Before getting into this post, I'd like to take moment to share something based on a little constructive feedback I recently received...
While I do hope this blog will be read by others (for all of the psychological "payoffs" one would associate with authoring), the truth is that the main reason I write here is to distill and clarify my own thoughts on the process of bringing about positive change. If you happen to find the use of the second person in my writing and my constant referring to you as the reader a bit presumptuous and forthright, please consider that for most of my writing the "you" I am communicating to in these posts is really, more than anyone else, me.
Thanks for reading.
- Jason
****
TL;DR: Change is hard, and most folks would rather dance with the devil they know than the one they don't. Identify your obstacles before they show up, be clear about your purpose and your plan, and find both the emotional and intellectual reasons for your stakeholders to support it.
Imagine for a minute that a government transportation official came on TV one day and announced that they would be overhauling all of the rules and laws for driving on roads in order to reduce the frequency of traffic accidents. Additionally, imagine they hadn't yet fully sorted out the new rules and in their "infinite wisdom" decided that until the new rules were established, all existing rules would be null and void. Traffic signals & such would still be functional, but no one would be required to obey any of the existing signals or rules until new ones had been established.
Firstly, consider your emotional response to such a proposal. Granted, the scenario is ludicrous, so a realistic emotional response may be unlikely, but if you can try to imagine how you (or anyone else) would react to such an announcement, could you honestly say that your response would be one of excitement or relief? Probably not.
The concept is ridiculous for a number of reasons, but consider for a moment what might actually happen in the days immediately following such a radical announcement. Do you imagine the roads suddenly becoming utter chaos? I suppose it's possible, but I suspect that what would most likely happen is that the overwhelming majority of folks would simply continue doing what they have always done until they were told to do otherwise: stopping on red, and going on green. We might all be a lot more mindful and observant of the other drivers around us, but most likely we'd try getting around with what we already knew and were used to.
One of the reasons this is so is because change, particularly change involving uncertain outcomes, is something that we are biologically wired to resist. Changes, especially the unexpected or ones with uncertain outcomes, trigger our most basic survival instincts. When we're running on instinct, we tend to operate on what we know, what is familiar, and what is safe.
Now take a moment to think about this in the context of educational reform. A teacher (or a school or a jurisdiction) is challenged with making a radical change to their operating procedures in order to produce a particular set of outcomes. If the change has never really been tried, the path to the outcome is uncertain and its achievement is far from guaranteed. How do most people tend to react to this?
Leadership author, Brent Filson, describes the motivational patterns of individuals in an organization as following a 20-60-20 rule: He postulates that roughly 20% of people are highly motivated, impactful, and able to adapt to organizational or environmental change with little to no disruption. At the other end of the scale are the 20% of people who not only tend to get less accomplished, but may also sabotage (intentionally or otherwise) the performance of others. The remaining 60% lie somewhere between these two extremes in terms of motivation and performance and are often influenced to lean more favorably toward one of the two 20% extremes depending upon how strong or dominant one polar group is relative to the other.
In the context of educational change, we can imagine a similar set of groupings. Regardless of how well the case for change is made, you can typically divide educators into 3 orientations toward it:
Adopters are ready, willing, and able to make the shift right away. This is our top group, and while they might not represent exactly 20%, they will still typically be in the minority.
Opposers are not only unready, but they are actively opposed to the change and will either openly or covertly resist it. This is our bottom group and again, depending on the change, will still probably be in the minority.
What's left is that middle 60 (give or take a few points either way). These folks could potentially wind up going in either direction, and often the motivational and influential tug-of-war that takes place between the two extreme groups will determine the direction in which the middle majority will head.
What's important to understand here is that the middle group, like a driver on roads suddenly without rules, feels best served by what they already know -- the status quo.
Those who actively oppose change get a leg up on the adopters because most folks, even if they might be inclined to head out on the roads and test the chaos (hopefully with far less potential for vehicular mayhem than rule-less roads), will still tend to lean toward what they already know how to do. And of course, that is not change. So whether we're talking about teachers implementing a new initiative, parents whose children are navigating unfamiliar teaching methods, or administrators implementing policy changes in a school or a jurisdiction, more people than not are going to tend to prefer the status quo to the untried and untested. Eventually, even the best laid plans born from the best of intentions will come under scrutiny and opposition.
So let's assume that you, dear reader, are not only an adopter of change, but perhaps even an instigator of it. You've got your idea or your plan, and you may even have some allies who want to spur changes along with you. However, it has occurred to you, either by foresight or an encounter, that putting your plan into motion requires getting around, over, or through challenges or barriers put up by others who are not as convinced as you are that the plan is worth pursuing.
