​Colleagues,
 
We’ve been looking at the conditions that allow for BIG change.
 
On Tuesday I suggested that in order to engage in BIG (A-Z) change, several criteria should be met, including:

• Plentiful resources.
• People who can handle the disruption.
• Highest priority.
• Provide lasting value.

 
Wednesday, we looked at four degrees of turbulence and on Thursday we examined how the pandemic created extreme turbulence for schools and how schools lowered the turbulence through stages. We concluded by noting that flipping the classroom was the logical BIG change for teaching.
 
The funny thing is that now flipping the classroom is less of a BIG change than it was before. Teachers have already stepped into that space and they have more skills and knowledge than they had before. In fact, many schools are at a point where they can apply leverage to flipping the classroom and begin doing A-B.
 
Instead of taking a year to convince teachers to change the way they teach and provide them with sophisticated tools (A-Z), school leaders can now help teachers build on their previous experiences and provide tools and techniques to become more fluent at flipping the classroom. In the end, teaching will be fundamentally different, but we will get there by going A-B.
 
Time to reflect:

1. What needs a BIG change in your organization?
2. Can you meet the criteria for engaging in BIG change?
3. Or can you A-B your way by drawing a line from where you are to where you need to be and executing one simple step at a time?

 
Do good and be well,
 
Frederick

​Colleagues,
 
Yesterday I suggested organizations that experience extreme turbulence were not good candidates for big change, even if big changes are needed. Today let’s look at how the pandemic created extreme turbulence in p-12 education, how schools reacted, and what the path is moving forward. 
 
Schools basically serve two purposes: care for and educate students. Closing buildings threw schools into extreme turbulence as most systems and structures became obsolete overnight. 
Schools faced two immediate priorities:

1. Get food to students (in 2016 over 30 million US students received free or reduced lunches) 
2. Teach students

 
In poor rural counties like mine, many students depend on school meals and many of the same families lack reliable internet access, so schools had to be creative in feeding and teaching.
 
I’ve seen three visible stages, each corresponding to a different level of turbulence:

1. Existing systems no longer worked, and schools suffered extreme turbulence resulting in high levels of stress and pressure for school personnel.
2. Schools used existing resources and knowledge to adapt systems to minimally meet immediate needs, moving the school from extreme to severe turbulence.
3. Schools refocused training to help teachers implement strategies for distance education. In many schools, training focused on helping teachers adapt what they already did. This allowed for relatively quick progress and stabilized schools into moderate turbulence.

 
Now that leaders and teachers can breathe, they are able to more closely examine the remaining problems and approach them more strategically. Ultimately, many schools will fundamentally reshape teaching by “flipping” the classroom. Flipping essentially moves the teacher from providing information to facilitating learning experiences.
 
Flipping is a BIG change, but now that schools are more stable, they can begin that work. More tomorrow.
 
Do good and be well,
 
Frederick

​Colleagues,
 
Yesterday we looked at some criteria for deciding when the time was right for BIG (A-Z instead of A-B) change. All of these criteria involved a well-resourced and stable organization. But what if things are falling apart and the old way of doing things isn’t working? Doesn’t that require a big change?
 
Probably not.
 
Some time ago we reviewed Steven Gross’ four degrees of organizational turbulence:

1. No or light turbulence
2. Moderate turbulence
3. Severe turbulence
4. Extreme turbulence

 
Trying to drive big change during extreme turbulence is like trying to teach a drowning person how to swim. They don’t need to know how to swim, they need to get out of the water.
 
When the organization is under severe or extreme turbulence, the first goal of leaders should be to reduce the turbulence and stabilize the situation. Once that is done, we can begin looking at big change.
 
Tomorrow we’ll dig more deeply into these ideas by exploring the impact of the pandemic on p-12 education. Even if you aren’t in education, I promise it will be worth reading.
 
Do good and be well,
 
Frederick

​Colleagues,
 
I’m a big advocate of incremental change because it allows us to apply the four principles of leverage. Incremental change is faster (0>1), simpler (MVP), requires less effort (M=V/E), and brings faster results (A-B). 
 
However, sometimes it doesn’t make sense to go from A-B, so how do we decide when to engage in a big change effort?
 
Pam and I moved into our house over 16 years ago and the carpet needed replacing then. However, with four kids we chose to invest our money and time in other things, so the faded worn green carpet endured to the point that today it is spotted, frayed, and multi-colored. This week, we are getting new wood floors, and instead of doing one room at a time (incremental), we have decided to do the entire upstairs (big change).
 
Why did we choose big change over an incremental approach?

• The new wood floors should endure the rest of our lifetime, so we only have to do this once.
• We have the resources.
• Our people are ready and can handle the disruption.
• Things that were a higher priority have already been done.
• It will increase the value of our organization (house).

 
In addition, the wood floors, and the trim that I will install later, will bring this house closer to our aesthetic. In a way, the house will be better suited to our purpose.
 
Big change is rarely the answer because organizations rarely have all of these bullet points. But what if your organization is so disrupted that you must engage in big change? We’ll look at that question tomorrow.
 
Do good and be well,
 
Frederick

​Colleagues,
 
Previously, I have defined leadership as using power to influence others to achieve a specific outcome. That suggests that the act of leading requires an attempt to influence. Think about that for a few seconds.
 
If you are doing something that has no influence, can you call that a leadership activity?
 
I’m not suggesting that the task is worthless just because it doesn’t include an influencing component, and I’m not suggesting that everything a leader does should involve influence.
 
I am suggesting that in order to actually be leading, you need to be trying to influence.
 
Interestingly, we can perform an identical activity in two different ways, one as a leader, and one not. One example:
 
In schools, assistant principals (AP) often handle a lot of discipline. As an AP, I can approach discipline in different ways. Approaching discipline as a leader involves figuring out why a problem occurred and working to help those involved understand the event and change behaviors in order to prevent reoccurrences. The other approach is to look at the offence, find the corresponding consequence, apply it, and move on.
 
Of course, there are shades of gray, but the point is that a leader focuses on influencing people to create a better future for the individuals and the organization.
 
Take a few minutes to think about some of the more mundane things that you will do this week. Who can you influence, and to what end? Can you lead through these activities so that someone is better off as a result?
 
Do good and be well,
 
Frederick