On school leadership: Module 3

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Module 3 - Change

Describe Lewin's Theory of FFA and explain how it might be helpful for a school leader's successful implementation of a new initiative.

38 comments:

LeeMarch 23, 2014 at 8:39 PM
Kurt Lewin’s force-field analysis was a way of looking at an organization in terms of driving forces acting to change or resist change within the organization. From Lewin’s perspective a school’s current situation is an equilibrium snapshot determined by two apposing pressures, the pressures for change and the pressures that resist change. These pressures are identifiable and knowable. (see Figure 8-2, pg. 207 in Fred C. Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein’s book Educational Administration, Concepts and Practices) In order to create change it is then necessary to do one of three things: Increase the driving forces, reduce the resisting forces, or apply new driving forces. Like in physics the best way to do this, is through reducing the resistive forces because, as general rule, when there is an increase to the driving force in order to change the equilibrium of a system, there is an increase to the resistive force creating a tension that can damage the structure and integrity of the system, even if change is accomplished. It is also a general rule in physics that if a reduction of the resistive forces occurs then change to the system can happen without loosing the structural integrity of the system.
What does this mean for school administrators who are trying to implement a new initiative? It means we have to address the resistive forces operating against the new initiative, or in Lewin’s terms we have to “unfreeze” the system in order to create “movement”. This is done best threw effective planning. As administrators we should have a plan for affective implementation of the new initiative, which ideally will include:

1. Support from the top-level administrators, which includes the appropriate financial support and support for professional development.
2. Identification and communication of the reasons for change to the appropriate stakeholders.
3. Identification and communication of the benefits that the initiative will have for both the stakeholders as individuals and the system as a whole.
4. Organized opportunities for the affected stakeholders to get their questions and concerns addressed.
5. Organized opportunities for the affected stakeholders to participate in the planning and implementation of the initiative.