So I present to you 7 strategies for getting your change start-up past the roadblocks that might stymie or stall it before it ever gets off the ground. Most of these strategies are suggested with that middle 60% group in mind. It's not to say that you couldn't or shouldn't spend time and energy on the opposers. It's just that once the masses are convinced, once the top 20 (of which you are a part) wins the tug-of-war, the nay-saying will no longer matter. Even if leadership or gatekeepers are in opposition, once your plan becomes a movement of the masses, no one person can remain in opposition to the majority for long.
1. Figure out who's going to care and why.
Some might call this a stakeholder map, but whatever you name it spending the time to sort out who the change is going to impact and how it will do so is a vital exercise. It is also worth considering who has a stake in the implementation and/or the outcomes of your change and why they are going to care about it. Change produces enough chaos on its own without needing help from confused and uncertain stakeholders. Will colleagues be affected by your plan? Which ones, and to what degree? How about parents? Jurisdiction leaders?
Take time to have a real and honest conversation with your team about what impact your proposal will have on others. The impact might very well be an overall positive one. But even so, if your "rollout" gives the impression that you haven't considered others in your grand designs, it will be met with even more opposition.
It's also worth thinking about what each party will want to know and why they might object to your proposal. This exercise will serve two purposes: Firstly, it will hopefully mitigate the risk of being caught off guard with a question or a concern for which you have no reasonable response. Secondly, it may allow you to identify real problems with your plan before you pitch it to others.
2. Be prepared to answer a question that will likely go unasked: "What's in it for me?"
We all want to be able to say that "we're in it for the kids." However, one needn't look very far or hard to find structures or procedures in education that serve the adults in the system more than the students. That may seem an indictment of public education, but in reality it is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the people in education are just that: people. To some extent we're all looking out for number one, even when we're trying to look out for our students.
When the winds of change start blowing, each and every one of us, whether by instinct or intent, tries to evaluate how the change will impact our own lives and our own practices directly. When that impact is unclear, the reaction is no better than one to an impact that is clearly negative.
To avoid this reaction, consider what positive effect your proposal might have on the person or group you are pitching the idea to. Certainly you can (and likely should) come armed with informational ammunition about how your approach will positively impact students and their learning. But people will also want to know how your change will impact them. Will this save them time, make them more effective at their jobs, reduce their stress levels, or solve a problem in their lives? Find what their emotional payoff could or should be and spell that out. If you can't find one, at the very least be able to offer them as clear a picture as possible of what the impact will be.
3. Make sure you have a clear idea of what needs to be done along the way.
You can have the most glorious and well articulated end state in mind when you go to sell your idea, but if you can't show others that you've at least found the Yellow Brick Road, they'll be unlikely to believe that you're going to make it to The Emerald City. Change requires new behaviors. If you can't articulate what those new behaviors will be and how you will set about implementing them, they'll be less likely to accept that the results are achievable.
It's not enough to say "we're going to increase student engagement." That's an outcome, and it's a worthwhile one to be sure. What your stakeholders want to know is how you're going to increase student engagement. If you can't articulate how you hope to achieve your goals, at a minimum you should be able to articulate how you plan to find out.
4. Find examples.
There's a very reasonable chance that you're not the first person to try this new thing that you want to try. Who else has done what you want to do? Has it worked? Can you show others that it worked and can you articulate why? If possible, can you relate that narrative to others in the form of a story? If so, you've got a compelling recipe for overcoming objections before they are ever raised. So take the time to do your research.
5. Call in the cavalry.
Who else would be interested in seeing this change move forward? Is it consistent with the long range plans of your jurisdiction, your parent council, or your government? Are there allies whose support or endorsement may lend weight to overcoming opposition? This may be a delicate issue, so certainly tread with care, but is there a person or organization in a position of superiority or influence to your potential opposition who would be an effective ally? Consider that you may need to develop a support base before bringing the change to a particular stakeholder.
6. Can it be prototyped?
If what you're proposing is, in fact, too much for a school or a department to bite off in one move, consider whether it's possible to do what you want on a smaller scale in order to demonstrate its efficacy. Does narrowing the time frame make it more manageable? How about the number of students/staff involved? Can you create a "school within a school" where those who want to opt in can do so without heavily impacting those who do not? Having a Plan B ready to go that allows you to achieve modest steps forward may be the necessary alternative to simply being told "no."
7. Be mindful and listen.
Education reimaginer Monika Hardy encourages us to notice, dream, connect, do. The first step in that sequence is "notice." In her context, she encourages us to notice the problems and the needs of the world around us and to work towards filling those needs. In this context the problems and needs of your stakeholders will be communicated to you through both their support and their opposition. Taking careful notice of those messages and considering them mindfully (as opposed to focussing strictly on your own agenda) will allow you to navigate the challenges you will face as you attempt to bring the vision into reality.
****
Change is certainly hard, but whatever happens, stick with it. Change author Seth Godin tells us that "the way we make change happen is by being human, by being connected, and by doing things that might not work." It's OK that it might not work. We know that keeping the things the same ultimately isn't going to work either. So march on.
Vive le resistance!
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment