Rational –empirical ( telling) – assumes people will respond to evidence that the change will lead to better outcomes, based on self – interest. Current example is the commitment to evidence – based change, often associated with a relentless collection of data to make the case irresistible. Power-coercive (forcing) – assumes people will only change when they are forced to. Strict accountability for compliance with sanctions for non-compliance. Miles et al (2002) ‘ under the economic power house for change, the rewards (and sanctions) focus on the provision (or withdrawal) of financial incentives.’ … this is happening now in education in several countries. The normative – re-educative (participating) – assumes that people will make change when they have had the opportunity to engage in the process, often with the opportunity to shape the direction of change; their values about the process and the outcomes are changed through such engagement. There is fidelity with this providing there is not a pre-determined outcome, in which case engagement is a sham – a manipulative power – coercive strategy.
There are 3 groups of three under 3 themes…in red.
According to Howard Gardner, a leading American psychologist, current unprecedented facets of human life that are dictating future development Movement of capital and other market instruments around the globe – even in a time of recession there are huge numbers of international financial dealings every day between banks, insurance markets, share dealing and other forms of financial trading Movement of human beings across borders – it’s estimated that at any one point in time that there are well more than 100,000,000 immigrants Movement of all manner of information through cyberspace – with gigabytes (and even terabytes) of information with various degrees of reliability available to anyone with access to a computer Movement of popular culture, stylish clothing, food, music etc – which readily and seamlessly cross borders. More and more young people the world over look similar and have similar expectations. But it’s not just important to act globally, at the same time it’s necessary to act locally, regionally and nationally.
Gardner goes on to suggest that to be successful in the 21 st Century will take five kinds of minds. The first of these is a disciplined mind. The disciplined mind has mastered at least one way of thinking – a distinctive mode of cognition that characterises a specific scholarly discipline, craft or profession. This will require steady work over time (at least ten years) to improve skills and understanding. The second is a synthesising mind that takes data from diverse sources, understands and evaluates that data and puts it together to make sense of it. The third is a creating mind that breaks new grounds, puts forward new ideas, poses unfamiliar questions, conjures up fresh ways of thinking and arrives at unexpected answers. The aim is to remain one step ahead. The fourth one, the respectful mind notes and welcomes differences between different individuals and different human groups. The respectful mind tries to understand differences and seeks to work effectively with them. Finally there is the ethical mind. The ethical mind ponders the nature of one’s work and the needs and desires of the society in which (s)he lives. Such a person wonders about how workers can serve beyond self-interest and how citizens can work unselfishly on behalf of all – and acts on these analyses. School leaders will need all of these minds in the 21 st Century.
Single-loop learning assumes that problems and their solutions are close to each other in time and space (thought they often aren't). In this form of learning, we are primarily considering our actions. Small changes are made to specific practices or behaviors, based on what has or has not worked in the past. This involves doing things better without necessarily examining or challenging our underlying beliefs and assumptions. The goal is improvements and fixes that often take the form of procedures or rules. Single-loop learning leads to making minor fixes or adjustments, like using a thermostat to regulate temperature Double-loop learning leads to insights about why a solution works. In this form of learning, we are considering our actions in the framework of our operating assumptions. This is the level of process analysis where people become observers of themselves, asking, “What is going on here? What are the patterns?” We need this insight to understand the pattern. We change the way we make decisions and deepen understanding of our assumptions. Double-loop learning works with major fixes or changes, like redesigning an organizational function or structure Triple-loop learning involves principles. The learning goes beyond insight and patterns to context. The result creates a shift in understanding our context or point of view. We produce new commitments and ways of learning. This form of learning challenges us to understand how problems and solutions are related, even when separated widely by time and space. It also challenges us to understand how our previous actions created the conditions that led to our current problems. The relationship between organizational structure and behavior is fundamentally changed because the organization learns how to learn. The results of this learning includes enhancing ways to comprehend and change our purpose, developing better understanding of how to respond to our environment, and deepening our comprehension of why we chose to do things we do.
Of course, we shouldn’t imply that these 3 elements comprise the recipe for guaranteed success, although the omission of any one is likely to render success most unlikely. R + V + P = Sustainable Change R + V + no P = Leap of Faith R + no V + P = Tower of Babel No R + V + P = Doomed Crusade