MA: HOW CAN CHANGE MODELS SUPPORT SCHOOL LEADERS IMPLEMENT TRANSITIONAL CHANGES?
Educational leaders and managers consider their school’s goals as paramount, though the definition and scope of these roles differ slightly; managers are more concerned with maintenance, whilst leaders are more about initiating change (Cuban, 1988, p. 20). A leadership stance that carefully challenges the status quo whilst also finding balance by using existing practices and cultures to reach the new assessment goals will be most effective in navigating this change in assessment practice. Whilst school leaders play a role in creating and sustaining the school culture, it is not only down to those with leadership responsibilities but “as a dynamic between individuals within an organisation” (Harris, 2002). Engaging staff in the process is critical. Many teachers are long-standing and heavily embedded in current processes meaning the change will require a considerable cultural shift in the understanding of assessment if I am to help them “dismantle and emotionally let go of old ways of operating while the new state is put into place” (Ackerman Anderson, 2016, p.81). Through distributed leadership that shares “a common frame of values” (Elmore, 2000), transformational leaders can develop a school culture that is both student-centred and supports continuing professional development (Harris, 2002). There is also a need to manage the change sustainably by addressing the needs of the present without compromising that of future generations (Millar et al., 2012) and embed it into the culture of existing systems.
Implementing this transitional change requires an “assessment of the need and opportunity against current reality, and then the design of a better future state to satisfy new requirements” (Ackerman Anderson, 2016, p.81). Drawing upon specific models of change will allow this research paper to build on learning completed as part of the Certificate in School Management and Leadership (CSML) with Harvard Graduate School of Education in the module, ‘Driving Change’. Using the OODA Loop - Observe, Orient, Decide, Act - (Boyd and U.S. Army Command And General Staff College Center For Army Tactics, 1976) a method I practised during that module, I will ‘Observe’ where people are currently to ‘Orient’ myself and gauge the culture to determine which departments are more ‘ripe’ for initiating any change, as they are all at different points. I will then be in a position to ‘Decide’ how to ‘Act’ using two of the models of change discussed in this current module, ‘Leading Change’ - specifically Kotter’s Eight Stages Model of Change (1996) and the Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievements in Schools (IDEAS) Model (University of Southern Queensland). This paper explores how these change models could shape and guide effective systematic processes that facilitate effective and sustainable change in an educational setting.
Literature Review
The curriculum represents a conscious and systematic selection of knowledge, skills, and values: a selection that shapes the way teaching, learning and assessment processes are organised in a school by addressing questions such as what, why, when, and how students should learn. The curriculum comprises three main elements: a) the written curriculum - what we want our learners to know, understand, and be able to do, b) the taught curriculum - how we deliver the written curriculum to engage, motivate, and inspire our learners, and c) the assessed curriculum - how we show learning has taken place; the way we decide if our goals have been met and we have delivered the written curriculum effectively. The specific change this paper focuses on is regarding the latter - how we develop assessment tasks that allow learners to demonstrate their learning and inform teachers’ decisions around pedagogical approaches.
Harris et al. (2020) underline the significance of curriculum and subject leadership for the student's learning as “the reason why curriculum leadership matters and why it deserves far greater research attention and prominence in school and system improvement discourse” (p.3). Being low in priority and exposure means that “engaging teachers in curriculum reform at scale is a major task and, some would argue, a significant risk full of challenges, tensions, and critics” (Harris et al., 2020). This is why effective change models need to be considered to ensure the change is led and managed effectively. As the collaborative coaching model underpins the ethos of growth within the school, there is an established system that supports teacher development, however, as the need for assessment reform is a systems-level change rather than individual-level change, a systematic approach is required to ensure the change sticks and embeds into the culture.
Kotter’s Eight Stages Model of Change is one of the most widely recognised models for managing and leading change, as detailed in his book, ‘Leading Change’ (1996). It focuses on the need for creating urgency and building capacity in teams in order to make lasting change happen through eight specific stages. The IDEAS Model comprises five phases and aims to enhance school success by enabling school communities to work together to clarify direction and develop shared understandings. This results in creating meaning systems that become embedded in the school’s culture (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.78). Table 1 below (page 4) shows my interpretation of how the two models could align. As stated earlier, the OODA Loop takes place initially and, for the first three stages of the Loop - ‘Observe’, ‘Orient’, and ‘Decide’ - implements 'Instructional Rounds’ (City et al., 2018), a methodology to objectively determine a problem of practice within classrooms and schools by “observing, debriefing, and focusing on the next level of work” (City et al., 2018, p. 6). This was a system I studied during the CSML with the Harvard Graduate School of Education but which is outside the scope of this paper.
It is within the ‘Act’ part of the Loop that the two change models are utilised. I have grouped them into corresponding process stages, e.g. the ‘Initiate’ and ‘Discover’ stages of the IDEAS model correlate to the first stage of Kotter’s model to ‘Establish a sense of urgency”, whilst the ‘Envision’ phase of the IDEAS model corresponds to ‘Creating the guiding coalition’ and ‘Developing a vision and strategy’ stage of Kotter’s change model, and so on, (see Table 1 below).
Table 1: Grouping of corresponding stages of The OODA Loop, the IDEAS Model, and Kotter’s Eight Stages Model of Change
A school’s explicit communication of its priorities in the curriculum is key in initiating any change. The purpose is to “promote and stimulate professional conversations that make meaningful links between the school vision and individual and collective practices and authoritative external pedagogical priorities” (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, pp.80-81). This helps cultivate ‘parallel’ leadership, where teachers and principals can “align pedagogical approaches with the school’s visionary direction” (University of Southern Queensland). This concept was developed by Kaagan, Ferguson and Hann (2002) to address the different working relationships between teacher leaders and the principal (cited in Andrews, 2008, p. 46) and is critical to both the IDEAL and Kotter models. It begins in the ‘initiating’ stage, where leaders must not only ‘plan’ the process but, more crucially, ‘establish a sense of urgency’. Without a sense of urgency, the rest of the process falls flat.
According to Kotter, things falter almost always because of issues in Step 1. If “people do not get that right, that makes Step 2 more difficult, which makes Step 3 more difficult, and by the time you get to Step 6, it can be just this horrendous thing” (Newcomb, 2018, p14). Creating a sense of urgency requires leaders to convince the team that they want to make things better by being transparent and “asking for support in driving the change” (Newcomb, 2018, p.14). By ensuring colleagues participate and engaging them by emphasising their importance in the role of the change, it helps them feel ownership over such change (Radwan, 2020 p. 4).
Kotter (1995) warns that there are two main hurdles to establishing this sense of urgency - one is the “risk of playing it too safe”, and the second is because leaders “underestimate how hard it can be to drive people out of their comfort zones” (p.60). This is a tough dichotomy; finding a balance whereby the plan is challenging enough to drive true change but also considers steps that adequately break down the process to ensure staff are carefully guided out of their comfort zones is difficult. However, leadership is situational. Leaders, by definition, have to fit into the situations they're dealing with. “As situations change culturally, and through time, successful leadership styles change too. As the details vary, so does the leadership style” (Weil, 2007, p.1). As per the change models, planning the process to create urgency with a carefully laid out plan that is situational and leaders can help “facilitate collective engagement enabling teachers to refine and share individual strengths as well as build capacity in areas of challenge” (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p76-77).
Winning the hearts and minds of people is associated with successfully making things happen. The problem is that “professional education focuses, at least explicitly, 90 percent on the mind piece and 10 percent or less on the heart piece” (Newcomb, 2018, pp.13-14). This first phase then ties in directly to the IDEALS ‘Discovery’ phase, which involves the surveying of the school stakeholders, as well as Kotter’s second stage of ‘creating the guiding coalition’. While emphasising the need for parallel leadership remains, Kotter (1995) identifies the need to ensure people further up the hierarchy remain involved and continue reinforcing the sense of urgency. The coalition group chosen needs to be both diverse and powerful in terms of “information and expertise, reputations and relationships'' as well as “operate outside of the normal hierarchy” (p.61). Kotter warns that without a powerful enough guiding coalition, the opposition can gather itself enough to prevent the change (p.61).
Case Studies conducted over two years in schools involved in the IDEAS process Australia and Singapore (Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.50) found, through trial and error, that groups worked best when formed and led by a teacher leader, not a “positional leader of the school such as the Vice Principal or the Head of Department” (p.65). Through the IDEAL process, these leaders discovered that the “crucial role of the principal is to enable teachers to become leaders'' by “making space, encouraging a culture of success and knowing when to step back to demonstrate trust, and the acknowledgement of the importance of teacher leadership in pedagogy” (Crowther et al., 2001a,b, 2002, 2009 cited in Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.61). This parallel leadership “embodies three distinct qualities: mutual trust, shared purpose, and allowance for individual expression” (Andrews & Crowther, 2002; Crowther, Ferguson, & Hann, 2009 cited in Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.78). In a school operating within the bounds of a coaching culture, this methodology would fit well, as the focus is on raising the capacity of all to find their own solutions and strengths. Ensuring the right people are in the coalition group would be crucial - I would need expertise in assessment but also staff willing and open to rethinking assessment tasks and the work that goes along with it. Building trust will be key, as they must be empowered to take risks and try new things. Stepping back and giving space for them to explore seems crucial whilst also monitoring for negativity, competency, or confusion, and maintaining the ability to step in and make changes to the group as needed is recommended by the case studies in the Chew and Andrews (2010) research. Establishing a clear road map will allow the teacher leaders to navigate the process, and this comes from a clear vision and strategy, as necessitated in the third phase of both change models.
Kotter advises that the vision for the future should be both “easy to communicate within five minutes” and clarify “the direction in which the organisation needs to move” (Kotter, 1995, p.63). In the Chew and Andrews (2010) case studies, the principals reported that “staff were essentially exhausted by the demands placed upon them by a school with very high standards and had evidence of past successes” compounded by “a lack of a shared vision and lack of a shared approach to pedagogy” (p.51), which is very similar to my current context. As the “pressure for ongoing change within the educational system is relentless” (Andrews, 2008, p.45), it is vital to mitigate fatigue by anchoring initiatives as part of the overall vision and mission of the school. Radwan (2020) suggests that to increase approval and buy-in, it is easier if the plans for change align with the overarching initiative of the school (p. 4). Visions and values drive judgement and action, and as the curriculum leader, I appreciate that there will be different beliefs about assessment held by the staff. However, we need to leave personal beliefs behind and bring expertise that continually aligns the vision of the future of sour assessment practices with the values of the school. Making this about the development of a “schoolwide pedagogical framework that is clearly aligned to a school’s vision for the future” (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.770) separates the initiative from it being a personal crusade, which can be a perception of some teachers about leaders who are bringing in new goals.
The school has a strong vision and operates a values-based system; ensuring the task clearly supports this will help establish the need for the change and, hopefully, encourage staff to weave personal pedagogical beliefs and authoritative pedagogical frameworks with schoolwide pedagogical principles (SWP) known as a three-dimensional pedagogy (3-D.P). Andrews and Abawi (2016) state that by encouraging SWP derived by staff, it becomes a “collective commitment to contextualised high-yield teaching and learning practices with a focus on meeting the needs of ‘our students’ in ‘our context’” (p.77). The “micro-critiquing of practice through rigorous professional discussions targeted on specific areas of need, as identified through data analysis and the sharing of anecdotal records” (p.77) as would occur in the Instructional Rounds stages of the OODA Loop (see Table 1) will be vital in helping staff put personal opinion aside and contribute to the development of a mission- and values-aligned goal.
Once established, communication of the vision is critical. As per the first stage of creating a sense of urgency, stage 4 - ‘communicating the change vision’ (Kotter) and ‘implementing the action plans’ (IDEAS) - also requires clarity and consistency. Kotter (1995) emphasises using every possible channel and opportunity to share the vision (p.64). Radwan (2020) advises that appropriate messages about the changes you want to make and the benefits of those changes should be clearly communicated to stakeholders (p. 4). I interpret this as being critical for leaders to walk the walk, not just talk the talk to build the capacity of staff to lead processes for improvement. The notion of parallelism needs to be extended beyond the guiding coalition and into the wider faculty. Shared leadership of the vision is based on mutualism and a sense of a shared purpose that allows for individual expression (Andrews, 2008, p.46). As a leader, it is important to allow teachers to construct their identity as collaborative individuals with a strong sense of self-worth and who are “autonomous, proactive, creative, collaborative and mature professionals. Essentially they are highly accountable professionals, who engage in social learning as well as individual learning” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, cited in Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.82). IDEAS case studies outcomes include a “constant use of ‘we’ within transcripts from teacher interviews that demonstrate how teachers see themselves, not only as individuals but also as parts of an integrated whole committed to improving holistic outcomes for students” (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.8). Teacher leadership must, therefore, be consciously and purposefully built; the “resulting autonomy and agency translates into teachers being prepared to take risks and try new pedagogical approaches in order to enhance learning outcomes” (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.77) which is critical for the next stage of the change model process.
