Counter-Rebuttal by Team Change Makers to the response from the Team of Extraordinary Educators

Identify the Target Behavior

In the original post, Team Change Makers (TCM) chose to focus on chapter 5 of Lepsinger’s (2010) Closing the Execution Gap Bridge Builder 5: Facilitate Change Readiness (p. 133-166). We discussed several principles for making change as proposed by Lepsinger (2010). The four change talk techniques included (1) identifying the behavior, (2) building trust, (3) exploring importance and confidence, and lastly (4) conducting a pro/con analysis (p. 157-164). Team Change Makers found fault with many of his proposed ideas. Team of Extraordinary Educators (TEE) rebutted our oppositional arguments. This final blog post counters TEE’s rebuttal.

Identifying the Behavior

TEE’s rebuttal leaves us deeply intrigued about what exactly their point is when they quote “You quoted Lepsinger (2010) who said ‘if you can’t name the behavior you want from people, you’re unlikely to get the change you need’ (p.157) and observed ‘the statement was absolutely not true’” (Warkentin, Oberle, Hinksman & Barker, 2018). It’s true naming behavior is not going to necessarily change a person’s behavior, however, it is mindful to note “Each one of us is a work in progress and will be until we draw our final breath” (Helgesen and Goldsmith, 2018, p.215). Nevertheless, our point still stands because leaders should set their focus on building each other up, showing consideration and respect to their co-workers. Instead of pointing out flaws in each other, leaders should emulate the positive character traits they hope their employees would also imitate. What it comes down to is not the subordinates’ behavior but the leaders’ (Lepsinger, 2010).

TEE believes it is rather a bold statement to say “it is absolutely not true when it is quite natural and necessary to help followers identify the behavior which keeps the person from achieving a goal or a change in particular” (Warkentin et al.,  2018). But, is it really natural or necessary to point out weaknesses in others when God instructs us to not judge one another? The book of Matthew says quite incontestably “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). TEE then points out Lepsinger (2010) correlates the behavior with the goal (p. 157). The behavior is the roadblock which stands in the way; it is a barrier which does not allow the person to realize a certain purpose, the change. While that may be the case, it is still not the best approach to pull someone aside and point out their unacceptable flaws. When a leader uses this strategy, it will backfire because it is not done in love. Jesus says our words should be spoken in love, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs” (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).

“Lepsinger (2010) says managers identify a goal (the change) but sometimes fail to take the next step and help the person address the behavior (p. 157). For example, I had a secretary who every so often seemed to come across bossy and demanding. As I addressed the problem with her, she was not sure why people saw her this way. She realized this needed to change, which was her goal” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Whose goal was it? Was it the manager’s goal for the person or the person’s goal for themselves? “I then helped her identify the behavior which made people see her as bossy and demanding. Some of her behaviors were, she failed to greet people in the morning, she kept to herself in her office, only talked to people when she wanted something, and she was very focused on policy and procedures and was not flexible enough with new staff members. As I helped her identify her behaviors, she then could address the behavior to be able to achieve the goal” (Warkentin et al., 2018). The poor woman, having a boss point out a long list of flaws. We do not find this uplifting nor motivational. Perhaps she was not intentionally trying to be pushy? Perhaps this is her learned behavior from her childhood which the Canadian-American behavior psychologist Albert Bandera has done sound research on (Woolfolk, Winnie and Perry, 2012)?

ETT posits “‘it’s not about guessing what behavior is the root problem rather it comes down to leading by example.’ ‘Yes, you are right, we lead by example, but maybe the word guessing is not what Lepsinger (2010) had in mind’” (Warkentin et al., 2018).  If it is not guessing then what might it be referred to as?  As mentioned in the earlier example, addressing behavior can be “demolishing [to an employee by pointing out their behavior flaws which you have judged him/her on and] will not get you the cooperation you need to resolve the crisis quickly” (Hewlett, 2014, p.63).  If we have the wrong behavior, people will follow our wrong example. There is no guessing when you address a specific behavior. That is an understandable concern, however the literature on ways to communicate with your subordinates suggests otherwise. Hewlett (2014) posits leaders must “come from a position that’s not about you, but about what’s best for the company” (p.62). We are focused on modeling the behavior not dictating to others what we believe to be right in our eyes. Just because we have authority in power to tell others something we should be careful not to judge because God’s Word warns us “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:1-6). We should thus be mindful to keep our hearts pure and to do everything in love. Moreover, God’s word also encourages believers to be patient and humble “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2) and “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you (Ephesians 4:32).

“Leading by example is very important, but “we also need to speak to each other about our behavior.” This is where we disagree with your point of view. TEE took the liberty to point out from our post “You, yourself, quoted Northouse (2016) who suggests leaders need to find their voice and express it to others (p.174).” The point is true however, if you read Northouse (2016) correctly you would see it is referring to leaders finding their voice when it comes to expressing their “values and philosophy” (p.174). What it does not refer to at all is giving leaders carte blanche to tell their subordinates how their behavior stinks and needs to be made over. Nor is it condoning the use of derogatory words which try to make the leader look great.

TEE lastly states “This does not mean behavior is irrelevant, which seems to be your argument” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Ir is not the case at all. Behavior is important but what is not important is for leaders to go around judging their co-workers and subordinates about what they think a person’s flawed behavior is and isn’t. You also have pointed out “Behavior is still important in the process of achieving a goal.” Certainly, a person’s behavior is one aspect of whether someone is successful or not. We believe the most important takeaway from this dialogue is to keep in mind that as leaders in the making we need to cognitively think about our own behavior and actions towards other people rather than judge others and call out behaviors we do not like in others.

Work to Build Trust

Trust and faith in a leader is not always something earned, but something expected. When a leader calls for change, followers are expected to trust the leader. Much like Christ refers to us as sheep, and he as the Good Shepherd (John 10:27-28); a good leader, expects the followers to abide with his implementation of the vision. A successful leader will know their followers, a transformational leader understands how to direct their followers to accomplish the desired results. “Transformational leadership is the ability to get people to want to change, to improve, and to be led”  (Hall et al., 2002). Transformational leadership does not predicate sympathy or empathy for one’s followers, but merely a means of manipulation that will increase productivity and further the vision of the organization. When we teach, we do not put a subject on hold to hear students complaints about said subject. We create interesting lesson plans that will captivate the students. We do this based on our understanding of their passions and how they might relate to the subject in order to further our learning goals for them. When implementing change a successful leader will understand their followers, but will not get caught up in the followers feelings. Lepsinger (2010) presents Figure 6.4 indicating a time verse effectiveness chart with a facilitation of behavior change built on steps of empathy (p. 159). While this example seems that productivity is built on a step by step development of trust, there are many cases where productivity is grounded in the authority of position and trust is a matter of faith in leadership regardless of followers personal readiness for change.

TCM and TEE agree emergency situations or time sensitive demands for change might force leaders to skip over consultation, and there are great benefits to “employee contributions through a more distributed style of leadership” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Yet, we would suggest charismatic leaders do more to drive employee opinion in an organization and further the vision of than a community of voices expressing opinion. When we look at effective leadership in politics the charismatic dictator always accomplishes more than the voice of the masses. One only need look at examples of the villains of history and their accomplishments (Holodny, 2015). Morally they were corrupt, but in production and accomplishment they were vastly successful. Stalin alone brought Russia from a feudal state with two paved roads to a world power of the highest magnitude putting the first man in space (Service, 2018).

Empathy is a noble trait widely popular in modern leadership theory, to the point where there are more than one thousand-five hundred books on Amazon’s search engine with the word empathy in the title (Hougaard & Carter, 2018). While empathy for one’s followers seems like a useful leadership trait, there are pitfalls to being empathetic. According to Paul Bloom (2018) empathy can lead to poor decision making. In his mixed methods study, participants were to interact with a terminally ill child. Half of the participants were required to engage his suffering emotionally versus those who were to refrain from engaging emotionally. The results of the study indicated 75% of participants moved to prioritize the boy above other patients, even against the opinions of doctors, and potentially putting other patients in jeopardy (Bloom, 2018). Empathy can sway decision making away from the morally correct and positive vision of the organization. People’s opinions and desires are often changing. To constantly make decisions for change based on the emotions of staff members does not indicate a soundly thought out strategic plan especially when those emotions and opinions may change. An organization needs to have its own vision that the staff will follow, rather than building a vision based on the staff’s opinions.

Our society is rooted in individualism where everyone’s opinion is considered valid and important. However, we are given the complete truth in the Bible, and regardless of what people think, we are to follow God’s commands first (Whelchel, 2015). When we look at Christ as an example of a leader, there are several times where he professes competition amongst employees (Matthew 25:14-30), blind obedience to the leader (Matthew 19:21), and turning our back on those unwilling to head the plan (Matthew 10:14). These examples of: the parable of the talents, the rich man and the kingdom of God, and Christ sending out the 12 disciples, all guide us in what a servant leader really looks like. A servant leader is not someone who acquiesces to their followers, but one who understands the needs of their followers and calls them to grow in accordance with the leader’s good plan. A servant leader commands change because it will benefit the follower, even when the follower does not wish to change. How many trials did God send Israel to shape them? Were they ready for philistines? Where they ready for Babylon? Were they accepting of his vision? He implemented action in their lives for their growth and development and for the fulfillment of his vision.

Explore Issues of Importance and Confidence

In their rebuttal, TEE disagreed with TCM’s view that Lepsinger’s (2010) approach of making change via importance and confidence is useless (Warkentin et al., 2018). They state “[Lepsinger] is saying when a person has the right level of confidence and realizes the importance of the change, perhaps there is a chance for the resistance to the change to be lessened as he uses the word “diminish”. Diminish means to make less or become less and thus Lepsinger (2010) is not suggesting change will never face resistance” (Warkentin et al., 2018). When digging deeper, we find the dictionary definition of resistance is “the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another” (Dictionary.com). To oppose the force of another implies a lessening, or diminishing, can be overcome when lowered. However, even when a direct report has a small amount of opposition to something proposed by the leader or organization, this still amounts to a decrease in the amount of buy-in by them. Therefore, this implies the change sought by the leader will not be truly effective or realized within the direct report until the resistance is fully dealt with. As teachers, we witness students who will accept the demands of the teacher but their resistance is palpable. Without acknowledging the loss of freedom within the student, they will only be motivated externally. In the same way, when the leader puts energy into having the direct report work through the source of their resistance, they will come into an acceptance, not a lessening or diminishment of resistance as TEE postulates. The resulting change is then long term, not short term. TEE’s citation supports Change Maker’s point here, when stating “Leaders need to recognize it is not the change itself people resist, “it’s the losses and endings that they have experienced and the transition that they are resisting” (p. 24)” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Hence, providing an opportunity for a direct report to voice their resistance will foster the acceptance much more quickly than having them express a need for the change or their confidence and ability in making the change. Lepsinger’s (2010) suggestion, then, is deemed useless when viewed from a long term stance.

TEE then writes “In my personal experience, a leader cannot convince someone of the reasons for change. The realization of the reasons or need for change have to come from within. A leader cannot change someone who does not value the need or reasons for change” (Warkentin et al, 2018). The example provided here directly conflicts with the one given in rebuttal paragraph 1 about the secretary. “As I helped her identify her behaviors, she then could address the behavior to be able to achieve the goal” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Are you not referring to convincing a direct report of the reasons for change? Did the secretary’s realization of the reason or need for change come from within? We think not. TEE’s example implies it came from the leader, having told the secretary how her behavior impacted others in the office. She chose to modify her behavior because she saw her leader wanted her to change. The leader provided a reason for the change. “While it is important for the leader to guide the teacher through loss and then purpose, the leader is not solely responsible for the process” (Warkentin et al., 2018). TEE has thoroughly explained how they were solely responsible for the process and have backed up our point “The onus is also on the leader to provide a reason for the change” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Thank you for proving our point.

Conduct a Pro/Con Analysis

TEE provide four shortcomings to our original account of why conducting a Pro/Con Analysis is a waste of time: overlooking feelings leads to failure; ignoring feelings is disrespectful; alignment of personal MVV is not important; the analysis is not personal coaching (Warkentin et al., 2018). In their rebuttal, TEE implies TCM does not care and disrespectfully ignores people’s feelings. In fact, they warn “overlooking people’s feelings will eventually lead to the failure of the change” and “ignoring the employees’ feelings jeopardizes corporate culture for being disrespectful to the staff” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Referring back to the admonishing of leaders to model behavior at the beginning of our post, if a leader can motivate and inspire direct reports by the use of the organization’s vision, mission, and values (MVV) through modeling, then the need to analyse direct reports is indeed a waste of time. Ulrich and Smallwood (2013) state “Today’s biggest unmet challenge of leadership is not learning more about what to do, it is learning how to make sure what is known is done” (p. 17).  In fact, they propose a series of seven disciplines for leaders, called START ME, which begins with “S” to refer to simplicity (p. 19). TCM tacitly assumes leaders know their direct reports, so the constant and consistent messaging of the organization’s MVV has already set the tone of the culture. No one from TCM condones disrespect or creating a climate where followers are not free to share their feelings. However, when those feelings of resistance are explored, as noted in point #3 of TCM’S counter-rebuttal, in addition to aligning follower’s actions to the organization’s MVV, then analyzing readiness for change via a pro/con chart is time wasting. A direct report who is unwilling to change after these measures have been implemented must surely be let go. TEE’s rebuttal of “managers and leaders could do much better than letting the employees resistant to change go by resorting to open communications, skillful relationship management, and so on” (Warkentin et al., 2018) supports what TCM is saying, not counters.

Summary

Lepsinger (2010) espouses four steps to change talk that can be used by a leader: identify the target behavior, work to build trust, explore issues of importance and confidence, and conduct a pro/con analysis. While Team Change Makers found modeling to be a finer strategy for a leader to implement, Team Extraordinary Educators disagreed, suggesting it is more important to call out a follower’s faults the leader deems necessary to change. TCM disagreed with the importance of building trust between leaders and direct reports. Positional authority demands the trust of followers, rather than asking for it. Charismatic leaders guide successfully regardless of follower opinion. There is danger in over implementing empathy and employee opinion. The example of Christ shows us true servant leadership leads for the growth of followers regardless of followers opinions or readiness for change. God works through trials and tribulations for the growth of his people and the implementation of his vision; should we, as leaders, not follow his example? When exploring issues of importance and confidence, TCM admonished leaders to instead focus on loss as the source of follower resistance. TEE, however, took issue with TCM’s judgement that Lepsinger’s tool was useless, yet ended up arguing the need to focus on the sense of loss, as first indicated by TCM. Finally, TCM found Lepsinger’s pro/con analysis tool to be a waste of time, instead focusing on the leader’s modeling of how the organization’s mission, vision, and values are aspirational to its followers. TEE found this strategy decidedly disrespectful which they postulated would lead to a poor result in the corporate culture. Through this blog assignment, we discovered techniques to critically analyze published information through the use of supporting and opposing points of view. Thank you, Team of Extraordinary Educators, for challenging us to defend our positions, to delve deeper, and to discover areas of weakness in our thought processes. We hope you were challenged and inspired by us as well!

References

 

Atha, D. (2018, July 30). Transformational servant leadership for results – Day one:

Introduction-Foundational faith, values and ethics [PDF document]. Retrieved from http:

//learn.twu.ca/pluginfile.php/130150/mod_resource/content/1/2018_Day_1_Powerpoint.

Pdf

Bloom, P. (2018). Against Empathy: The case for rational compassion. S.l.: VINTAGE.

 

Bridges, W. (2009). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Philadelphia, PA: De Capo Press.

 

Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management (4th ed.). Croydon, Great Britain: Kogan Page Limited.

 

Change Makers. (2018, November 7). Understanding the Impact of Leader Behaviour -Against (6.1) [web log comment]. Retrieved from https://create.twu.ca/seabreeze/2018/11/07/understanding-the-impact-of-leader-behaviour-against-6-1/

 

Dictionary.com (n.d.). Resistance. Retrieved from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/resistance?s=t

 

Giesecke, N. M. (2015). ‘The Only Thing That is Constant is Change’–Heraclitus, circa 500 BCE. ASA Newsletter, 79(9), 4-5.

 

Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Transformational Leadership: The Transformation of … Retrieved from https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HR/HR02000.pdf

 

Helgesen, S., & Goldsmith, M. (2018). How women rise. New York, NY: Hatchett Book Group.

 

Hewlett, S. A. (2014). Executive Presence the missing link between merit and success. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

 

Holodny, E. (2015, October 07). The 25 most ruthless leaders of all time. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/most-ruthless-leaders-of-all-time-2015-10

 

Holy Bible: New International Version. (2001). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

 

Hougaard, R., & Carter, J. (2018, April 05). The Dangers of Being an Empathetic Leader. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311413

 

Hughes R., Colarelli-Beatty K. & Dinwoodie D. (2014) Becoming a strategic leader.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Second Edition.

 

Kotter, J. P. (2008). Corporate culture and performance. Simon and Schuster.

 

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Northouse, P. (2013).  Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership.The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, 69-110.

 

Service, R. (2018, July 11). Russia’s revolutions: How 1917 shaped a century. Retrieved from https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/russias-revolutions-how-1917-shaped-a-century/

 

Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2013). Leadership Sustainability: Seven disciplines to achieve the changes great leaders know they must make.  McGraw-Hill Education.

 

Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigating Strategic Possibilities : Strategy Formulation and Execution Practices to Flourish. Randburg: KR Publishing. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1427028&site=eds-live

Warkentin, M., Oberle, S., Hinksman, S., & Barker, L. (2018, November 9). Response to team change makers: Understanding the impact of leader behavior [Web log post]. Retrieved November 10, 2018, from https://create.twu.ca/ldrs501/2018/11/09/response-to-team-change-makers-understanding-the-impact-of-leader-behaviour/

 

Whelchel, H. (2015, September 14). Can You Be Compassionate and Competitive? Retrieved from https://tifwe.org/is-competition-sinful-2/

 

Woolfolk, A. E., Winnie, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2012). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Team CHANGE MAKERS Rebuttal to:  

The Opposition=Team of Extraordinary Educators (Addicts Teach Us How to Persevere in Organizational Change)

The process of change comes in many forms, to state that it requires recognition of an existing problem is oversimplifying how we as humans behave. There are many examples of people being spontaneous in initiating change. When God called Abraham to “go from his country to the land God would show him” (Genesis 12:1) Abraham went. There was no previous problem to reflect upon. Abraham stepped out in faith, to enact a massive change on his life, and that of his family, without seeing an existing problem. Another example to further the point, often, we as teachers and administrators create clubs and programs out of passionate desire, rather than a desire to overcome a problem. We enjoy a hobby and use our time to teach others about that as well. These types of actions are common in the way we as humans behave. There does not have to be a problem, or an addiction to build a vision or implement change in direction.

Argument 1

When change occurs it is often done through good leadership, and direction, but it can also be successful without strategizing and planning. There are many examples of charismatic leaders guiding their followers through transformational leadership without over analyzing the followers psychological demands and opinions. Max Weber stated “he [the leader] does not derive his claims from the will of his followers, in the manner of an election; rather, it is their duty to recognize his charisma” (Weber, 1922[1978], p.1113). It is the duty of the follower to acknowledge the leader’s charismatic authority, and it is the duty of the leader to guide the followers to success.

Argument 2

To suggest followers must go through five stages of acceptance fails to take into account followers to blindly follow charismatic authority. There are many historical examples of followers implementing negative change because of an immoral charismatic leader. An example of a good charismatic leader might be that of Christ. His followers were commanded to give all they had to the poor and follow him (Matthew 19:21). A discussion of how he would be implementing change, and a follower buy-in dialogue was never offered. Many times Christ referred to his followers as sheep, he was the good shepherd whose sheep knew his voice and followed him (John 10:27-28). A trusted leader does not always need to council his followers through the change, sometimes they just need to call and expect the sheep to follow. As a teacher do you expect to work through students “capacity for change before taking action” (Warkentin, Oberle, Hinksman, and Barker, 2018, p. 3)? Teachers implement curriculum whether the student is a level 1 with zero intent to change, or a level 5 already working through the curriculum. Obviously, teachers hope to get student interest and buy-in to new changes in curriculum, but there are times when curriculum is required, whether or not the student is ready or interested. In many fields of business, if a follower refuses to “get with the program” they are offered the door. Insubordination is cause for dismissal as seen in the case of Amos v. Alberta, (1995) where a computer systems analyst felt “lost trust in [Varma’s] ethical standing as my Supervisor” and refused to comply with expectations. He was dismissed from the employment of the Alberta government and the dismissal was determined to be with just cause by the courts. It is not the requirement of the employer to coddle the subordinates in the vision and change process. The reason employees have contracts is to provide a legal framework for job expectation on the part of both the company and the employee. Should the employee feel disgruntled or unwilling to participate in the change of the organization, it is well with in the rights of the leader to replace an employee with someone more in line with the company’s vision.

Argument 3

The opposition purports how important it is to establish effective communication during any change process and by doing so “uncertainty and frustration will diminish” (Warkentin et al.,  2018, p.3). While clear communication is important during any change process it is not necessarily the perfect salve which will automatically eliminate uncertainty and frustration.  A case in point, School District #35 (SD35) just received brand new laptops/I Pads for all teaching staff throughout the entire district. The lease expired on the old laptops and they had been returned. While there had been much communication about how to operate the new laptops (emails and workshops) a definite sense of uncertainty and frustration still lingered among teachers as they transitioned from the old to the new technology.

Furthermore, the opposition argues how “leaders must define what will not change such as values and relationships” when going through a change process (p.3). It is an understandable concern, however it is also wrong to promise something which is not palpable nor achievable. Take relationships, for example. It is very difficult to make predictions about relationships not changing. One example, is of a teacher who taught for many years and then moved up into the ranks of administration. This teacher’s new job description warranted a significant change in his old behavior of drinking with the guys and hanging out like old times with his circle of teacher friends. No longer could he act the same way in the past with his circle of teacher buddies now that he moved into a senior administrator role.

The opposition takes a favorable position with Lepsinger’s (2010) Change-Ready Model (p.143) which contends that in level 2 “people are aware of the need for change and are seriously considering it but have not made a commitment to action” and also suggest “people can get stuck in this stage for long periods of time” (p.144). Although, this might be the case for some it is noteworthy to mention this does not hold true for everyone. Nevertheless, this argument is weak because often decisions to change have urgency and demand change be made instantly. In the corporate world if change does not concur within the next quarter underachieving employees will be automatically fired.

Moreover, there are numerous stories of people being diagnosed with grave illnesses and a decision to stop smoking or completely stop eating high cholesterol food can mean life or death. Both my grandmother and aunt were chain smokers; both quit smoking cold turkey and never went back. Likewise, a colleague of mine once smoked and he attests to having quit spontaneously when he found out his wife was pregnant. These personal testimonies prove the faulty logic of Lepsinger’s Level 2 Change-Ready Model (p.143). In a trusting organization with charismatic leaders people won’t need to be hand held into buying into the change, they will just follow.

Argument 4

The opposition believe motivation coupled with planning and preparation will help people warm up to the idea of implementing change (Warkentin et al., 2018).  While being an encourager is noteworthy and warming people up to the idea to embrace change is laudable, Hord and Roussin (2013) argue in order for change to make a significant impact it must be in a forward moving motion where “multiple and continuous feedback loops inform everyone on a daily basis” (p.1).  Clearly, it is not enough to just talk about change and accept pitiful small efforts over an extended window of time.

Furthermore, sometimes change happens quickly without the little micro-attempts, as suggested by Lepsinger (2010) of smokers going from a pack of cigarettes a day to maybe only half a pack and then fewer and fewer. There is no need to waste precious time and energy focusing on the little itsy bitsy steps when sometimes change necessitates an immediate action take place. For example, a school stabbing which killed a student and injured another at Abbotsford Secondary in 2016 called for decisive action to be taken immediately on school lock-down procedures throughout surrounding school districts in BC. In fact, the day after this incident occurred, my own high school began keeping all doors to the school locked after 8:30 am and creating a new policy for visitors. This is just one example of how change can be implemented instantaneously without a lot of pre-planning.

Argument 5

Some might be persuaded to believe “changes fail because people consider visible progress the victory” (Warkentin, et al., 2018, p.4). However, that point is not salient because if change is visible it is working. According to Hughes, Beatty and Dinwoodie (2014) “Organizations change only in response to changing conditions if someone first notices the changing conditions” (p.127). Therefore visible change should be applauded as a precursor to the larger victory.

The opposition says “abundant time is needed to guarantee getting people to maintain the change towards a new beginning” (Warkentin et al., 2018, p.4). However, as pointed out previously, an exorbitant amount of time is not always necessary. One student of mine just shared a true story in our Toastmasters Club this past week. Una shared how after her first year in Canada she gained a lot of weight and was super determined to shed those extra pounds when she went home to China for one month in the summer. Before she departed she called her trainer made a plan to work-out every day with her trainer and after one month she said “I made it. I survived and I even improved. It’s something I can see. And you can see too” U. Qian (personal communication, November 9, 2018).

While it is true that transformational servant leaders (TSL) are “concerned with the performance and development of followers to their maximum potential” nevertheless, they do not need to be a doormat. Change leaders need to be able to delegate tasks accordingly and have full confidence that their subordinates will get the job done. One transformational servant leader I know achieved great results with his students but he did not compromise or tip toe around the truth of the matter, that students at the end of the day still needed to do their part, roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of school. Sergiovanni (2016) states “the good leader is one who can get his subordinates to do something” (p.59).

Argument 6

Lepsinger’s (2010) understanding of the internalization of changed behavior to create habit is very limiting to the further creativity of a project (p.145). His explanation of change being fully embraced and becoming second nature replacing the old behavior suggests there is no longer reflection on previous practices and exploration of future ideas. The fact there is an intentional recognition of success for accomplishing an expected process of change comes across in the same way as giving all participants in a sports tournament trophies for participating. When leaders praise the normal expectations of employees, they create an attitude of apathy in the workplace. Competition breeds innovation. In Ungerer et al., (2016) we see an example from Taylor stating “productivity and efficiency are directly correlated to competitiveness” (p.367). We can look at the internet search industry as an example of how competition drives companies to constant fluid change. There is no time to think about the micro-changes the employees might have embraced when the company is constantly moving in new directions (Farber, 2015). When we look at habits being formed we should praise heroic behavior, strive for excellence, rather than mediocrity. To say the “critical thing for an organization is to help staff realize change could happen, and that they can get through it” is short sighted. By focusing on the staff’s concerns about change, a company creates “safe spaces” instead of “blue water spaces” (p. 300). There is a time and place to hear the concerns of staff, but when implementing vision for change in an organization, the leadership needs to be in command. Leaders need to be guiding the staff with clear and strategic plans, rather than being caught up in the grumbles around the water cooler. How many times have you sat through a staff meeting which was sidelined by complaining staff. These kinds of meetings cause absolutely no positive change in the school environment and waste the time of both the staff members and the administration.

References

Amos Vs Alberta, Https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/1995/1995canlii9287/1995canlii9287.html# (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench February 17, 1995), 1995 Canada CanLII 8903-09591.

Farber, D. (2015, December 04). Evidence that competition breeds innovation. Retrieved from https://www.zdnet.com/article/evidence-that-competition-breeds-innovation/

Hughes, R., Beatty, K. & Dinwoodie, D. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap: How great leaders and their companies get results. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Sergiovanni, T. (2007). Rethinking leadership (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigating Strategic Possibilities : Strategy Formulation and Execution Practices to Flourish. Randburg: KR Publishing.

Warkentin, M., Oberle, S., Hinksman, S., Barker, L., (2018, November 6). Addicts teach us how to persevere in organizational change favorable (6.1) [Web log post]. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from https://create.twu.ca/ldrs501/2018/11/06/addicts-teach-us-how-to-persevere-in-organizational-change-favorable-6-1/

Weber M (1922 [1978]) Economy and Society, 2 vols (ed G Roth and C Wittich). Berkeley, CA; London; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Blog 6

Understanding the Impact of Leader Behavior (Lepsinger, 2010, pp.154-166)

Team Change Makers chose to focus on chapter 5 of Lepsinger’s (2010) Closing the Execution Gap Bridge Builder 5: Facilitate Change Readiness (pp. 133-166). Lepsinger (2010) discusses several principles for making change, one of which is “understanding the impact of leader behavior” (pp. 145-154). Lepsinger (2010) elaborates on four change talk techniques which include (1) identifying the behavior, (2) building trust, (3) exploring importance and confidence, and lastly (4) conducting a pro/con analysis (pp. 157-164). Team Change Makers find fault with many of his proposed ideas.

Identify the Target Behavior

Lepsinger (2010) states “if you can’t name the behavior you want from people, you’re unlikely to get the change you need” (p.157). This is absolutely not true. It’s not about guessing what behavior is the root problem rather it comes down to leading by example. Jesus did not name behavior instead he led by example and modeled to his disciples how to behave. Northouse states “to model the way, leaders need to be clear about their own values and philosophy. They need to find their own voice and express it to others” (p.174). Furthermore, Northouse (2016) argues how leaders who lead by example do so through “inspiring a shared vision” (p.174). He points out “leaders challenge others to transcend the status quo to do something for others” (p.174). Jesus is an exemplary example:

“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19).

“[Jesus] got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him” (John 13:4-5).

According to Northouse (2016) “researchers have not been able to associate the behaviors of leaders with outcomes such as morale, job satisfaction, and productivity” (p.91). To further the point, Northouse goes on to assert researchers from the behavioral approach have not been able to identify a universal set of leadership behaviors that would consistently result in effective leadership” (p.91).

Lepsinger (2010) also notes “the more a person feels that he or she has options, the greater the readiness to change” (p.158). He then goes on to illustrate this by saying “first, you tell them that this needs to happen” (p.158). This is where Lepsinger veers off track in his thinking because people do not respond well from a dictator-like authoritative approach (Northouse, 2016). While the use of coercion is one source of power leaders can wield to effect change, Northouse (2016) clarifies “to coerce means to influence others to do something against their will and may include manipulating penalties and rewards” (p. 12). Therefore it is frowned upon for leaders to employ coercive force as a model of optimal leadership.

Work to Build Trust

Lepsinger (2010) premises his argument for leadership that inhibits change around the notion followers must feel acceptance and trust. Empathy for the followers, and understanding of their perspective is what makes them want to accept a leaders direction. Lepsinger (2010) goes on to point out that by communicating “everyone’s perspective is valid” they will inevitably “be willing to accept the need for change” (p.158). While empathy and understanding are noble ideals they are not a prerequisite for successful leadership. Militaries utilize transactional, transformational and servant leadership styles with rigid hierarchies, protocols and procedures in place. Empathy for the follower plays little to no role in their ability to complete successful campaigns (Cintron, 2018). In fact, there are often times where a leader must be direct and it is expected that the followers will follow for the benefit of the company. In emergency situations, leaders can’t be expected to sit down with every follower that has a grudge or complaint and hear them out. If that occurred the organization would falter. Ungerer et al., explain how “values without action are meaningless” and that an organization is much like a family built around “rules, experiences, myths, and legends, relationships, and rituals” (2016, p. 68). As a parent I know that sometimes you need to tell your kids to pick up their clothes, whether they like it or not. Working through a temper tantrum is not always effective. There needs to be discipline when children act out.

Lepsinger (2010) claims that reflective listening will benefit the leader by creating follower buy-in overcoming the natural instinct to debate (p. 159). While reflective listening helps the leader to remain calm and show the follower that they are being heard, it does little for productivity. Northouse (2016) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 16). Leaders and followers must achieve a goal; by reflective listening there is no forward trajectory. Reflective listening is merely a means for subduing a disgruntled employee, but it does little to challenge the employee to buy into the organization’s goal. In reality, there should be trust in a relationship, but trust is not built upon hearing meaningless complaints, trust and respect is built through strong decision making that furthers the organization’s progress towards the vision. Galbraith suggests we focus on strategic management processes, which align all areas of the organization under a unified goal (2014, p. 42). He suggests that when the plans and goals are not aligned throughout the organization, different dimensions are going to be arguing throughout the year. A strong vision and structure are far more essential to implementing change that an attitude of empathy and reflective listening.

Explore Issues of Importance and Confidence

Lepsinger (2010) purports “getting people to articulate the importance of a change and their confidence in their ability to make the change themselves increases the likelihood that resistance to change will diminish” (p. 161). However, people resist change even when they know it is important or if they feel confident they can accomplish what is needed to change  Reeves (2009) explains “any change will meet resistance, because change is loss… even the most productive and essential changes represent the death of past practices” (p. 45). Therefore, Lepsinger’s approach is useless without first allowing the direct report to work through their feelings of grief and loss.

The onus is also on the leader to provide a reason for the change. For example, in the case of an educational leader, Knight (2009) posits “change leaders should propose new ways of teaching only if they’re confident they will have a positive impact on student achievement” (p. 509).  There is a moral mandate that effuses the change process in education. According to Fullan (2013), educational change needs to be viewed as a “’Whole-system reform’ – the moral purpose of raising the bar and closing the gap for all students in the entire state, province, or country” (p. 3).  While an administrator might provide reasons for change in a teacher’s practice, they must also “be aware that they walk on sacred ground when they suggest new ways of teaching, especially when they criticize a teacher’s current teaching practices” (Knight, 2009, p. 511).  It is, therefore, imperative the transformational leader “focuses on higher-order, intrinsic, and moral motives and needs of followers” (Sergiovanni, 2007, p. 61). Thus, instead of walking the teacher through questions of their feelings of importance and confidence in required change, as suggested by Lepsinger (2010), the literature instead suggests it is the leader who takes the teacher through the sense of loss and then purpose.

Conduct a Pro/Con Analysis

Figure 6.5 in Lepsinger (2010) depicts a staircase where the benefits of changing a behaviour occurs as a person’s readiness for change increases (p. 164). The more ready a person is to change, the more he will find advantages in the change. According to Lepsinger, knowing the person’s perceptions “gives you a powerful metric for evaluating and measuring readiness” (p. 164), therefore conducting a Pro/Con Analysis is a great way to guide an employee into seeing the advantages or disadvantages of change. This, however, is a waste of time and energy. According to this thinking, everyone in the building will be at different levels of change readiness, with no promise of forward momentum. The reality is, when an organization deems a change is necessary, its members must be able to adapt to the change quickly regardless of their feelings of readiness. Hughes et al. (2014) state “Strategic leadership often involves significant organizational change” (p. 14) and that  “Organizational mission, vision, and values are important aspirations components that create meaning and purpose for stakeholders … [they are] the important beliefs that drive and connect people in the organization” (p. 25). If an organization member can not align their personal values with the organization’s mission, vision, and values, they should not be continue their employment there. Of course, if the organization is not able to determine the specific strategic drivers, “the result is that people feel overcommitted” (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 27) from the lack of focus, which could cause people to resist further change. But personally coaching every member of the every team in an organization in their “readiness,” through the use of a Pro/Con Analysis is a waste of time and money for the organization.

 

References

Cintron, J. (2018, April 05). Leadership Styles in the Military. Retrieved from https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/leadership-styles-military-25296.html

 

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada Inc.

 

Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Designing organizations strategy, structure, and process at the

business unit and enterprise levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (n.d.). Primal leadership realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from https://acarthustraining.com/documents/Primal_Leadership-by_Daniel_Goleman.pdf

Holy Bible: New International Version. (2001). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hughes R., Colarelli-Beatty K. & Dinwoodie D. (2014) Becoming a strategic leader.San  Francisco: Jossey-Bass Second Edition.

 

Knight, J. (2009). What can we do about teacher resistance? Phi Delta Kappan 90(7),508-513. Retrieved from http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/Archive/pdf/k0903kni.pdf

 

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

Sergiovanni, T. (2007). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigating Strategic Possibilities : Strategy Formulation and Execution Practices to Flourish. Randburg: KR Publishing. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1427028&site=eds-live

Blog 4 Response to Sadie

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and reflections on the Catholic School system and the struggles you face.

“In my experience, the most Catholic students that I have had in my class in one year is 6/26 students. In other years, the numbers have been lower. This problem poses a threat to our public identity. I wonder if this is a problem that the school and the church need to work together on to try and solve.”  I definitely believe the Catholic and Christian schools need to work together to help resolve this issue. When I worked in Ontario, there was a Catholic Public school board as well. It had a very strict policy in place as a friend of mine had her boys in that system. Her husband was Catholic and the Catholic school board mandate was at least one parent had to be a practicing Catholic who attended mass. They also needed a letter from the priest for the application. The Catholic school board, even though it was public, still had some tight controls on who could attend. One thing that set them apart from the regular public system was its uniform policy. Anyone who attended the Catholic school system got to wear a uniform unlike the regular public school.  That was one thing that made it attractive and I’m sure some parents found a way around the barriers if they were determined to have their children attend the school in the neighborhood. Perhaps some were sold on the idea of uniform. At the end of the day, I think your situation is a reflection of the administration and their leniency in allowing anyone to attend rather than true devout believers and their children. Perhaps it is also their hope that students’ hear the Good News of the Gospel message and become spiritual once they attend the school for a while.

“If I had the ‘chance to change this,’ I would. In Canada, there is a threat to Catholic education. I would like to see this changed as I truly believe in the values taught in our school system.” I wonder if there are other Catholic school educators who feel the same way you do. Maybe by voicing your concerns with like-minded people, you can start a grass roots movement to implement positive change.

 

“At times it can be shocking how some people conduct themselves.” What has shocked you exactly?  “I have tried many different techniques in hopes of improving the culture in our organization, however I have not experienced a lot of success.” Can you elaborate a little more? What kind of techniques have you tried specifically?

