Let us look at each of these factors more
closely.
- Hard Factor #1: Duration. There is a common assumption that
transformation efforts that require longer timelines are morelikely to fail. Contrary to this common assumption Sirkin, Keenan,
and Jackson’s (2005) research suggests that long-term
transformation efforts that are evaluated frequently are morelikely to succeed than short-term projects that are not evaluated.
It seems that the frequent use of formative evaluation during atransformation journey has a significant positive effect on the
success of that journey.
- Hard Factor #2: Integrity. The question this factor addresses
is“Can we rely on the change leadership teams that we create to
facilitate the transformation journey effectively andsuccessfully”? The importance of the answer to this question cannot
be understated. The success of a district’s transformation journey
will be directly affected by the knowledge and skills of the peoplewho staff the various change leadership teams that must be
chartered and trained to provide change leadership. Change leadersneed to get their district’s best people on these teams, where“best”means smart, articulate, influential, and unequivocally
committed to the transformation goals.
- Hard Factor #3: Commitment. Transformational change must be
led from the top of a school district. The superintendent must notonly provide verbal support for the transformation but he or she
must also demonstrate behavioral support by participating intransformation activities.
Initial commitment to the transformation must
also be present among approximately 25% of a district’s faculty and
staff. This cadre of supporters is called a“critical mass.”Block’s (1986) discussion of political groups in organizations
offered a useful way to identify who does and does not supportleadership in organizations. His model can be modified to identify
who does and does not support a school district’s transformation
journey.
Block used two dimensions (vertical and
horizontal) to identify five political groups in organizations.When adapted to support a district’s transformation journey, the
vertical axis of his model would be the level of agreement aboutthe district’s transformation goals. The horizontal axis would
represent the level of trust between and among people in thedistrict. The intersection of these two axes creates five political
groups:
- Allies: high goal agreement and high trust;
- Opponents: low goal agreement, but high trust—it may be
possible to convert these people into allies;
- Bedfellows: high goal agreement, but low to moderate levels
of trust;
- Adversaries: low agreement on goals and low trust—who will
probably never be converted to allies or bedfellows.
- Fencesitters: these people cannot decide where they stand on
the goal of transforming their school district. They usually have await and see attitude toward the changes that are being
proposed.
Block offered political strategies for working
with each group. These strategies can be used during the Pre-LaunchPreparation phase to build internal and external political support
for a district’s transformation journey.