This phase is concerned with actioning the vision and plans by empowering those involved. The teachers involved in the case studies operated in a “no-blame” environment and were encouraged to share successful practices and to build on their strengths (Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.54). As “individualised, fragmented and incremental approaches to change are ineffective, slow, and unlikely to bring about lasting improvement”(Jones and Harris, 2014, p.475), distributed leadership must be maintained, as this “parallelism is based on mutualism, a sense of a shared purpose and allowance for individual expression” (Andrews, 2008, p. 46). As with any initiative that adds additional load to already highly worked educators, it is important for leaders to be mindful of removing barriers to success by thinking about what can be taken from the plates of those involved. The use of “an ongoing cycle of data gathering and reflection can become part of the ‘way we do things’” (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.88) and this can help to minimise resistance and stress. What is important is to allow teachers the space and opportunity to “communicate openly about what practices worked well”, emphasising that this part of the process is “not about identifying failures or weaknesses in individuals” (Chew and Andrews, 2008, p.54) but rather about creating that shared culturally responsive understanding of how to modify current practices with the desired outcomes of the plan. Also, these practices can be utilised as a “perfect method for two-way communications and feedback gathering to identify problems in the implementation process” of the change initiative (Radwan, 2020, p. 4). This reciprocity is necessary for the final phase, which involves the monitoring of progress and sustaining the work.
The fifth and final stage of the IDEAS model is about ‘sustaining’ and involves monitoring progress. My interpretation of this stage incorporates the final three steps of Kotter’s model: ‘generating short-term wins’, ‘consolidating gains and producing more change’, and ‘anchoring new approaches in the culture’. These three stages are distinct but critical in contributing to sustaining the project as leading a “continuous and ongoing process of improvement and of building on the early success of the change effort” can allow the work to continue to proceed in the right direction (Radwan, 2020, p. 4).
Celebrating short-term wins is the first part of this final stage. Kotter (1995) advises leaders to actively create short-term wins rather than simply hope for them (p.65). Radwan (2020) also suggests that people are “more committed when they see tangible findings and when they hear success stories” (p. 4). Encouraging teachers to tell stories about the ease of adoption and the importance of change could therefore increase engagement and morale. However, Kotter (1995) clarifies that good short-term wins should only be those that are visible and unambiguous - they will not be accepted if they are seen as a win by one member of the team and argued otherwise by someone else (Newcomb, 2018, p.12). He also warns against a too-early declaration of overall victory, which can stall progress as members can slow down, back off, and make space for traditional ways to come creeping back in if they think it is ‘over’. He reminds us that “pressure can be a useful element in a change effort”, and sharing short-term wins often can help avoid a drop in urgency (p.65).
By sharing short-term wins, momentum is continued allowing for the penultimate phase of Kotter’s change model, which is concerned with ‘consolidating gains and producing more change’. This stage requires a conscious attempt to take time to “regularly demonstrate how the change has benefitted stakeholders” (Kotter, 1995, p.67). It is about being relentless in monitoring and sharing, it is about “never letting up until you get the vision of what you wanted - and then securing it and institutionalising it enough so it sinks into the culture so the winds of tradition will not blow it back to where it started” (Newcomb, 2018, p. 12). The hope is that the team become skilled at continuous change so that it becomes “continuous rather than episodic” where “the sense of urgency is always kept up there - there's always this built-in capacity to throw together strong teams and focus on something” (Newcomb, 2018, p.13). In this way, the change can last and become embedded.
Sustaining is about “building on knowledge that has been created now into the future” (Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.62) with the ultimate challenge to “encourage and enable teachers to reimage themselves, develop new relationships and restructure their workplaces” (Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.60). Alignment of schoolwide practices must “underpin the norms and assumptions of school culture and whether or not this alignment has been attained can be ascertained by conscious analysis of the daily ‘the language-in-use’” (Andrews and Abawi, 2016, p.91). A sustainable change will mean that the assessment tasks are aligned with the school mission in a way that appears that they were always so. The ultimate goal is to anchor new approaches into the culture. I need to build on what exists and manage the change to navigate into the direction that aligns more closely with the vision; Kotter (1995) says you know you have been successful when the “change is seen as the way things are always done” (p.67).