If the change being implemented is truly important to the success of the school, implementing the above plan will help to insure “buy-in” with the stakeholders, and then productive change can occur with the least possible amount of tension within and upon the system.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM
According to Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis, change in an organization is characterized as a state of imbalance between two forces, driving forces and restraining forces. With these forces pushing against each other the organization can not move towards the vision or goals for the company or organization. The organization is in somewhat of a stalemate where the negative is working against the good things that are happening in the organization. In order for a company to change this and move towards their vision they must do three things. First, an organization has to unfreeze the driving and restraining forces that hold it in a state of quasi-equilibrium. Second, an imbalance is introduced to the forces to enable the change to take place. This can be achieved by increasing the drivers, reducing the restraints or both. Third, once the change is complete the forces are brought back into quasi-equilibrium and re-frozen.
Understanding the Force Field Analysis and the three steps to make a change towards a goal or vision will help a school leader to make new implement new initiatives. When implementing a new initiative the school leader can use this model to first identify what the drivers will be and what the restraints will be. The leader can use this information to find ways to help the drivers be more successful and develop ways to deter restraints. Once the vision is achieved and a state of equilibrium can be reinstated.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 26, 2014 at 6:25 PM
"School administrators must play an active role in initiating change and attempting to reduce resistance to change” (Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2008). Change is always greeted by some people with resistance. An effective administrator must do what they need to do in order to reduce the resistance to change. According to Lunenberg & Ornstein (2008), they describe Lewin’s Theory of FFA as, a concept to better understand resistance to change through thinking about any change to the status quo and the driving forces that want to enact change and the resisting forces that want to inhibit the change (p. 207).
Kurt Lewin’s FFA change model was designed to weigh the driving and restraining forces that affect change in organizations. The force field can be looked at as two opposite forces working together or against change. The goal for the driving force is to gain a balance of power and the goal of the resisting forces is to take control of the status quo. If driving forces exceed restraining forces they will enact change. There are many factors to driving forces, some of which can include, people, attitudes, customs, and habits (Kadian-Baumeyer, n.d.). Change makes many people feel uncomfortable especially when there is fear of the unknown. Many want to maintain the status quo.
A few years ago at my school district the superintendent came to me wanting to change our calendar year and start school before Labor Day. This process had to be done by getting a waiver from the State of Michigan and then communicating the change to staff. As you can imagine, this was met with lots of resistance. When I went through this process of explanation to the staff about the why, I did not at that time realize I was going through the process of FFA, but that is exactly what I was doing. I had my work cut out for me because my initial resisting forces were coming from my entire staff.
My first step in this FFA process to staff was completing what Lewin describes as unfreezing. Unfreezing is the process reducing the forces acting to keep the status quo, in this case the start of the school year after Labor Day. The main reason for starting before Labor Day was to align our high school calendar with the calendar of Jackson College, where many of our high school students were dual enrolled. This did not directly affect the K-8 staff or building but the superintendent was adamant to keep our calendars closely linked. Every school district runs a tight calendar and by staring a few days before Labor Day it allowed us some flexibility in our calendar. That first step of unfreezing was critical in a discussion on how this change makes sense for our 9-12 building but also how it could help our K-8 building.
The second step was moving. During the moving process this was the step where new attitudes and behaviors from staff started. From moving to the last step of refreezing, the process of stabilizing the new status quo happened. We now are in our fourth year of starting school the week before Labor Day. We have the students for three half days and have determined this has been a great transition back to school for staff and students. Many teachers are able to get through their “nuts and bolts” of classroom rules and procedures in those first three half days, making them ready to go the first full day of school, the day after Labor Day.
Change is inevitable in the school system. It is important for the administrator to support the process of change by going through a FFA when trying to enact change. The process of FFA will allow the teaching staff to hear first hand from administration why change needs to happen and what that change may look like. Getting as many staff members as possible to understand will help increase the driving forces and in turn change will take place.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM
Lewin’s concept of force-field analysis gives school leaders a way to look at the dynamic behavior within their school and staff teams. When a principal is either forced or chooses to initiate change, they must be active in the process. Lewin’s model provides leaders with a better understanding of resistance to the change process. This model requires the school leader to be involved in a process over time that has the ability to reduce the resistance to change. First, the school leader must unfreeze the forces resisting change within the organization. This can be done by providing the forces with clear and concise student data that provides a reason for change. There also might be an immediate crisis or change of law that reduces the resistance to change. Once the forces have been unfrozen, the school leader must establish a new set of goals, rules, and values that will be identified with the changing situation. Finally, the school leader reaches a new standard and stability in the organization. This signifies that the process has been completed and that the group has now fully adopted the change in the organization. If a school leader analyzes this model before initiating change within the organization it will allow them to better prepare for the upcoming situation.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 27, 2014 at 12:45 PM
Kurt Lewin’s Theory of Force-Field Analysis seems like a complex theory to apply to a very simple work place environment. Lewin believes that changing conditions is a process that involves a complex balance of give and take. He believes that too much of either could be cause for frustration and unrest within a school or business. Lunenburg and Ornstein write, “Change agents must assess the change potential and resistance and attempt to change the balance of forces so that there will be movement toward a desired condition” (2008). As a future administrator, we are agents of change and must know our staff well enough to anticipate how receptive they will be when it comes to implementing a new learning program or policy/procedure. Often, an attempt to change a procedure is met with hesitation and/or a refusal to comply. As an administrator, it is imperative to understand why there is resistance and then equip your staff with the tools necessary to be effective throughout the new experiences.
This week, we were asked to watch the short cartoon, “Who Moved My Cheese?” I believe that this is an excellent example of Lewin’s Theory of Force Field Analysis. Haw desperately wanted to change the cheese-less situation that they were in, and utilized coercion to try and get Hem to join forces with him. Unfortunately, coercion did not work. Haw even found small crumbs of cheese as proof that it existed, and Hem still refused. Ultimately, Haw found his own way and realized the importance and value of change. In this video, Haw represents those willing to change and Hem represents those that are unwilling (Johnson, 2013). Unfortunately in the world of education, people similar to Hem exist all too often and truly do not contribute to the collaborative, efficient environment that schools need to survive.
There have been many moments in the past where I have felt like Haw and my administrator represents Hem. As an educator, I am very passionate about what I do every day and what I need to do to make it better. I’m constantly seeking new alternatives to teaching. As a member of the teaching staff, I also am able to see where we lack in administrative support and systems. I can understand what programs should be implemented, which ones need to be fine tuned, and which programs are altogether ineffective. However, there are many days that I bring ideas to administration only to have those ideas disregarded. Their response is usually that we do not have enough man power or funding to provide those programs. I have learned to bring ideas to administration with a solid plan laid out that could actually work in our school. As a future administrator, I will commit to being open to change because I’m aware that change is constant and always necessary; especially in the highly evolving educational world we live in today.

