Lewin’s work on change theory states that for real sustained change to occur three areas must be adhered to. The three areas are creating a safe environment that supports the desired change, involving all stakeholders in the planning of the desired change, and then re-educating the stakeholders to understanding of the desired change. (Calabrese)
A leader can create a safe environment to support change in several ways. By listening to opposing points of view without showing judgement, laying out in manageable steps how the organization means to achieve the change, provide training and coaching to individuals who need help with the knowledge. In creating this supportive environment the leader is seeking to reduce, as much as possible, the anxiety that naturally comes along with change in any situation. (Schein)
For change to be lasting, the constituents who will be affected by the change, must be involved in the planning of how the proposed change will be implemented. To gain ‘buy-in’ and support to ensure that the change will endure the participants go through three levels of understanding. First on the conscious level. This is where they are introduced to the new idea and begin to understand what it means to them. While gaining understanding on the conscious level their subconscious is comparing this new idea to traditional ideas, creating new neural pathways for possible adoption of the change. When the individual comes to an understanding of what they believe the change will mean for them they begin testing the benefits of the change against what they have understood. If the tests align with their conscious and subconscious understandings they will be much more inclined to embrace the change. (Calabrese)
For change to even occur at all though, reeducation is necessary. However, having said that, it is important to note that re-education alone will not be sufficient to foster change. It seems that many leaders make the assumption that all that is needed for change is for the organization to learn something new without taking into account the supportive environment needed or creating opportunities for the stakeholders to be involved with the process of the change. Lewin says this re-education needs to happen in a particular way to be effective. First the participants must ‘unfreeze’ their currently held notions and make available the possibility of alternative methods. Then the ‘change’ occurs, which is the substitution of the new idea for the old one. For the change to stick, there needs to be a ‘refreezing’ to reinforce and solidify the value of the change making it permanent. (Calabrese)
Lewin’s approach to leadership style suggests more of facilitator role in which the leader provides the environment and opportunities for the group as a whole to develop the change that is desired. While Maslow purports that for change to occur the leader is the one who, as Ghandi says, is “the change that you want to see”. The leader understands the change that is desired and must demonstrate through his or her own actions what the actualization of the change looks and feels like.
In discussing Maslow’s work, change is an internally motivated process and the leader brings about the change in four personal ways. 1) The leader demonstrates in him or herself the positive attitude, view, approach, and execution toward the desired change that they wish to see in their constituents. 2) The leader understands that change is internally driven in each individual and puts great importance on understanding the motivations and values of their constituents. 3) The leader focuses on fostering positive relationships with those involved in the change, understanding that people will only change when they feel they are in an environment of acceptance. 4) The leader seeks to empower others to reach, or at least strive for their highest potential, to utilize and share their skills and knowledge.
As to which of Lewin’s or Maslow’s approaches is most suitable for a school setting it is dependant on the situation of the change that is desired. If the change is a systemic change that involves a large contingency, then, I feel that Lewin’s approach is more suitable as it draws upon the strengths and input of a wide range of constituents. Whereas using Maslow’s approach in this situation, I think would be difficult to raise up enough individuals to reach a tipping point and full acceptance of the change. However, if the situation was that of changing an area of the school, say the music program, it would be much more beneficially to follow Maslow’s approach, where getting a few strong proponents onboard early would expedite the change.
Comments
Post a Comment