Thread by @TomRees_77

*THREAD* on 'change management'.

Have been thinking a bit about this recently following twitter exchanges with @Andy__Buck + @SimonKnight100, chats with @head_teach + @KLMorgan_2 & after reading really good blogs by @johntomsett + @bennewmark in the last week.

/1

🔻

One of the things well established in leadership and management is 'leading change'. It seems accepted that you should learn about 'change management' on your journey to be a school leader and on leadership training, it's common to see generic change processes featured.

/2

Presumably, if leaders are able to 'do change', this is a good thing.

But this acceptance that leaders are people who are able to 'lead change' ignores the fundamental question:

What is it you are trying to change?

/3

What if it's more important to know more about the thing you're trying to change rather than some generic things about change?

/4

E.g. do you need the same knowledge and skills to lead organisational change, (making redundancies /reshaping teams) as opposed to changing the way you teach phonics or a change of uniform or timings of the school day?

I think you need different expertise. More specific.

/5

Could this debate be easier if we replace the word 'change' with 'improvement'?

Change means 'to make something different' - regardless of whether it's better or not whereas improvement requires us to make something better.

/6

I think what we're trying to do as school leaders is to make things better.

Not surface level quick fixes but properly better.

Improvement for keeps.

/7

Professor Viviane Robinson makes a compelling argument for this in her book: 'Reduce change to increase improvement'.

Her thesis is that there is too much change in schools, little of which is effective.

cc. @RobinsonViviane

amazon.co.uk/Reduce-Change-…

/8

@RobinsonViviane says that change may be 'better, worse, or the same as the first' whereas to lead improvement is to 'leave the team, school, network, or system in a better state than before'.

Summary of these arguments here: uacel.ac.nz/article/reduce…

/9

@RobinsonViviane goes on to say:

'I think it is time to stop talking about change and innovation and to focus on the far more ambitious goal of achieving improvement.'

/10

This is a shift in thinking from the conception of school leaders as 'change agents', a version of transformational leadership where we accept the leader > follower paradigm & the heroic leader narrative.

Have written a bit about this here:

/11

ambition.org.uk/blog/helping-l…

This is why a focus on the domain-specific knowledge/expertise of school leaders is so important.

If you wanted to improve maths in your school, would you turn to someone who knew how to 'manage change' or would you prefer to call on the expertise of someone like @EmathsUK?

/12

If you wanted to improve reading in your school, would you turn to someone who knew how to 'manage change', or would you prefer to call on the expertise of @HuntingEnglish @DamsonEd or @TheReadingApe?

/13

If you wanted to improve the operating model of your Multi-Academy trust, would you turn to someone who knew how to 'manage change', or would you prefer to call on the expertise of a seasoned MAT CEO who had worked through this process already?

etc. etc.

/14

In @BenNewmark's excellent recent post, he argues that too many decisions are made at the top of the hierarchy in schools and suggests that we should allow those with the right domain knowledge should be empowered more.

bennewmark.wordpress.com/2019/11/21/mis…

/15

@bennewmark goes on to advocate respecting the expertise of subject or phase leaders:

'Devolving decision making to the lowest possible level can work very well because it is sensible to give as much autonomy as you can to those actually wrestling with the problem.'

/16

This tension between a generic skill <leading change> as opposed to the domain-specific knowledge <expertise in the area of improvement> is genuinely fascinating when considering the work of school leaders.

/17

Push back against this has been to say it's a 'false dichotomy'. I don't think this is true - it's two different ways of thinking about how leadership operates and therefore how we should train leaders. And one worth thinking about and debating.

/18

It doesn't mean that it's not helpful to know about theories of change or implementation, just that these are unlikely to be as important as having enough expertise about the area we're trying to improve and an in-depth understanding of the context (people + organisation).

/19

TL:DR

1. Think of improvement not change.
2. Expertise in the area of improvement (domain-specific) is more important than knowing about theories of 'change' (generic).
3. Let the people with the most relevant expertise drive the decisions.
4. Read more @RobinsonViviane.

/20

OK. What do you think?