Johnson, S. (Director). (2013). Who moved my cheese? [Motion picture]. USA: Who Moved My Cheese?.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: concepts and practices (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Bill RothwellMarch 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM
Depth of Knowledge
Lewin’s Theory of Force-Field Analysis (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012) is an approach to managing change that emphasizes balancing supportive and inhibiting forces to move an organization in a specific direction. In a school setting, this could be particularly useful for a school leader who is trying to implement a new initiative. According to Lewin, the current condition of schools is maintained by a dynamic balance of opposing forces that can originate within or outside the school itself. In the instance that the “driving forces” behind a new initiative outweigh the “resisting forces”, then change will likely occur. On the converse, when resisting forces dominate the dynamic forces then equilibrium will remain in the current condition.
If change is to occur from the current condition to a desired condition/ new initiative, then the balance of forces must be altered to foster movement towards the desired condition. This can be accomplished by school leaders by “increasing the driving forces, reducing the resisting forces, or considering new driving forces” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 191). In the instance that this process occurs, change towards the new initiative will follow a sequence of organizational processes that includes unfreezing, moving, and refreezing.
The first step of the sequence, known as unfreezing, is necessary to diminish resisting forces and allow movement towards the desired condition. Generally unfreezing involves altering the values, attitudes, and behaviors of those that oppose change. These voices can be employees, students, parents, or members of the district office. Once this occurs, movement towards change is made possible, and, throughout this step, new values, attitudes, and behaviors can be developed. Once the movement towards change is completed, it is necessary to establish a new set of norms that “refreezes” equilibrium, except this time with the desired initiative being embraced.

