Change, as Fullan (2007) and Hall and Hord (2006) indicate, is not a pleasant experience for most people. Some want to enjoy the benefits of change or improvement without taking risks or working hard. Some resist change simply because uncertainties make them uncomfortable--change usually causes anxiety, stress, and frustration. Thus, in order for any change to be successful, the proponents of change must clearly articulate logical, principle-based, and measurable goals of change to reduce negative externalities.
Once the need to change is identified through a generally acceptable inquiry cycle absent of personal prejudices or biases, then the subsequent stage of implementation must be marked by flexibility, frankness, and friendliness. The following paragraphs describe each 'F' in greater detail.
Flexibility
If change or innovation is determined necessary, then there must be some ‘elbow space’ for everyone involved in the process. That is, after what to change is identified, how to change should be determined by inviting input, concerns, and ideas from involved parties. For instance, if improving student achievement (identified or shared goal) is to be accomplished through technology integration, then there should be time and opportunity for those who will be involved in the process to openly express their concerns and ideas. The underlying assumption here is that collaboration or 'brainstorming' together will usually produce more effective strategies [1] and also reduce negative concerns. Of course, there are situations that require firm, top-down leadership to achieve the end, but that should be the exception, not the norm.
Frankness
An organization is nothing more than a web of personal relations. If so, what makes the relationship strong or cohesive? Relational strengths depend on transparency and honesty. The hallmark of great leadership, as portrayed in the lives of biblical notables, is honesty in relationships. David, for instance, was frank and open with Jonathan. David's sincerity is also depicted in his relation with Prophet Samuel when Samuel confronted David about Bathsheba. I believe David’s frankness was an attractive character which drew many toward him. People followed David because he was sincere, open, and transparent. Frankness or transparency is the basis on which meaningful relations are built, in marriages, friendships, or work places. Leaders especially must be transparent if they are to lead change effectively.
Friendliness
The third F is 'friendliness.' Again, if an organization is a place where relations are forged and maintained, then collegiality or comradery must exist to form a team. Buckingham and Coffan (1999) argue that effective and productive organizations are those that have ‘best friends’ among employees. That may not be the case for all organizations, but at least the attitude among the staff should be friendly and cordial. Who would like to work with uncaring, unfriendly, and unkind co-workers? Who would like to change a familiar method or practice when the change is demanded by uncaring bosses? Why would anyone be excited about change if the person promoting that change is usually cold or unfriendly? As explained in Hall and Hord (2006), the leadership style is crucial to achieving change, and the collaborative environment cannot be created without first establishing a friendly working relations.
Thus, the three F's briefly described here will make any change more implement-able and achievable.
[1] For more, see Hall & Hord (2006), Chapters 2 and 7. Schmoker (2006) also identified isolation as the enemy of improvement in American public schools (p. 24).
Comentários