Implementing Change Implementing Change: Chapter 6 His attitude is so positive that it is often mistaken for expertise! You can’t help but like him. As she uses a finger to draw several loops that converge in the air, a staff person observes, “The principal draws in things I didn’t even know were out there. She always is thinking about how all the pieces can fit together.” “Everything is so well organized and gets done on time. He always focuses first on resources. He is like a cook who follows the recipe.” “He was a wonderful man who did nothing.” “I empower them, but I monitor too.” We will examine recent studies that have focused on leadership during change processes and describe how different approaches relate to implementation success. By the end of this chapter, you will have a set of tools to assess yourself and leaders you have known. You also will have some clues about how to work with and influence different types of leaders. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What are the important variations in how different leaders facilitate change? How is the concept of style different from behavior? What are the key differences between the Initiator, Manager, and Responder Change Facilitator Styles? Which Change Facilitator Style will be most closely correlated with higher levels of implementation success? What are some tips to working with supervisors with different styles? 6. Which Change Facilitator Style do you prefer to use when you are in a leadership role? Many a truth is said in jest! We use the metaphor of a dog-sled team to introduce some of the important differences in the way that leaders lead. Some leaders are like the lead dog. They like to be at the front, checking out the view ahead and breaking trail for those behind them. Others like to lead from within the team. They often say that they are not comfortable with the visibility that comes with being at the front, whereas those who like the front position point out that the view is always the same for those behind. Still other leaders stay at the back of the sled, like the drivers, riding the rails of the sled, pushing the sled, and barking out commands to those on the team who are not pulling hard enough. Other leaders seem to be more like the spectators and race officials. They watch from the sidelines while the team, sled, and driver travel by. They are ready to evaluate, and occasionally cheer, the performance of the team and driver, but they do not enter the race themselves. The choice is yours. Choose efficacy, efficiency, or atrophy. Pothole Repair Different leaders will have different views about the innovation and will approach their role in facilitating implementation in different ways. The views, styles, and behaviors of individual leaders should be understood, and system support strategies should take these differences into account. Initiators ◦ “Lead, follow. Or get the hell out of the way!” Managers ◦ “Well, that’s a real interesting idea but my teachers are real busy right now” followed closely by, “Well, we can’t do this unless I have more budget or another staff line.” Responders ◦ “Go ahead. You know we always like to be innovative in this school.” • Initiators have clear, decisive, long-range policies and goals that transcend but include implementation of the current innovation. • They tend to have very strong beliefs about what good schools and teaching should be like and work intensely to attain this vision • Decisions are made in relation to their goals for the school and in terms of what they believe to be best for students, which is based on current knowledge of classroom practices. • Initiators have strong expectations for students, teachers, and themselves. • They convey and monitor these expectations through frequent contacts with teachers and setting clear expectations of how the school is to operate and how teachers are to teach. • When they feel it is in the best interest of their school, particularly the students, Initiators will seek changes in district programs or policies or will reinterpret them to suit the needs of the school. • Initiators will be adamant but not unkind, they will solicit input from staff, and then decisions will be made in terms of the goals of the school, even if some are ruffled by their directness and high expectations. • Managers place heavy emphasis on organization and control of budgets, resources, and the correct applications of rules, procedures, and policies. • They demonstrate responsive behaviors in addressing situations or people, and they initiate actions in support of change efforts. • The variations in their behavior are based on the use of resources and procedures to control people and change processes. • Initially, new implementation efforts may be delayed since they see that their staff are already busy and that the innovation will require more funds, time, and/or new resources. • Once implementation begins, Managers work without fanfare to provide basic support to facilitate teachers’ use of the innovation. They keep teachers informed about decisions and are sensitive to excessive demands. • When they learn that the central office wants something to happen in their school, their first questions will be about available dollars, time, and staffing to accomplish the change. • Once these questions are resolved, they then support their teachers in making it happen. • As implementation unfolds, they do not typically initiate attempts to move beyond the basics of what is required. • Responders place heavy emphasis on perception checking and listening