Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: First Steps

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: First Steps: A challenge associated with any change theory of action is we know change is not linear, concrete, or sequential in practice.   As we have ...

First Steps

A challenge associated with any change theory of action is we know change is not linear, concrete, or sequential in practice.  As we have learned through experience, change theory is just that, theory. 

Change generally costs more than we want to pay!

Change takes longer than we anticipated!

Change takes us down roads, paths, and trails we never thought we’d go!

Face it - Change is messy!

As someone whom for most of my career has been about creating, provoking, cajoling, facilitating, leading, or preaching “change”, I, like most people, don’t’ like “changing”.  

There is a difference of course between “change” and “changing”.

One is a “what” or an expectation while the other is a process or “how”.

The desired or expected result of change is “good”, “improvement” or “better”.  Whereas “changing” is where the carnage pile up.  Making change a four-letter word, right?

More often or not lacking a well thought through “process” plan or map is missing.  I have learned that the absence of an assessment of capacity, competence, confidence, constraints, and courage to navigate the change process successfully is what makes “changing” such a mess.

In presenting the inequality D x V x FS > R, the variables of Dissatisfaction (D), Vision (V), and Reluctance or Resistance (R) with the intent of emphasizing that there is a range within each variable that influences the utility and import of that variable on the process have previously been unpacked.

Dissatisfaction must be informed by data that is perceived to be within the control of those who for the most part need to change their thinking to change a program, practice, process or etc.  Vision must resonate with the core values or guiding principles of each individual as well as the organization.  It must be clear, understandable, and compelling.

Balancing the range of dissatisfaction and vision is potentially a slippery slope.  This is where First Steps (FS) becomes absolutely critical because it is the “how” of “changing”.   If, for example, an individual, group, or organization does not have the capacity, confidence, or competence to initiate, engage, or participate in the proposed change no vision or level of dissatisfaction will suffice to ensure the change is successful.

The analysis or assessment of capacity, confidence and competence of individuals is informed by understanding of constraints – individually and organizationally.   Constraints are neither good nor bad – they just are!  Out of balance, however, constraints are a liability.

What does this mean?

I’ve learned that constraints are at the heart of taking first steps toward “change”.  Too often, leaders skip over constraints and miss the power and purpose of assessing self and others to ascertain if, and to what extent constraints pose imminent danger to “changing”.  Failure to account for constraints is fatal and will fuel the very beliefs and behaviors that shift reluctance to both overt and covert resistance.

We have embarked on a transformative change initiative of technology integration to conversion of teaching and learning.  Without going into details about the specific plan, our first step was to identify any and all known constraints that could or would prevent us from moving forward. 

Chief among these were the capacity, confidence and competence of our instructional staff with instructional design and use of digital tools and devices.  Making assumptions about capacities can be as catastrophic as failing to identify and address constraints. 

This is where courage in and of leadership comes into play.  Leaders must leverage time not be held hostage by it to develop not only understanding but also a plan to address constraints – individually and organizationally.  Hence, my summation that First Steps is the most critical of the variables in our inequality.

The landscape is becoming replete with examples of failed change initiatives resultant from the failure to build or expand capacity, competence, and confidence to ensure constraints don’t impede or prevent change as being achievable. 

Let me conclude by returning to where I started, resistance being misinterpreted.  Yes, there will always be an element resisting any change.  I’ve learned that many that resist have had a negative experience with change a constraint to be sure.  This is probably why I like this inequality.  It makes sense.  It allows me and those I have worked with to build enough capacity to reduce not eliminate resistance. Applying this theory of action is a tool for leaders to use to increase the desired and expected results of change.

Best of success on your next change initiative - 

Dissatisfaction and Vision

In “Reluctance or Resistance – not the same”, I offered an mathematical inequality shared with me many years ago representing a theory of action to initiative change and increase the opportunity for success.  On one side of the inequality are three variables and on the other side is one - the variable of reluctance often interpreted as resistance.

As you recall, inequalities are represented by symbols translated as “less than, less than or equal to, greater than, or greater than or equal to” as compared to equalities where the “equal to” symbol is used.   Utilizing similar understandings and practices employed with solving equalities, solving inequalities never yield a definitive number or value.  Rather, inequalities are always expressed in terms of a range hence the “less than or equal to” language for example.  When applied to the theory of action for change, this makes perfect sense especially in interpreting variables like reluctance or resistance.  There is always a range of reluctance as there is with resistance to any thing new or different.

Last week I committed to discussing the variable dissatisfaction. I realized, however, that it would be unfair and to a certain degree impractical not to include the second of three variables, vision, to assist with context.  If you don’t have an “ideal state” or a “picture of the future”, dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs is futile.

Dissatisfaction in and of it self is problematic for two reasons.  

First – As the first step towards making a change, dissatisfaction is more than a state of frustration or discontent with the status quo; and

Second – Dissatisfaction with the status quo requires data - authentic, relevant data.  

The most misunderstood use of data is the degree to which there is perceived and real ownership of the data used to illuminate dissatisfaction.  Too often data points are summarily dismissed and labeled as inauthentic or invalid.  This occurs chiefly because there is perceived little or no influence and therefore control of what the data represents.  An additional reason data is dismissed is that not all data is of equal worth or value.  Simply, “weighing the pig doesn’t make the pig fatter”.