Conclusion and Implications
The interrelationships of schools are hugely complex organisational systems, which means that any change can be unpredictable. Deviations from the status quo can create a state of chaos, as the outcomes are almost impossible to know. Humans are naturally resistant to change because of the stress arising from this unpredictability, and to help mitigate potential resistance to change, school leaders need to think about leveraging the culture of the institution to help change management. Leaders need to ensure there are clear strategies, adequate funding and training, and energy and enthusiasm for what is to be implemented. Effective leaders have been found to implement some or all of the following, which correspond closely with the models of change explored in this paper:
Promoting professional learning by actively fostering professional enquiry, learning and reflection (Robinson et al., 2009, cited in Jones and Harris, 2014, p.474).
Focusing on the collective capacity and capability for productive change to occur (Day et al., 2009, cited in Jones and Harris, 2014, p.475) by fostering distributed leadership and building “strong, functional collaborative teams” (Harris, 2013, cited in Jones and Harris, 2014, p.474).
Fostering collective responsibility by deliberately creating the right conditions for “disciplined professional collaboration” (Harris and Jones, 2012, p.475).
Building collective capacity and championing social capital over human capital (Jones and Harris, 2014, p.476).
Developing reciprocal accountability and commitment through professional collaboration via professional learning communities (PLCs), which have the potential to positively change teachers’ beliefs and behaviours (Jones and Harris, 2014, p.477).
Schools often operate in a somewhat perpetual sense of crisis, necessitating the question of whether any change models can work within such a setting. This paper explored two tried and tested change models to determine if their systematic approach could help leaders map a path through potential chaos to avoid too many pitfalls and provide space instead for exploration. The evidence from the case studies mentioned above, along with feedback Kotter has received over the past thirty years, suggests that it is possible to “successfully implement change models within a K-12 setting” (Newcomb, 2018, p.12). Leaders can mitigate ‘chaos’ and reinforce change by introducing ideas gradually and in a systematic way, by understanding change cannot happen in isolation but rather through collaboration. Teachers and leaders must “work together to meet individual needs, capabilities, aspirations and responsibilities to develop the school culture and the school-wide approaches to teaching and learning” (Andrews, 2008, p. 49). My initial table (see page 4) explained a systematic grouping of corresponding stages of The OODA Loop, the IDEAS Model, and Kotter’s Eight Stages Model of Change. The revised structure, shown in Table 2 below, brings together the findings of this paper and builds on the initial groupings from Table 1 (see page 4).
Table 2: Grouping of corresponding stages of The OODA Loop, the IDEAS Model, and Kotter’s Eight Stages Model of Change with the second OODA Loop incorporated.
The revised system includes a second OODA Loop in the final phase to ‘Sustain’ (IDEAS), which includes Kotter’s final three phases of ‘generating short-term wins’, ‘consolidating gains and producing more change’, and ‘anchoring new approaches in the culture’. After researching, I have taken this phase out of the ‘Act’ part of the first OODA Loop, which now includes the first four stages of IDEAS and the first five phases of Kotter. There was insufficient emphasis and guidance on how to actually deliver this stage effectively. For a successful implementation that adapts to the situation, I believe the second OODA Loop incorporating the ‘Instructional Rounds Model’ would ensure that this final, crucial stage is most effective. If the change is not sustained by celebrating small wins to consolidate and generate ongoing change, it will not become embedded into the culture and make lasting sustainable change, which is the ultimate goal. The Instructional Rounds Model can be used in this phase, as the whole purpose is to bridge the knowledge gap between educators and their practice; the process is built on the premise of medical rounds by which “the profession builds and propagates its norms of practice” (City et al., 2018, p. 3).
The process has been lengthened somewhat (see Table 2) but should not be rushed; principals need to work alongside teachers during these times and spend time “holding many one-on-one meetings to accurately describe the change intended” and its value (Radwan, 2020, p. 4). What was deemed effective in the case studies was having “no pressure having to follow a definite time-frame to move from one phase to the next” (Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.70). The empowering processes of the ‘Act’ stage of the first OODA Loop have to be sensitive to the particular context and require the skillfulness of leaders to respond appropriately and in a timely manner in a situational capacity. Whilst this action may look different depending on the context, in the case studies, the decision by each principal to “step back and enable teachers to influence others through their capacity of creating a shared meaning system and then embedding this into classroom practice” was described as effective (Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.722).
