I have written frequently about the question of complexity as it relates to change in educational institutions. It is interesting from a philosophical perspective and it is certainly important to consider how change in an organisation is a result of a multitude of interconnected factors. The potential for reliably predicting the outcome of any change effort is surely difficult, if not even impossible once the number of influences becomes large. Acknowledging the complexity that exists and seeing the potential for growth, creativity and innovation that can exist within an organisation at ‘the edge of chaos’ are useful strategies as schools face a period of unprecedented change.
It is well known that change is difficult to achieve. A range of research studies cited by Burnes (2010) mention change failure rates of between 60% and 90%, with cultural change initiatives the most likely to fail. We also know that change is typically a slow process. In a recent interview, Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO shared that his experience in supporting organisations to make significant change reveals that he never sees this happen in less than a decade. (Listen Here)
In a previous post, I drew a parallel with the sport of curling. In curling, a heavy polished stone is hurled across the ice towards a target. Competitors running alongside the stone attempt to keep it on course using brooms to gently shape a path for it to follow. I suggested that the organisation is the stone and its trajectory is a result of many factors. The initial force (the origins of the change initiative), the surface of the ice and its interactions with the stone, (the organisation’s total context and the environment in which it operates), the changes made to the surface by the sweepers (the ongoing inputs of the change-makers) all influence how the change will evolve. When we consider this complexity we should not be surprised when our goals are not achieved.
Typically as change agents, we play the part of the curlers, providing the initial force to get things moving and then running frantically alongside making adjustments based on what we see, guided by our judgement of how to best steer the organisation (or stone) in the intended direction. Each little adjustment has an effect, some towards the goal, some in directions we had not intended. Like the curlers, we do not have complete control and we can act only on the basis of what we are able to see and understand about the organisation’s trajectory and the forces influencing it; we act with imperfect knowledge.
Change in education is notoriously slow. Education systems and schools are often compared to the giant seagoing ships in that both take a very long time to change course. If a teacher from 1890 was transported into a classroom of early 2020 they would feel quite at home. The rows or clusters of desks, the board at the front of the room, the teacher’s desk, the books and general paraphernalia of learning would all be there. They would find the routine of the day familiar too. The ringing of the bell, the movement between well-known disciplines, the rush to the playground for lunch breaks would all comfort our time-traveller’s mind.
But, if our time travelling teacher arrived in many cities of the world today, in April of 2020, amidst the COVID19 pandemic, they would confront a vastly different context.
Not in years or months but in days, teachers have transformed how “school” works. There has been nothing gradual about this change. It has occurred without any strategic vision. There has been no time to map the change and plan for its impact. No opportunity to develop a coalition of the willing. No one had time for focus groups. There is no plan for today or tomorrow and no plan for the long term.
At this point in time, the exceptional efforts of educators responding in the moment is allowing education to continue. Students are learning, teachers are facilitating this and the wider community of parents and carers are playing their part. The effort has been superb. The challenge has been huge. The learning curve required for all stakeholders better resembles a cliff than anything else. Most of the structures and routines of schooling that we are all familiar and comfortable with have been transformed overnight.
COVID19 has taken the rule book on change, torn it into small pieces and thrown most of it out the window.
For many, the rule book on managing change is Kotter’s seminal work on the topic, “The Heart of Change”. According to Kotter, the change initiative begins with an increased sense of urgency. This is perhaps the one piece of the change model which is clearly evident in the responses to COVID19. Once the decision was made to move from face-to-face teaching to online/remote learning there was a very unmistakable sense of urgency for the change. What might be debated is the need for the level of urgency we have seen. While a move to online/remote learning might be viewed as an unavoidable consequence of school closures in response to the pandemic the immediacy of this might be debated. Could teaching and learning have been put on pause for a week or two to allow a more strategic plan for the long-term delivery of online learning to be devised? Would a longer planning process deliver more effective models for online/remote learning or has the change only been possible because the urgency required an emergency response? Would delaying the process of starting the change result in lengthy delays as systems wallowed in the thick mud that typically inhibits change?
Kotter emphasises the importance of a vision for change articulated to its audience with clarity and passion. Simon Sinek takes up Kotter’s idea and describes the need for a compelling ‘Why’. A clear reason for why the change should be undertaken that is easily articulated and provides compelling motivation. This vision for change is what motivates action and gives the change effort its direction. In the case of COVID19, the visioning process seems to be catching up with action. We are seeing an emergency response to uncertain and volatile times. Teachers are making the best of what they have and learning new skills to deliver learning to students who have had no preparation for online learning. Families are called on to assist with the management of learning and to act as teachers. The urgency of the response necessitates that this occurs without reference to our vision for what education might be like and what purposes it should serve. In less urgent times a move to online learning would look vastly different. There would be much consideration of how this model might leverage the affordances of technology, maintain connectedness, deliver individualised content, connect learners globally and enhance learning outcomes. Multiple pedagogical models would be debated, curriculum adjustments considered and a clear vision would be articulated. This is yet to happen but must if this is to be more than a short term band-aid.
The next factor to understand is that individuals are motivated to a large part by the degree of autonomy they believe they have in a situation. Highly controlled, constrictive and micro-managed situations will only result in minimal levels of motivation. A compelling vision delivered prepackaged and with no scope for individualisation will be as morale damaging as any forced change. Edward Deci, Richard Ryan, (2000) and Dan Pink (2009) all show that autonomy motivates. For educators, this is particularly significant as we confront change efforts imposed from above by legislature, curriculum requirements, standardised assessments and it will apply to changes resulting from COVID19. We should predict that there will be many teachers who find the changes required by a move to online learning conflict with their core values. Beyond the initial understanding of the urgency of a response to the pandemic will come a questioning of how this response is evolving. Teachers will want to shape how they deliver online learning and how they engage with their learners. They will seek and expect to be consulted on the models for online learning that are adopted and will want to understand how this aligns with both personal and organisational ideals. Creating space for teacher agency might prove crucial in maintaining motivation beyond the initial weeks of this emergency.
Lastly, the importance of a sustained and broad effort to sustain the change effort is essential. The most compelling and engaging introduction to a change effort will produce no result if it is not backed by ongoing support and nurturing. Consistent ongoing messaging in alignment with the change effort from every point and every opportunity is essential to building and sustaining momentum. Where the change involves shifts in practices that require staff to operate in new ways appropriate and continual professional development is essential. In this case, there is also a great need to provide support to the entire school community. The success of any model for online learning will be dependent on the level to which it is embraced by all stakeholders. Parents and carers always play an important role in education but this is now elevated significantly. Schools will need to identify opportunities to support all members of this now tightly linked learning community.
We are only in the early days of this pandemic. It is likely to be a long time before things return to normal. Already people are asking if we will ever return to the way things were. When we stop and reflect upon this period of enforced changes, will there be aspects of the new model that stay with us? What might be the pieces that stick and what parts will we want to rapidly abandon? Will there be parts of the traditional model of education that are revealed as flawed by our experimentation with alternatives? Let us hope that whatever model might evolve out of this time is a consequence of our very best thinking.
By Nigel Coutts
Burnes, Bernard (2010) Why Does Change Fail and What Can We Do About It?, Journal of Change Management, 10 (2), pp. 241 — 242
Kotter, J & Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organisations. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press
Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, 55(1), 2000, p. 68-78.