Resisters and saboteurs  (Page 3/4)

In Moss Kanter's insightful book, Evolve (2001), she discusses her list of reasons people resist change in the early stages of implementation, and the importance of leaders to work around them. Though her reasons are not related to schools and principals, I think they are very appropriate to share with you here:

• Loss of face: Fear that dignity will be undermined, a place of honor removed; embarrassment becuase the change feels like exposure for past mistakes.
• Loss of control: Anger at decisions being taken out of one's hands, power shifting elsewhere.
• Excess uncertainty: Feeling uninformed about where the change will lead, what is coming next - a sensation like walking off a cliff blindfolded.
• Surprise, surprise: Automatic defensiveness - no advanced warning, no time to get ready.
• The "difference" effect: Rejection of the change because it doesn't fit the existing mental models, seems strange and unfamiliar, and challenges usually unquestioned habits and routines.
• Can I do it?" Concerns about future competence, worries about whether one will still be successful after the change.
• Ripple effects: Annoyance at disruptions to other activities and interference with the accomplishment of unrelated tasks.
• More work: Resistance to additional things to do, new things to learn, and no time to do it all.
• Past resentments: memories of past hostilities or problems that were never resolved.
• Real threats: Anger that the change will inflict real pain and create real losers.

At the risk of boring you with the management/leadership dichotomy we are all so familiar with, I think there is a parallel here. I suspect what Moss Kanter is getting at is the fact that the principal must not get to wrapped up in the management of change to the exclusion of dealing with the more human side - leadership through respecting and understanding what people feel and belive about issues. In addition, what are their fears and why do they feel threatened with the implementation?

The "nature of the beast" is that so much of what principals do on a daily basis is so naturally impersonal and technical it invites a neglect of the more human side of change. The principal must be careful that she/he is not consumed with the management side of our jobs at the expense of working through (not around) teachers' fears and emotions.

The need for a significant number of faculty

Without evidence or empirical data to support this, I believe one reason for a lack of involvement and commitment from segments of faculty is directly related to a misunderstanding of what effective use of technology really means. Too many of our colleagues still equate technology with computers in classrooms, and have yet to move beyond this thinking. Moss Kanter clearly warns, "Most people still imagine that technology in schools means computers in classrooms - but, that is the least important, and often most counterproductive application of technology, fostering individual isolation" (p. 25).

In order to implement technology effectively, the principal must strive to include as many faculty as possible in the process. Think about other programs or innovations in our schools - cooperative learning strategies, site-based decision making, and the inclusion of special needs students, among others. No innovation or program has been sucessfully implemented without the involvement and commitment of a significant portion of faculty. I am not suggesting the implementation of technology is simple. But one or two teachers here and there, as powerful as these folks may be, will not result in the highest impact, most productive application of technology to improve teaching and learning. Insert any other significant idea or implication to this position.