The article by Marceta Reilly “Getting Genuine Commitment for Change” (2015), discusses several responses of employees in the education area to the changes proposed by leaders: principals and coaches. The author of the article argues that it is natural to react to new initiatives and practices with resistance and be reluctant to accept innovation. The reason, according to Reilly (2015), is that people feel secure and comfortable when doing their job in customary ways, and are alarmed when changes affect these traditional ways, which they are accustomed with. Often they do not see a need to change anything in their practice and response adversely to innovations. As a result, antagonism between teachers and leaders advocating change causes problems in the everyday school life and negatively affects schoolchildren. In order to persuade subordinates in their vision and necessity of change, leaders in the educational area employ several strategies. Reilly (2015) describes common strategies and their disadvantages and proposes successful strategies for overcoming teachers’ resistance to innovations. In this paper, I will evaluate Reilly’s recommendations from the point of view of various theories, paradigms and frameworks that exist in the field of leadership for change. Based on this analysis, I will assess the article and express my opinion about the author’s recommendations.
When an initiative is proposed, people working in organizations are divided based on their attitude to this change. According to Kantor (as cited in Brafman & Brafman, 2008, p. 157), the roles that the group members play in this process are the following: an initiator – a person, who proposes or initiates a change or innovation; a blocker – the one, who opposes the change and wants to maintain a status-quo; a supporter – a group member that supports a proposes change; and an observer – the one who observes a struggle but does not participate in it. Bolman and Deal (2008) identify three “camps”, when an organization faces a change: supporters, opponents, and fence-sitters (p.386). Thus, basically, both perspectives recognize three main categories, based on the attitude toward a change. The role of the initiator is to enlarge the camp of supporters and convince fence-sitters and opponents of the advantages of the new approach. The resistance to change can be explained by the transition cycle model, which consists of denial, resistance, exploration and commitment. Another model that attempts to describe the state of mind of people who face a big organizational change is the Kubler-Ross Grieving Process Model, which includes five stages: shock and denial, anger, bargaining, depression and, finally, acceptance. When personnel are unwilling to accept the inevitability of the change, the final steps of these models often are not reached. What is even more interesting, people resist change even when the outcome of this change will affect them positively (Lowder, 2009).
Bolman and Deal (2008) view the organizational processes and leadership through the four prisms or frames. According to their standpoint, “a frame is a mental model – a set of ideas and assumptions – that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a particular “territory”” (p. 11). Bolman and Deal (2008) identify four frames that view organizations from different angles and focus on various elements of interpersonal communication in order to achieve a desired outcome. These perspectives are structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. I will utilize the framework of these authors to assess Reilly’s recommendations.
Reilly (2015) enumerates several ways that leaders use to respond to challenges, when teachers oppose changes. One of the strategies is using logic, which means trying to persuade teachers through the use of statistical data, which helps to identify underachieving students and use an innovative approach to improve their academic performance. In this way, the agent of change utilizes structural frame, which is focused on data and structures an organization as a factory (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Structural leaders concentrate on the implementation of an innovation without properly assessing resistance of employees and without gaining enough supporters, so called political base among employees (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Another strategy that is used by educational leaders is a kind and helpful approach to the employees. In this case, leaders attempt to facilitate the painful change and support teachers in different ways: bringing materials for teaching or treats for teachers. Such approach can be evaluated through the human resources lens. This framework views an organization as a family and seeks to build trust with employees. However, when a leader is not regarded by employees as a credible person and trustworthy professional, all this “niceness” does not lead to the successful implementation of change. Quite the opposite, the coach or principal is considered to be a “weakling” and “pushover” and is not respected and followed by subordinates (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 356).
The other practices, described by Reilly (2015) are negotiating with opposition and coercing them to accept change. These strategies are from the arsenal of the political lens, which frames an organization as a jungle, where leverage is a main tool to achieve a successful change. Political leaders often negotiate with the resistant staff, attempting to achieve a compromise and settle disputes. However, as Reilly (2015) argues, when a personnel does not believe in the urgency of change and does not commit to implement a new approach, negotiations and bargaining tactics bring only a short-term compliance. The same problems are associated with the coercive approach. The use of coercive power and attempts to dominate the staff through authoritative approach is not very productive in the long term. It can result in stronger opposition on the side of opponents, who can also employ coercive tactics through the influence on the key stakeholders – a school board and parents, - and therefore, undermine the reputation of the leader.
The described strategies may not lead to the desired outcome as they reflect those characteristics of a leader that are not associated with an inspiring leadership. On the contrary, the first approach, while rational and logical, fails to connect with the emotions of the personnel and take into account their feelings. The second strategy tries to demonstrate the emotional intelligence of the leader and his or her willingness to assist teachers, but can be assessed as a weakness and incapability to lead effectively to the comprehensive change. The last two tactics are unsuccessful, because they can achieve only a short-term compliance of the staff, which does not necessarily evolve into a long-term commitment. In addition, these tactics contribute to the bad image of a leader, as the personnel starts to view him as an arrogant authority, who does not listen to the opposite opinion and is ready to use any means to reach his or her goals. Besides, such strategies do not help the staff to see the potential benefits that the change may bring them later on.
Leaders should remember that the decisions they make an impact on other people. This is why it is important to keep them involved in the process of change, so that they take part in the decision-making practice and have a chance to express their ideas and concerns. In this way they begin to perceive the change as a fair process and their reluctance fades out (Brafman & Brafman, 2008). The practices, identified as successful by Reilly (2015) in general agree with this observation. For instance, when leaders try to use positive intent and assume that the personnel and schoolchildren are capable to grow and improve, are willing to give a try and alter their practices, they set high standards and express their belief, that teachers and students can meet these expectations. The validity of such positive approach was proved in the meta-analysis of work organizations by Kierein and Gold (2000, as cited in Brafman & Brafman, 2008, p. 99).
Another positive practice that leaders can employ to connect to the feelings of teachers, is reframing resistance, to find out, what concerns and fears underlay the reluctance of the staff to accept a change (Reilly, 2015). Such approach can be viewed through the prism of the human resources frame, which recognizes the negative consequences of rapid change on the self-esteem and confidence of teachers. When changes occur, existing knowledge, practice, and skills seem to be insufficient to perform the tasks, which previously were performed with confidence and success. New reality in the workplace gives birth to the anxiety, confusion, feeling of incompetence, and loss of confidence (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The objective that a good leader should pursue is to provide psychological support, to train the staff in order to make a transition smoother, and to make sure that the personnel have an opportunity to participate in the discussion of the change. In this way, a leader will build a successful communication with the staff and demonstrate that he or she listens to them and cares for their wellbeing and feelings.
As mentioned before, coercive power does not help to change a mindset of traditionalists in an organization. Instead, an arena for discussion can be created that will give a voice to all the parts of the conflict and ensure that opponents of the innovation are able to express their opinion. In addition, such arena can have a positive influence on the acceptance of change, as the supporters of a new practice will be able and willing to share their experience and show examples, recall situations, when a new approach gave a better result and in this way, convince the opponents to adopt the changes. Leaders can identify those employees who are more willing to adopt a new practice and encourage them to support others, who cannot adjust to new conditions (Oreg, & Berson, 2011).
Reilly (2015) advises to ignore a power struggle and do not spend time and energy to persuade those, who resist to the changes. However, the author misses out the importance of analysis of the power distribution in the organization and identification of interests that influence key players. These aspects of the political leadership, alongside with the building of networks with key stakeholders, will help educational leaders to achieve their goals (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The last but not the least helpful piece of advice, discussed by Reilly (2015), is connecting new ideas to the existing practices and teachers’ beliefs. This idea is a powerful strategy, as it allows to integrate the change into the current practice and to link it to the personnel’s beliefs in the meaningful way. This strategy of “welding” old and new is a key component to successful change (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 387). When leaders are ready to listen to the valuable insights of their employees, the input of personnel makes a change more sustainable and long-lived (Lowder, 2009). It is important that the personnel identify themselves as active agents of change, not the voiceless subordinates. Beliefs of the staff also play an important role in the adoption of a new practice. As viewed through the symbolic lens, a transforming leader can communicate a new uplifting vision that will be achieved with the change, if he or she can show that this vision is in line with teachers’ beliefs and values. This is why, new leaders should understand, which are the core values of the school culture, and introduce only incremental changes in these values (Hallinger, 2011). One of the characteristics of the inspirational leadership is the ability to identify the vision, through which a leader directs employees and helps them navigate through the changing environment (Oreg, & Berson, 2011). This vision can be communicated through words, deeds, and symbols (Kotter, 2002, as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 394). Vision and goals inspire the personnel to contribute to the achievement of the common goal (Hallinger, 2011). This is why they should be employed as a tool to overcome the insecurity of employees and direct their efforts toward the implementation of a new practice.
The practices that Reilly (2015) criticizes and those, which she recommends, effectively reflect the two change models: theory E – a top-down, harsh approach, and theory O – a participative strategy, which emphasizes organizational culture (Beer & Nohria, 2001, as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 374). Theory E is a more coercive approach and does not provide an area for discussion or staff’s participation in the decision-making process. This approach often meets a stiff resistance and adds to the confusion and the feeling of insecurity, experienced by the personnel in the time of change. On the other hand, theory O highlights the importance of collaboration of all the players, who are influenced by the change. In this model, the opponents of the innovation can voice their concerns and make a contribution to the decision-making.
After all, leaders of any organization, big or small, in any area, education or health care, have to realize the simple truth, stated by Machiavelli in 1514:
“there is nothing more difficult to plan, more uncertain of success, or more dangerous to manage than the establishment of a new order of [things]; for he who introduces [change] makes enemies of all those who derived advantage from the old order and finds but lukewarm defenders among those who stand to gain from the new one. (cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008, pp. 377-378).
In order to overcome the difficulties and challenges associated with the change, leaders should listen to concerns of their subordinates and be ready to incorporate the valuable insights of employees into the new practice. They should clearly demonstrate with their words and deeds that they care about the personnel and are willing to address the problems, resulted from the change. Leaders should not view the resistance to a new practice as a personal offence and recognize that people are more comfortable to maintain a status-quo, while the changes bring stress, anxiety, confusion, and the sense of incompetence. The job of leaders is to provide support and assistance to their followers in the changing environment. Reilly (2015) observes anger, frustration, and helplessness in the comments of educational leaders, when they speak of resistance that they faced during the implementation of a new practice. Reilly emphasizes that the reluctance to adopt changes is natural and criticizes some strategies that coaches and prnciples employ in order to persuade employees in the correctness of the new vision. These strategies mostly fail, because they do not relate an innovation to the existing practice and they cannot connect a change to the teachers’ extensive experience. At the same time, other leaders have found working strategies that Reilly (2015) identifies as useful and suitable to communicate the advantages of innovation effectively. Having analyzed the practices that Reilly (2015) recommends through several prisms and frameworks, I have found that these approaches can result in the positive outcome and help leaders in the educational field make transition and the adoption of change easier and less painful. Overall, the human resources frame provides the most valuable strategies that help to address teachers’ emotions, while the symbolic frame demonstrates the necessity to connect innovation with the beliefs of employees, regarding the mission, vision, and goals of an educational institution.
References:
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brafman, O., & Brafman, R. (2008). Sway: The irresistible pull of irrational behavior. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of educational administration, 49(2), 125-142.
Lowder, B. T. (2009). Change management for survival: Becoming an adaptive leader. Available at SSRN 1411492
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEES’ REACTIONS TO CHANGE: THE ROLE OF LEADERS’ PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE. Personnel psychology, 64(3), 627-659.
Reilly, M. (2015). Getting Genuine Commitment for Change. Educational Leadership, 72(7), 42-46.