“They usually exhibit negative attitudes about policies, procedures and updates in the education system.” This sounds like you work with a lot of disgruntled older teachers who maybe should have already retired? This make some wonder what can be done to keep all educators at their peak right until they retire? Why do so many become complacent? I think an important aspect could have to do with the school vision. Sergiovanni (2007) states “When a school vision embodies the sharing of ideals, a covenant is created that bonds together leader and led in a common cause” (p.75). Perhaps this is the bridge which deteriorates the longer teachers teach.

They view the ‘old’ way as the ‘right’ way and are resistant to change. For the newer staff, this can be draining. For example, I took it upon myself in my first two years to try and start a social committee.” I used to be the social committee liason when I taught at a Christian school in Ontario. That was a lot of fun! I planned a fondue party at our home for the staff and organized tickets to the Broadway musical the Lion King. We would go to dinner at a Chinese buffet restaurant every Christmas (that was tradition) and our staff were very engaged in the activities of the mother church which sponsored our school even though some of us came from different Christian denominations.  Our staff was quite young and all of the young teachers did not yet have children when I was teaching, so it was easy to engage everyone in social activities. Harris (2014) talks at length about the importance of building social capital. She asserts “relationships matter” …”it is what those relationships actually achieve that matters most of all” (p.80). Furthermore, she goes on to add “relationship building with purpose is far more likely to secure productive and positive change” (p.81).

I find it takes strength and courage to be patient, and not have resentful feelings towards people on staff with such attitudes. I find that too, but in different ways. One older teacher librarian, close to retirement, is causing me some pushback, which I know is simply because she has a different worldview than me. I am learning to practice boundaries with this particular teacher and I have learned to keep my distance from her and to limit what I share. One example was a conversation we were casually having about the up-coming municipal election and the topic of school trustees was up for discussion. I shared who I was planning on supporting when this teacher said I should not vote for “her” because she did not outright say she was supporting (a hot topic issue). This “issue” goes against my Christian values. She then went on to inform me that she listens to the Langley Teachers Association (LTA) recommendations when she goes to vote. This is just a reminder that my theistic worldview will clash with those who have a different worldview than me. Sire (2009) writes “God has revealed his standard in the various laws and principles in the Bible…There is thus a standard of right and wrong, and people who want to know it can know it” (p.42). People who have negative attitudes or who are rough and abrasive and living outside the love of Christ need to be brought into the light in order for them to see the bigger picture.

 

“I have noticed in our organization that the only staff that is recognized for excellence is the staff that go above and beyond their daily duties. However, I believe that everyone can relate to the famous words, “it’s the little things in life that matter or the little things that count.” Perhaps these little things need to be recognized as well.” I agree with you one hundred percent. Certainly, as we have been learning about building culture in our schools and reflecting on what it means to be a transformational leader, everything we say and do has ripple effects. Sergiovanni (2014) writes “the purpose of purposing is to build within the school a center of shared values that transforms it from a mere organization into a covenantal community” (p.54).

I spoke with a staff member who was feeling particularly unhappy in our team last year and she told me that she feels like she never gets recognized for her work in the school. Although her work may not be as noticeable as some of the other staff members work, it is still significant, takes time out of her personal life and perhaps she would feel a part of the team if she were recognized.” Sadie you have a valid point here. I know it is important to feel part of a team. Once you have this feeling of belonging you naturally start looking for ways to advance the whole.  At one of my old Christian schools in Ontario, they had some really great ideas to bond as a staff. Not only did this school always make a point of going away as an entire school in September for camp (grade 9, 10’s and 11’s one week and grade 12’s a different week) this school also encouraged staff to notice what others are doing and to write notes of encouragement to each other. This was so positive and uplifting, receiving such thoughtful words of encouragement from my colleagues. It also made me more cognitive to recognize special things others were doing around me. This school was overflowing in the love of the Holy Spirit. It was bar none the best formative spiritual growth for me as a new believer back in the day and will always hold a dear spot in my heart. I really received a strong foundation of faith from my colleagues and administrative staff. The administrators were my first examples of transformational servant leaders and that goes back to 2000-2003.

“If an employee does demonstrate defensiveness, don’t let his attitude “push your buttons” and cause you to become angry or more strident in your efforts to convince him that he should take responsibility and own the problem” (Lepsinger, 2010, p. 74).”

“Disorganization in time management. Although I hold myself accountable for completing tasks, I am sometimes disorganized in my time management. I often feel that I have time for everything and will commit to far too many things. This often leaves me up at all hours of the night in order to complete tasks on time. Lepsinger (2010) writes, “select the potential problems that should be addressed, starting, of course, with those that are high probability and high impact and working your way down to lower levels of probability and impact” (Lepsinger, 2010, p. 44). Prioritizing and organizing will help me to make more efficient use of my time.” I like your thoughts here and share similar concerns. I find it difficult to say “no” to anything when I am really interested. I know I have too many things on my plate but rather than disappointing people I just have to learn how to juggle more and more balls. Hughes et al., (2014) call it strategic acting which “requires attending to both short-term and long-term objectives” (p.107). Prioritizing and organizing your tasks while keeping your short and long term goals in mind will not only help you achieve your goals but also help you feel more in control.

 

References

Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, Practicalities and Potential.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hughes R., Colarelli-Beatty K. & Dinwoodie  D. (2014) Becoming a strategic leader. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Second Edition.

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. (2007). Rethinking leadership (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.