to people’s feelings and concerns. • They allow teachers and others the opportunity to take the lead with change efforts. • They believe their primary role is to maintain a smoothly running school by being friendly and personable. • They want their staff to be happy, to get along with each other, and to treat students well. • They tend to see their school as already doing everything that is expected and not needing major changes. • They view their teachers as strong professionals who are able to carry out their instructional role with little guidance. • Responders emphasize the personal side of their relationships with teachers and others. • They make decisions one at a time and based on input from their various discussions with individuals. • Most are seen as friendly and always having time to talk. 1. CF Style is the overall pattern that is derived from accumulated observations of individual leader behaviors. 2. CF Style provides the context for understanding and interpreting the actions of a change leader. 3. Initiators focus on doing what will be best in the long term for students and the school, rather than primarily on making people happy in the short term. 4. Schools with Manager leaders attain implementation success. However, little effort is made to move beyond the acceptable minimums. 5. Responders ask about concerns but are less active in attempting to resolve them and in facilitating change. They just tend to keep checking on how people are feeling about issues in general. 6. Influencing leaders with different CF Styles requires customized approaches. Responders are most interested in staff feelings, Managers focus most on administrative and organizational rules and procedures, whereas Initiators want to hear the facts and reasons about how the school will be improved. •Aware of and Uses Circle and Triangle Initiator •Collaborative and Empowers Others •Creates Creative Tension •Leads with Vision (Designs, Teaches, and Stewards) •Strategic; Plays Chess •Aware of the Circle; Only Uses The Circle Manager •Would Rather do it Themselves •Creates Happiness •Leads with Structures (Designs and Whines) •Semi-strategic; Plays Checkers •Unaware of Circle and Triangle Responder •Doesn’t Do Much Except Talk •Creates Emotional Tension •Leads with Blinders (Cajoles, Worries and Whines) •Clueless; Flips Coins Statistically significant differences were found in the quantity and quality of the principals’ interventions. For example, the interventions most related to innovation implementation took place in the Initiator schools, whereas the fewest occurred in the schools with Responder principals. Although the total number of interventions made by all facilitators was observed in schools with Initiator principals, Manager CF Style principals did the most interventions themselves (Hall & Hord, 1987); Hall, Rutherford, Hall, & Huling, 1984). Is there a relationship between the principal’s CF Style and how far and fast teachers move across the Implementation Bridge? Teachers who move to higher levels of use, with higher fidelity Configurations, and with reduction of Self and Task concerns and arousal of Impact concerns would be considered to have had more implementation success. They have moved further across the Implementation Bridge. In the studies, the degree of implementation success has been compared with the intervention behaviors of their principals and the principals’ CF Style. In most of the studies cited above, this comparison was made. In the original PTI Study a correlation of 0.74 was found between CF Style and teacher implementation success. The general finding has been that teachers with Initiator principals have the highest levels of implementation success. Teachers with Manager principals are successful, too, but not to the same extent as teachers in Initiator schools. Teachers with Responder principals are rated a distant third in terms of implementation success. • One way to summarize these findings is to suggest that the Initiator principals “make it happen.” They have the vision, passion, and push to help things move in the desired direction. They make decisions quickly and with consistency. • Manager principals “help it happen.” They see that things are well organized. They protect their teachers, but when implementation becomes an objective, it is accomplished efficiently. However, unlike the Initiators, they do not have the excitement and energy to keep doing more. • The conditions in schools led by Responder principals are quite different. These leaders “let it happen.” Yes, they do listen to perceptions and concerns, but they seldom resolve issues with certainty. They continue to be open to new input and as a result do not bring closure, or else they will hear another piece of information and change their minds. Statistically, they are significantly less active in terms of the number of change-related interventions they make. The result for teachers is less implementation success and a tendency to have “Big W” SoC profiles (see Figure 4.4). As interesting and useful as the CF Style idea might be, the bottom line question remains, Are there any relationships between CF Style and student outcomes? • The first major study that addressed this question was done in 27 elementary schools in an urban school district in Connecticut (Hall, Negroni, & George, 2008). Principal CF Style was determined and fourth-grade students’ test scores were analyzed for writing, editing, reading comprehension, and mathematics. • The researchers found significant differences for three of the four subject