In education, for example, this was true – note past tense.  We know more now than ever the “cause and effect” relationship between teaching and learning.  We also know the oft-cited and historical reasons for poor student performance or failure to learn was attributed to influences or factors outside educators’ control.  This has and continues to be readily accepted.  What research has proven (see Correlates of Effective Schools research) is that educators do, in fact, control enough of the factors to ensure effective or successful learning for each learner irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, or etc.

The key is focusing on those factors that are within the control of educators.  To that end, the data used to bring to light dissatisfaction must be perceived within an individual, group, or organization's control.

Dissatisfaction needs a vision.  If you have a high degree of dissatisfaction but a lackluster vision, staff become disillusioned, dishearten, and possibly cynical or skeptical about committing to change.  Conversely, low dissatisfaction accompanied by a powerful vision will generate much the same but with leadership.  

Teetering on being political, a present example is the Affordable Health Care Act.  The vision of universal health care is powerful.  The level of dissatisfaction with the present system, however, is not to a level that the vision requires especially with those most needed to participate.  Hence, there is significant reluctance and resistance to accepting and embracing the vision irrespective of the legitimacy of the vision.  Finding balance between dissatisfaction and vision to successfully initiate change requires a third variable – First Steps.

First Steps may be the most significant of the variables in proving our inequality as true.  In this case, we want to prove that Dissatisfaction (D) multiplied by Vision (V) multiplied by First Steps (FS) is greater than Reluctance (R) or Resistance (D x V x FS > R).

Dissatisfaction must be informed by data.  Data must have ownership. Thus, the range of dissatisfaction is informed by the range of ownership each person has with the data.  The range of vision is defined by how compelling the “ideal state” is with each individual as well as the organizational. The vision, if forced or mandated, will create a state of compliance not commitment increasing the range of reluctance and resistance.  

Change to be successful requires commitment.  Again, the alignment of core values and guiding principles to the vision is critical and is what generates and sustains commitment.

Next week, an explanation of First Steps will provide both awareness and understanding as to why the range of dissatisfaction and vision has not by themselves balanced reluctance or resistance to begin about enduring change.  We will look at the important role capacity, competence, constraints, and courage play in defining the variable First Steps range.

Resistance or Reluctance; They're not the same!

It’s not so much what we know or even what we know we don’t know that interferes with change albeit personal, professional or organizational.  Rather, it is what we don’t know that we don’t know that more often or not prevents the greatest challenges to change and the change process.

Recently, a colleague and I were “thinking through” several obstacles presently in the way of change.  In this particular incident the change needed is a significant shift in the way we approach college advisement and the college admission process especially for historically underrepresented or marginalized groups of students.  Though no “clear” answer was agreed upon an understanding of a change process illuminated several deliberate steps we need to take to increase the likelihood of a shift.

Tremendous effort has been expended to understand change with the best hopes of bringing it about efficiently and effectively.  Change and the change experience are argued with the best intentions – linear versus nonlinear, logical versus illogical, concrete versus random, orderly versus chaotic and so on.  Suffice; change and the change process may be likened to describing “good” weather – it all depends on the individual.

We do know change and the change process are often messy, complex, and tainted with conflict. We all have experienced mandated change and heard or read all the reasons, rationales, explanations, and excuses accompanying the “why” of change.

Over the next couple of weeks – leading up to the New Year when “change” is in the air and often vogue to discuss and commit to, I will share some thoughts from “this is what I’ve learned” category with respect to change and the change process.

Back to the colleague and my conversation - The change process we discussed was first introduced to me in the mid-1990’s by a consultant working with our organization.  The underpinnings for this particular process are a combination of a number of theories about human learning, motivation, control, and change.

Not to over simplify but I’ve come to experience any change as akin to a mathematical inequality - a mathematical expression that shows that two quantities are not equal.  The goal or aim of an inequality is to make both sides equal to one another.

On one side of the change equation is the need to change and on the other exists the need not to change.  Teetering on the obvious.  The need not to change is often referred to as resistance to change.  We all know what resistance looks like, feels like, and sounds like. The landscape is replete with examples of “change” battles won and lost.  In the end, a lot of damage and disappointment not to mention disillusionment, distrust, and cynicism.

I’ve learned that resistance is more often or not reluctance.  The two are generally seen as the same but are not.  Misidentified or misunderstood, resistance and reluctance are often treated the same. 

Big mistake!

Where resistance is blocking, opposing, challenging, obstructing – some may call it “digging in your heels”; reluctance is more about a need to process, connect dots, accept uncertainty, take risk, or suspend fear of failure.  In fact, reluctance is where we accept, embrace, and practice “questions are our friends not our enemy” mindset.  Providing and giving clarification constantly and consistently goes a long way with addressing reluctance.  I don’t want to get ahead of myself.  Before we get to reluctance and resistance there is a lot of work that must be done.

Let me go so far as to say that resistance and reluctance are on one side of the equation and must be balanced to ensure that change and the change process has the best opportunity for success.   

Next week, one of the three factors, dissatisfaction will be explored.