With this in mind, more research is needed into the Instructional Rounds Model and how it works within the OODA Loop to inform the change models. As Mulford (2005) indicates, “principal’s leadership needs to be transformational, i.e. providing individual, cultural and structural support for staff” (p. 325). The school has a well-established collaborative coaching culture, therefore, rather than a transformational change, it is a shift in the thinking of current methods of assessment that is required. The Instructional Rounds Model at the start of the process informs the ‘problem of practice’ and, at the end of the process, can help encourage ongoing learning, new ways of working and pedagogical actions that are contextually appropriate and promote sustained change. It is important to acknowledge “the diversity of people in a 21st-century organisation and in particular the changing roles of teacher as a leader in pedagogical improvement” and promote parallelism to unify and underpin the process (Andrews, 2008, pp 58-59). A fine balance is needed, however, as Harris (2003) indicates that “processes of developing teacher leadership (distributed leadership) require those in formal leadership positions to relinquish power to others” (p. 319). The leaders involved in the IDEAS case studies agree, saying that it was beneficial for them “to let go and not monitor the progress of the new arrangements too closely” however, they recognised that it was also “necessary for them to know when to exercise their right as principal to intervene when such action was needed” (Chew and Andrews, 2010, p.70).
Overall, I believe that using change models could allow me to adopt a leadership stance that carefully challenges the status quo of assessment whilst also finding balance by using existing practices and cultures to reach the new assessment goals. Research findings suggest that a framework that outlines the systematic use of change models, as shown in Table 2, could indeed provide sufficient capacity to allow school leaders to cultivate enough teachers who are change-skilled as “the ultimate model” of “a great 21st-century organisation” (Newcomb, 2018, p.13), one that is able to generate and embed sustainable change that “seeps into the bloodstream and is embedded as part of the culture” (Kotter, 1995 p.67).
Reference List
Ackerman Anderson, L. (2016)’ Organisation Development and Transformation’. In Rothwell, W.J., Stavros, J.M. and Sullivan, R. Practising organisation development: leading transformational change. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons pp. 78-94.
Andrews, D. (2008). ‘Working Together to Enhance School Outcomes: An Australian case study of parallel leadership’, Leading & Managing, 14(2), pp.45–60.
Andrews, D. and Abawi, L. (2016). ‘Three-dimensional pedagogy: A new professionalism in educational contexts’, Improving Schools, 20(1), pp.76–94. doi:10.1177/1365480216652025.
Boyd, J. and U.S. Army Command And General Staff College. Center For Army Tactics (1976). Destruction and creation. Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.: U.S. Army Command And General Staff College.
Chew, J.O.A. and Andrews, D. (2010). ‘Enabling teachers to become pedagogical leaders: case studies of two IDEAS schools in Singapore and Australia’, Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(1), pp.59–74. doi:10.1007/s10671-010-9079-0.
City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., Teitel, L. and Lachman, A. (2018). Instructional rounds in education: a network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Education Press..
Collins, J.C. and Jerry I. Porras, J.I. (1996). ‘Building your company’s vision’, Harvard Business Review.
Cuban, L. (1988) The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools, New York: State University of New York Press.
Elmore, R. (2000) Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Harris, A. (2002) ‘The changing context of leadership. Research, theory and practice’, in Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (eds.) Effective Leadership for School Improvement. London: Routledge, pp.9-25.
Jones, M. and Harris, A (2014). ‘Principals leading successful organisational change’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 27 (3), pp. 473-485.
Kotter, J. (1995). ‘Leading change: why transformation efforts fail’, IEEE Engineering Management Review, [online] 37(3), pp.42–48. doi:10.1109/emr.2009.5235501.
Kotter J (1996) Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Millar, C., Hind, P. and Magala, S. (2012) ‘Sustainability and the need for change: organisational change and transformational vision’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 25 (4), pp. 489-500.
Newcomb, A. (2018). ‘JOHN KOTTER ON Leading System Transformation’, School Administrator; Arlington, 65(4), pp.10–15.
Radwan, A. (2020). ‘Lead transformational change, minimize resistance with 8-step model’, Dean and Provost, [online] 21(7), pp.1–5. doi:10.1002/dap.30693.
University of Southern Queensland (n.d.). School Improvement Model – IDEAS. [online] Leadership Research International. Available at: https://lri.usq.edu.au/work-with-us/school-improvement-model-ideas/ [Accessed 23 Aug. 2022].
Weil, N. (2007). ‘Five Things I’ve Learned; Change leadership guru and Harvard Business School professor John Kotter on coping with change, adaptability and his favorite leader’, CIO, [online] 20(23), p.1. Available at: https://www.cio.com/ [Accessed 26 Aug. 2022].
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments gratefully received - thanks for taking the time to read :)
Anonymous comments and spam will be removed.