areas. Students in schools with a principal who was seen to be an Initiator or a Manager had significantly higher test scores, with Initiator schools being highest in writing and reading. • Students in schools with Manager CF Style principals scored highest in mathematics. • Students in schools with Responder CF Style principals scored significantly lower for all subjects. The researcher’s summary of the study findings is presented in Figure 6.4. The kind of dynamics inside leadership teams will vary by CF Style of the leader. In CBAM research a special role has been identified for what we call the Second CF, or consigliere. This person has a key role in change process success. • In the Initiator-led team, Second CFs do as many interventions as the leader does. The leaders and the Second CFs truly work as a horizontal team, with both working with the staff in complementary ways. • Contrary to what might be predicted, it is the Initiator-led team that is most collegial and collaborative. There is a shared agenda. Each member of the team will give the same answer to questions and will have the same • In the Manager CF Style team, the Second CF makes fewer interventions, such as one-legged interviews, and the Manager makes more. • In fact, when compared to Initiators and Responders, the Managers make significantly more interventions. However, the total number of interventions across all members of the CF Team will be highest with the Initiator-led team. • In addition, the relationship between the Manager leader and the consigliere is different from what has been observed with Initiators. It is much more of a supervisor–subordinate dynamic. I. CONCERN FOR PEOPLE Social/Informal • Sees the school as a family • Begins staff meetings with celebrations • Joins in attending ball game or concert • Very sensitive to staff and student’s individual needs • Shows empathy through listening skills Formal Meaningful • Holds grade level/department meetings once each term to get feedback on successes and problems • Links theory to action • Listens before deciding • Explains what is needed • Provides needed resources without fanfare II. ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY Trust in Others • Lets other take the lead • Does not have to control everything • Development of new rules is done slowly Administrative Efficiency • Schedules and procedures are established and clear • Attends to day-to-day tasks • Keeps policies, rules, and procedures at the forefront • Paperwork gets done on time and correctly III. STRATEGIC SENSE Day to Day • Focus is on now • Today’s problem is the one attended to • Limited, or little, view of the future Vision and Planning • Long-term vision • Depth of knowledge • Anticipates possible future effects of today’s interventions • Maintains a systemic view I. Concern for People. This cluster addresses the personal aspects of leadership and change. This grouping in many ways is addressing the Relationship dimension of the earlier leadership models described at the beginning of this chapter. Different styles of leaders spend more or less time on each of these dimensions. • Social/Informal. Some leaders spend a great deal of time chatting informally with staff, visitors to the school, colleagues, and district office work, or any specific change initiative; they are social and personable. • Formal Meaningful. Having many one-legged interviews that are task related is important. Our studies document that in schools with more of these small “incident” interventions, teachers have more implementation success. This dimension doesn’t always mean direct talk. • For example, one principal overheard a teacher saying that she did not have enough microscopes to do a particular lesson. The next day five additional microscopes appeared on the teacher’s desk. These are the types of interventions made by effective mentors and coaches. They offer brief tips and suggestions related to particular concerns of the moment of individuals and groups. The tips will be of the how-to-doit type for those with Task concerns or the suggesting of an interesting article or Web site to those with Impact concerns. Organizational Efficiency This second cluster of CF Style dimensions addresses the task or structure dimension of the traditional leadership models. The work has to be organized. Schedules, budgets, and paperwork have to be done. Trust in Others. Some leaders prefer to do all of the administrative tasks themselves. Others delegate to others. Different CF Style leaders balance these two ends of a continuum differently. Managers tend to hang on to most, if not all of the authority and responsibility. Initiators will delegate tasks and responsibilities “to those they trust” to get the job done. Responders and their staff are less clear about who has responsibility for any particular item: them or someone else. Some principals expect teachers to take care of all the disciplines in their classrooms. They empower departments, grade-level teams, and committees to make decisions and implement action steps. Other administrators hold all final decisions close to their vests. Administrative Efficiency. Some leaders see their primary task being to manage tasks such as reports, teacher evaluations, ordering supplies, and making schedules. These tasks are lower priority for others. Another indicator of this dimension is how clearly tasks and responsibilities are assigned. For example, are the staff clear about whom to go to obtain extra instructional supplies or to request a leave day? Strategic Sense. This third