I’m thinking about how you could overlay these principles onto the quadrants and see what that tells you.

I do think you are right, that too often the change focuses on the structural–change the parking lot, change the schedule, and not enough on the other areas.

That does take a leader with vision and a coherent plan. While I do think the environment to accomplish the vision is important, I also think someone with the right human resources skills can create an environment open enough that it will “change” the environment over time.

One thing I was also interested in is the concept of good vs. great. I don’t mean great in terms of standardized test scores or traditional measures, I think of it more in terms of an exceptionally rich and deep teaching and learning experience, a campus where students and teachers feel engaged and involved, and more.

Lots of food for thought here!

I’m still hoping you’ll share a few strategies for how to address some of these issues regarding individual change, though I think this model touches on it. Inviting people in, distributing power and decision making, and supporting human resources is a beginning.

My Rutgers University Graduate students will be posting on this topic during their class on June 4, 2009. I will be asking my students to identify “a situation where an emphasis, or lack of emphasis, on one of these frames led to a change initiative’s success or failure” as presented by a school leader. Let’s see what happens…

Why do initiatives fail? Why might some initiatives be successful? It all depends on what approach(es)/frame(s)a leader may take. Scott,who created this blog, brings us to the framework of Bolman and Deal. He mentions that sometimes depending on what the situation or circumstances are, one approach or frame may be preferred over the other. Bolman asks the question, “Are leaders with multiple frames more effective than those with a singular focus?” Looking at his research, really only a small percentage of leaders use all four frames.

One situation in my school, involved the failure of an initiative by the director of the guidance department due to the lack of emphasis of the frames. In my school, the Smart Start initiative was created to have teachers mentor and help those high school students who are in danger of failing and not graduating. Each teacher was to choose one student who was in danger of not graduating to mentor and guide them in the right direction. I was one of those teachers and I can proudly say that I checked up on my student at least once or twice a week, helped him out when he needed it, gave him guidance, and he is going to walk in graduation this month. Unfortunately, the students of other teachers who were also involved in the Smart Start Program were not so lucky. What was the error here? I find no fault with the teachers, but rather the frames the director decided to choose or lack thereof.

I think one of the most valuable frames in this situation would be the structural frame. If the program were kept organized, where clear goals and policies were enforced, and the teachers were held accountable for the results, then it would have been a success. She may have had a vision but she did not follow that vision or share her goals with the teachers. The problem was the director of guidance never checked in on how Smart Start was going. She did not provide clear instruction on when, how often, or how we would meet with our student. The only discussion or checking in the director of guidance got was when teachers met the first time to choose a student and an email that she just sent out now, at the end of the year, asking if we had mentored the student we chose earlier in the year. Some teachers hadn’t even seen their student more than one time.

One must keep in mind that the choice of frames may depends on what leadership position you are in. Here, the director could have used the Political Frame where she enforced her power, or even the Human Resource Frame where she could adjust the program to better fit the teachers and students. Unfortunately, in this situation, I believe the initiative was a failure because the director could have used multiple frames to approach this situation but she only used one frame and used it poorly.

The most available example: teacher websites. Districts that adopt teacher websites emphasize how easily parents will be able to track the assignments (namely homework) in schools thereby catering to the political and symbolic frame. Politically they are emphasizing to parents what a valuable resource teacher websites are and that voting for the budget allows for these types of projects to exist. Symbolically, they are emphasizing how much they value uniting parents and teachers to ensure the success of all children. Both of these are noble visions.

The problem is that the districts fail to consider the structure of the school day or provide adequate professional development. If districts infuse websites (or any technology initiative) they need to hybridize new initiatives with something teachers are already doing rather than just pile on more work to an already overworked schedule. Perhaps eliminate duty periods from the schedule and have the district technology coordinator provide professional development one day per week? Dedicate one meeting per month to developing teacher websites? The possibilities of “creating time” are endless if it is carefully thought out, which means considering all four of Bolman & Deal’s frames during planning and implementation.

I am reminded of an initiative in my middle school 3 yrs ago to begin advisory groups. THis was a one weekly 45 minute meeting between 7-8 students and one teacher from the school. No workshops or professional development was offered in advance or during this year long initiative. No sample lesson plans, no input was asked for, nothing! It was presented at the first faculty meeting of the year and began during the first week of Oct. What a disaster for most teachers! Advisory groups are a great addition to a school curriculum, especially at the middle school level, but no guidance was given! It was new for the students and the teachers. THe refrain we often heard was, “Be creative, have fun!” Not very helpful. THe leaders did not look back at what they lacked in offering PD, they instead were confused by our lack of enthusiasm.
Luckily, by year 2, enough complaints were heard and PD was given to make the class more effective and easier to effectively accomplish. Frustrations were so high and chaos ensued, which made the admins, step in an offer some hard core guidance. But Thurs mornings that year were stressful!!