This article is based on a story about a gardener who came across rows and rows of beautiful flowers in the nursery of a gardening store he visited. He enthusiastically loads a basket to a spate with annuals and perennials, hoping to place each new plant in a special place in the garden. The nursery salesperson further explained to the gardener that the flowers he is interested in are unique hybrid varieties that research has shown will do well in the local climate. When the gardener got home, he realized his garden was full of thistles, crabgrass, dandelions, and other weeds. Here are some of the choices the gardener might consider:
- He can drop the new plants at the entrance of the garden and leave them there, hoping that placing the plant so close to the intended place of delivery will suffice.
- He can plant the new flowers between the weeds, hoping that the soil’s nutrients will be sufficient for both the weeds and the new bulbs.
- He can sternly lecture the new plants on “growing smarter” and using nutrients wisely.
- Pull the weeds. Then, and only then, plant the fresh flowers.
Even though the last choice may seem like nothing more than common sense, it is infrequent in schools and learning spaces. The fact is that every education system has “weeds.” There is not a school, a district, an office, a unit, a department, a job description, or even a program entirely free of “weeds.” If one fails to pull the weeds, one can anticipate several conversations focusing on; “We will do this when we do that,” “We can do this when we are ready,” or “As soon as we get the curricula revamped, we will proceed,” etc. One can argue that educators are submerged under the heaviness of what is referred to as “initiative fatigue” – making efforts to use the same quantity of time, money, emotions, and sometimes physical energy to achieve more and more goals and objectives. With that said, change is constant in schools; the question is always and will always be, “How effective is the change?
Education Industries are undoubtedly “Learning Organizations,” but are we consistently learning to resolve issues or put out fires? Are we learning to conform or transform? Do we depend more on organizational crisis managers than on preventative managers? The problem is that the “putting out” fire strategy powered by various combinations of adrenaline, enthusiasm, and some intimidation might seem productive in the short term. However, the individual supplemental initiative eventually creates a startling decline in organizational effectiveness.
“Change” in any organization is challenging; however, in education, it is complex and therefore falls under complexity theory; the term is used for fractions of many theories, researches, ideas, doctrines, conceptions and perceptions, hypotheses, approximations, ideals that are adopted from scientific or experimental education, indoctrination or self-mastery such as biology, chemistry, physics, meteorology, and mathematics. Complexity theories are increasingly more apparent to academicians and practitioners, and they are seen as a way of comprehending and changing organizations. One must consider the nature of complexity theories and their significance, implications, and inference for organizations and organizational change.
Organizations depend on leaders to make appropriate changes; leaders, in turn, depend on the “front-liners” to accept and carry out the differences in all needed areas. The fact is that leaders, in general, like to believe that proper planning and stable management are the keys to successful change. However, too many of their best efforts, in combination with their final inspired analysis and astute planning, fall flat or meet unanticipated and stifling resistance. What makes the difference? Is it luck? Is it the quality of the people involved in the change project? Is it delivery?
In the book “Good to Great,” Jim Collins (2001) expressed that a level 5 leader is an individual who blends extreme personal humility with a strong professional will. He further explained that leaders like this are at the helm of every good-to-great (changing- effective change) company during a transition or evolving era. These leaders are amazingly ambitious – however, their ambition is first and foremost for the institution and not themselves. The formula is:
HUMILITY + WILL = Level 5 Leader
In conclusion, People and organizations change — expeditiously, resolutely, conscientiously — when ready to change. When ready, they will pick up practically anything from the environment or context and use it. Even the seemingly insignificant nudge from a supervisor or superior can act as a powerful catalyst. Contrarily, when they, mainly “people,” are not ready to change, they will disregard or resist the best attempts of others to change them. As one who has frequently tried to perform less in self-defense or more self-assured knows, people resist even their plans and objectives to “change.” As the growing scholastic period progresses, one should not be amazed when the omnipresent weeds choke some of the new flowers. However, to avoid or minimize this, the school or organization should employ the service, competence, and commitment of level 5 leaders (according to Jim Collins, Good to Great, 2001) to avoid “initiative fatigue” and strategically plan a garden party to pull the weeds before planting the flowers.
Reference
Beard, Brian Daniel. “An Investigation of Jim Collins’s Good to Great and Applications for Rural School Districts and Their Leaders.” 2019, https://doi.org/10.32469/10355/70015.