cluster focuses on the little decisions and issues that come up every day for leaders and the extent to which there is a vision and leadership with an eye to long-term goals. • Day to Day. Some leaders are consumed with what is happening right now. The next issue that pops up is the one they deal with. They are not thinking much about the long term or how what they do now may affect what happens next week. • Vision and Planning. Some leaders have in mind the longterm directions for what they want their organization to be like. They also have in mind the steps it will take to achieve the vision. As one teacher observed, “Ms. J’s passion for education is felt by the high expectations she has set for herself, her staff, and the students.” Measuring Change Facilitator Style with the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire Each of the dimensions of CF Style can be thought about and rated separately. Just think about a scale from 0 to 10 for each dimension. The more a particular leader exhibits that dimension, the higher their score. There also is an instrument for doing this task with more reliability and validity, The Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire (CFSQ) (Hall & George, 1999), provided in Appendix E, along with its Scoring Device as Appendix F. (take it!) Characteristic CFSQ profiles for each of the three Change Facilitator Styles have been established and are presented in Figure 6.6. on page 136. Pothole Repair The CFSQ is a very useful instrument for self-assessment. It also can be useful for coaching leaders and as a valid measure in research studies. However, it can for leaders, such as principals, and for those, such as teachers, who are asked to fill it out. All can see this as evaluation of a person, which can be very threatening. How does this resonate with the tattoo about using Inquiry when entering a new culture? Working with Initiators • For example, whatever the issue to be resolved, Initiators will want to have reasons and evidence that explain how the decision will affect student success and advance the school. • They will expect teachers to have well-developed ideas and clear descriptions, supported by facts. • Timing is important, since Initiators tend to think far ahead. • They like to be able to anticipate what will work as well as what might go wrong. Providing them with information early in the process is key. • Once they have heard what is being suggested, they may need to consult with others, but they will make a decision fairly quickly. Working with Responders In contrast, Responders will be less interested in hearing specifics and more likely to encourage proceeding without careful thought or fully understanding all that may follow. • In their effort to be encouraging, they frequently will agree to two or more initiatives that overlap and may actually compete. In other words, do not count on continuity of support and follow-through. • One piece of good news is that Responders will allow and even encourage an array of change initiatives. • Don’t forget, however, that if what is being asked involves a major decision or may create controversy, Responders will be very slow to agree. They will want plenty of time for talk, which may seem like a way to avoid making a decision. • A good approach when dealing with a Responder is to begin with casual social chat and then raise the general topic. • An important side strategy would be to regularly and continually monitor other related decisions that the Responder is making. Working with Managers • When making a request or a suggestion to Manager leaders, remember that they will want to hear about the time, logistic, related policies, and cost implications. • The structuring of work and scheduling are important considerations for them. • They will immediately think about related rules and policies that might block what is proposed. Be prepared to know what resources will be needed and have suggestions about how your ideas can be managed. • Managers can decide quite quickly if what is being asked is in line with initiatives that are already up and running. • However, an entirely new proposal is likely to run into the dampening effect, which results from a combination of Managers’ desire to follow the rules, intention to protect and maintain stability around current efforts, and the need to first study and ponder. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER SIX • One important point that was made early in this chapter was that everyone who is part of a change process has the opportunity, and some responsibility, to help lead. Also, • Attention must be given to distinguishing between facilitators’ individual actions or behaviors and their overall style. • The style of change leadership makes a major difference in the implementation success of the followers. • Being able to distinguish the different CF Styles has many implications, including their use by the followers, who need to work with leaders with different styles, as is illustrated in the vignette, and their use by the leaders themselves, who may want to analyze and reflect on their approach to change facilitation. • In conclusion, it is crucial to remember that, since principals and other leaders, like students and teachers, are different, we should not treat them as if they are all the same. What are the overarching guiding ideas and significant learning's that you have acquired? Using what you have learned, take your leadership GI’s and place them into Operating Principles. Create a word picture of the leader you wish to become!