. Whether you see them as change agents or the linchpin between senior leaders and operational staff, it’s the middle management that help paint the wider picture.
“Positive participation from middle management helps employees see the broader picture and the impact of change beyond their own individual interests.” (Trowbridge 2011)
Education is often seen as the war on ignorance, so is it fair to argue that our middle managers are both fighting in the trenches as well as making decisions in the war rooms? The employees that see their middle managers representing the best interests of the workers are the ones who will follow first. The employee that has a high level of trust in their manager will back a change, even if it means more work in the short term or contradicts their original stance.
From 'Validating Resistance' on CoreEducation's Blog here
It’s easy to continue conversations with those who readily conform, happy to explore agreeable concepts further. However, as Fullan points out, it might get you through the day, but it won’t get you past the resistance to the changes you want to make. To achieve change with shared understanding and collaborative practice, the resistance must be validated. This might be a challenging conversation and may not achieve anything initially, but to the person or people resisting, it indicates that you’re listening.
“In all organisations, respecting resistance is essential, because if you ignore it, it is only a matter of time before it takes its toll, perhaps during implementation if not earlier. “ (Fullan 2001)
Respectfully acknowledging a difference of opinion or understanding is the first step in negotiating a common ground. In not doing so it could be argued that it’s no longer facilitation that’s occurring, but dictation. The recent notion that often resistance comes from a lack of knowledge around technological change, or even from being asked to move outside of a comfort zone, is not new. What has become more apparent is that our response to what we may perceive as stubbornness, actually stems from our lack of understanding of an individual’s identity and who they are. What I arrogantly judge to be resistance to change may simply be resistance to my judgement.
Without honouring the past — Titiro Whakamuri — how can we ask individuals to push the boundaries of education? Understanding your whakapapa is essential, identifying someone’s existing skills, their ringa rehe, must be undertaken before any resolution can be found. Recognising that the skills and pedagogy someone has are still valid in the modern classroom creates trust and professionalism in a relationship.
Whether beginning within or adapting to the change of others, the inevitability that our practice must evolve and transform remains.
From my blog post 'Change starts in the Middle'
Leading change is a fantastic minefield of resistance, validation and challenging conversations. If it weren’t you’d have to ask yourself the question, ‘am I actually changing anything?’ Change in its very nature can feel very challenging to some. The reasons behind the challenge may differ from person to person. It could simply be the sheer size of change and level of difference. However, it could be as a result of exposing one’s own vulnerabilities, an admission that one has not been doing everything they could have. As a result the resistance begins to build and without careful management, can lead to some very difficult situations. So where does change begin? To me, change starts in the middle. This is an odd phrase but what I mean is that middle leaders and management often hold the key to actioning positive shifts in a whole staff. It’s the middle managers that are often the go-between between senior leadership and the chalk face. I remember feeling like a buffer at times when sharing a shift or a direction that I knew a team member might not like. But, as a manager, I listened, I validated and I took the time to consult. A quote I’ve used many times recently comes from a piece of research by Dean Anderson in which he stated:
“Mandating the change, which squelches participation and increases employee resistance;” (Anderson 2001)
Change in strategy or direction that comes from the top down can sometimes feel like it’s being mandated. It’s here that the middle manager has their pivotal role in facilitating shift. They are change agents. Ben Trowbridge, the CEO of Alsbridge Inc, has championed middle managers as facilitators of change and leaders in their own right. Whether you see them as change agents or the linchpin between senior leaders and operational staff, it’s the middle management that help paint the wider picture.
“Positive participation from middle management helps employees see the broader picture and the impact of change beyond their own individual interests.” (Trowbridge 2011)
Education is often seen as the war on ignorance, so is it fair to argue that our middle managers are both fighting in the trenches as well as making decisions in the war rooms? The employees that see their middle managers representing the best interests of the workers are the ones who will follow first. The employee that has a high level of trust in their manager will back a change, even if it means more work in the short term or contradicts their original stance.
From 'Validating Resistance' on CoreEducation's Blog here
It’s easy to continue conversations with those who readily conform, happy to explore agreeable concepts further. However, as Fullan points out, it might get you through the day, but it won’t get you past the resistance to the changes you want to make. To achieve change with shared understanding and collaborative practice, the resistance must be validated. This might be a challenging conversation and may not achieve anything initially, but to the person or people resisting, it indicates that you’re listening.
“In all organisations, respecting resistance is essential, because if you ignore it, it is only a matter of time before it takes its toll, perhaps during implementation if not earlier. “ (Fullan 2001)
Respectfully acknowledging a difference of opinion or understanding is the first step in negotiating a common ground. In not doing so it could be argued that it’s no longer facilitation that’s occurring, but dictation. The recent notion that often resistance comes from a lack of knowledge around technological change, or even from being asked to move outside of a comfort zone, is not new. What has become more apparent is that our response to what we may perceive as stubbornness, actually stems from our lack of understanding of an individual’s identity and who they are. What I arrogantly judge to be resistance to change may simply be resistance to my judgement.
Without honouring the past — Titiro Whakamuri — how can we ask individuals to push the boundaries of education? Understanding your whakapapa is essential, identifying someone’s existing skills, their ringa rehe, must be undertaken before any resolution can be found. Recognising that the skills and pedagogy someone has are still valid in the modern classroom creates trust and professionalism in a relationship.