References to Text/Scholarly Research
Kotter’s eight-step plan (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012) provides elaboration for addressing resistance to change. Kotter’s arguments lie in parallel with those of Lewin’s, however Kotter outlines specific steps to accomplish Lewin’s virtues of unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. All of Kotter’s steps, from his first step of “establish(ing) a sense of urgency” to his last step of “anchor(ing) new approaches in the culture” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 192) have strong application to a school leader’s desire to implement a new initiative. Work by Kotter suggests that as long as the eight steps are correctly followed, the organizational change that a school leader advocates can be accomplished within the school setting.
Lewin’s theory expresses that school leaders need to make use of “change agents” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012) to foster change towards a new initiative. One such change agent that can be called upon to rally support and reduce resistance is the development of professional learning communities. Although professional learning communities can come in many forms and a variety of members, all professional learning communities maintain an objective to improve schools (Dufour, 2004). These communities thrive on “the commitment and persistence” of members (Dufour, 2004), and by generating professional learning communities, school leaders can benefit from the virtues of Ouchi’s “Theory Z Leadership” (Jeffrey, 2014) which emphasizes worker cooperation to better schools.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM
Kurt Lewin Force Field Theory has a present or desired state or a starting point could be considered the status quo. This position is where one where change needs to be moved from or to. On the left side are all positive or driving forces that push toward change. On the right side are all the negative or restraining forces pushing against change. The theory behind the model is that to get to a desired state one must find the balance between driving and restraining forces.
Relating this to present day education this is complete basic but very true way of thinking. If there is a need for change because one must find a happy medium to balance out the forces to achieve such goal. For example if there is a combining of schools in a community there is going to be a great deal of concern and resistance from faculty and parents even if it is the best thing for the school district financially. I currently have just moved to Saginaw, MI and the city is experiencing this exact situation. The city seems to have been zoned for years into four different sections such as the North, South, East, and West sides of the city. As of late the East side of the city has become overwhelmed by violence which inturn has caused a abandonment of the community. Less individuals reside there causing more abandon houses that the city is tearing down. This has cause the school district among other things to close down the elementary and middle school and relocate with other city sections on the north side. This is causing a large amount of resistance being parents are aware that there is a great deal of gang rivalry between the north side and east side of the city. Along with that there is a concern with the class sizes being this will be a combination of 2 middles schools, and 3 elementary as well as moving of the 8th grade out of middles schools to the high schools. This opens the concern of will the 8th graders be able to fully function with high schoolers, will the teachers be able to handle the work loads, will the schools be able to hold the amount of students being forced together. With that said I would point out that this is a great opportunity that the school board and administration could use this theory to smooth things over. This combining of schools was a compromise to closing of one of the high schools and combining all the students. This was a start but they administration must find positive ways subdue the resistance so that the transition for the students and teachers has little effect.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 29, 2014 at 6:55 AM
According to Lewin's concept of force-field analysis there are 2 major forces acting within an organization. These are driving forces, factors that push for change, and resisting forces, factors that inhibit change. These 2 forces will balance each other to create the current status quo within a group or organization. This is called the "current condition" by Lewin. To change the current condition and move the organization forward this balance must be shifted. This can be tricky and cause turmoil if not done carefully. Lewin lists 3 possible actions to take to influence change, they are increasing driving forces, reducing resisting forces, or creating new driving forces. Going further he points out that it can be critical to reduce resisting forces as they may rise to block the driving forces and create increasing tensions. Finally, Lewin discusses the idea of settling into the new desired condition. This is also a very important step because now that the change has been accomplished it needs to be maintained.
So as a future administrator these are all good ideas, but what does this look like or how do I do this in real life. Lewin provides several ways of both reducing resistance and increasing driving forces. The biggest 2 that I believe in are participation and communication. They may be Lewin's most important too since they are discussed first. So as an administrator my first step to driving change would be to inform the staff of why change is needed. This gives them an understanding of why things need to change as well as the feeling that I have enough respect for them to be honest and transparent with information. At this time questions and comments would be welcomed so that everyone is clear about what and why this is happening. The next step has already begun with the open forum with the staff which is to include them in the process of determining how we will collectively accomplish this change. In the end the staff and administration must find "common ground." That is the final plan might not be what either side exactly wanted but it is something that both sides can agree on. These 2 practices will serve to both increase driving forces and reduce resisting forces. The staff will not be afraid of what will happen because they now know, and they had a part in developing the plan so they will see it as attainable and be committed to work towards the new status quo.

Lunenburg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2004) Educational Administration Concepts and Practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 29, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Lewin’s Theory of FFA is about having dynamic balance of forces working in opposite directions within the organization. By making sure there is a balance in the forces, will help reduce tension and conflict in an organization. Lewin broke it down into three steps: Unfreezing, Moving, and Refreezing. In the step of ‘Unfreezing’, it helps to introduce the new idea and point out some of the issues with the current plan in place. The next step, ‘Moving’, happens once the organization is unfrozen. In this step, it is where new development of ideas, values, attitudes, and behaviors can occur. Minor and major changes can occur in this step. Then finally, the ‘Refreezing’ step is where the organization re-stabilizes itself and adapts to the new changes.
As a school leader, I believe we have to be aware of this idea of a balanced force field. We all know, if you push people in a direction they might not want to go, they are very often going to push/fight back on whatever you might be trying to get done. I think the Lewin did a nice job breaking it in to three steps and those three steps makes sense, you can’t just go into a place and force new ideas without giving a proper introduction of the idea and pointing out why it is a good time to update the old one. As administrators to overcome resistance to change, we need to include participation, communication, support, rewards, planning and coercion with our staff to ensure the least amount of tension possible.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 29, 2014 at 11:05 AM
Everyone in a leadership role has come across an idea that totally excites and revives them. We can’t wait to share this idea with staff and watch everyone jump on board. Unfortunately, everyone jumping on board is rarely the case. Change is not an easy process. Kurt Lewin, in his force-field analysis of change, explains that there are always two opposing forces involved with any change: driving forces and resisting forces. It is the administrator’s responsibility to “play an active role in initiating change and in attempting to reduce resistance to change” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012). For change to take place, Lewin stresses the importance of not only increasing the amount of driving forces but also reducing the strength of the resisting forces. Pushing in only one direction will simply cause people to push back, which will serve to put a strain on the working relationship among staff members.
Our text suggests six strategies for both increasing driving forces and reducing resisting forces:
1. Participation – when all stakeholders are involved in the process of change, from start to finish, they develop ownership and a willingness to accept the change.
2. Communication – it is beneficial to share the need for change, exactly what the change entails, and expected outcomes with all stakeholders.
3. Support – all stakeholders must be aware of the support they will receive in implementing the change, whether it be materials, time, or training. In addition, this idea must be supported by all administrators in the district from the top down.
4. Rewards – acknowledging a job well done or an excellent effort is always encouraging and appreciated.
5. Planning – an administrator should know his/her staff and plan accordingly. Don’t present to the staff until you have put a great amount of thought into carefully rolling out this change and how it will affect your staff.
6. Coercion – the last resort. There will be changes that are not up for debate. When resistance continues, it needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, coercion may be the only thing that works in some instances.
Although I am not yet a principal, I have had several leadership roles over the years. Unfortunately, I had not taken classes such as this yet and had to learn about resisting forces the hard way. For example, when I was asked to share my knowledge of a program called DataDirector, I was quite excited. I had seen how this program had helped me more easily assess students, use data to drive instruction, and share common assessments with my colleagues in other buildings. I expected everyone to be just as excited as I was. I did not anticipate having to field questions like, “Are we required to do this,” “Will this be part of my evaluation,” or “Will the achievement of my students be compared to those at the other middle school?” Whoops! Lesson learned. I needed to plan ahead and really think about the individual personalities in my building before presenting. Had I done this, I could have foreseen these concerns and worries. At first I took it personally and had to squelch the urge to fight back. I had to remember that they were afraid. Afraid of the program, technology, evaluations, and just plain change itself. And that is completely natural. I’ve become much better at presenting over the years. I know that each change will be different and present its own unique set of challenges. I was excited to see the strategies and steps spelled out for me in our text. Definitely an excellent guide.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 29, 2014 at 11:49 AM
Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis Theory highlights the challenges that go along with making a change as well as the process that is recommended to make change happen. “We should think about any change situation in terms of driving forces or factors acting to change the current conditions (forces for change) and resisting forces or factors acting to inhibit change (resistance to change) (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 191). In other words, to make any type of change, there is likely to be resistance by the individuals or group that are going to be affected.

In order to make change happen, Lewin offers three suggestions: Increasing the driving forces, reducing the resisting forces, or considering new driving forces. This process seems to be very sensitive as conversations and actions could put up more resistance from those against the change. As Lunenburg and Ornstein put it, “When we push people, they are likely to push back” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 191).

I have personally used driving forces to initiate change in my athletic program. When I was hired, the gate workers had a way they were used to collecting money and selling tickets. There was no accountability or documentation of monies in and out. When I made changes in the process, I was immediately met with resistance. When I increased the driving forces, the resistance was immediately extinguished. The driving force I used was letting the gate workers know that they were responsible for any missing money. After informing the workers, they were on board for the changes and supported them. Though I was focused more on my driving forces for change, at the same time, I reduced the resisting forces. The route I took also ties in with the sequence of organizational processes that occur, suggested by Lewin. The process that Lewin suggest requires the following steps, unfreezing, moving, and refreezing (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 191).
In order to make a change, the above process must be followed. In my personal example above, the “unfreezing” was when I educated the workers on the inadequacies within their current system and the potential problems and liabilities that they could personally be held to. After the workers dropped their resistance, I moved forward with the new system which involved tracking ticket numbers and filling out a financial report after every event. This process is described in our text as “moving”. Thinking back now, I can see how this process takes place. We worked out kinks in the new system until it ran like a finally tuned machine. At that point, I think it is safe to say that we reached the “Refreezing” stage. Everything we did was the norm and no longer in the process.

References:
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM
The Lewin's theory suggests that there are opposing forces on both sides of status quo for an organization. In order to transform organization, leaders must understand that both of these forces exist and in planning change initiatives the leader must consider how these forces will be managed. For change to occur, the "forces for change" must be stronger than the "resistance to change." Lewin's theory illustrates that there must be an imbalance for true change to occur. In "attempting to change the balance of forces," Lewin gives a three-step process which is described as unfreezing, moving, and refreezing the culture.

As school leaders, we must first understand who are the change agents and who are those opposing change. This understanding will help with driving change in the right direction. According to the theory, the school leader is going to have to "push" people in the right direction. Therefore, it important to understand who we are pushing and in what direction. In steering change, the Principal use should use Kotter's eight-step plan for successful implementation of Lewin's three-step process.

This year at our school we implemented a Positive Behavior Point System. The program was designed to focus and reward positive behavior. The concept and purpose of the program was not supported by a lot of the staff. Most staff felt that we needed a stronger discipline program that would speak to the consequences with strong support for suspensions and expulsions. They didn't understand the power of impact of positive support. Unfortunately, in planning, there was not attention given to remedy the barriers in the plan. The missing element of the plan severely impacted the success of the program. The program was designed to be maintained using Google Docs and Google Forms. However, we did not consider how difficult it would be for some staff to truly understand how to use these tools. Because so many staff could not effectively utilize technology, there were major barriers in the implementation. Some staff began to send hand written notes, emails and voicemails. This caused our data to be unreliable and inconsistent. In planning the change, the error was not considering how we would move/eliminate barriers such as technology. Additionally, not enough effort was devoted to planning the short wins and checkpoints along the way. Once the barriers were visible, staff lost faith in the program and the opposing forces began to tilt the scale in their direction. Because of our errors, not only did we have to remedy our errors, we also had to strengthen our forces for change to push against the opposing forces.

In using the Lewin's process, school leaders should consider using the Kotter's plan for successful implementation. Using the Kotter's plan helps to guide the work of change.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 9:18 AM
Lewin's theory of Force Field Analysis "...looks upon a level of behavior within an organization not as a static custom but as a dynamic balance of forces working in opposite directions within the organization" (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Lewin saw a current condition as the state of equally balanced opposing forces. He thought that things within an organization stayed the same because of this balance. He thought that if the driving forces began to outweigh the resisting forces to change that the change could occur. He discussed unfreezing the current condition. This meant to primarily strive to reduce the amount of resisting forces. He then discussed moving the unfrozen condition. "This step usually involves the development of new values, attitudes, and behaviors..." (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). This may be a gradual or quick movement depending on the type of change hoped for. Finally, the refreezing stage. This is when the newly formed and desired change has taken place and stays in place.

Force Field Analysis may be helpful when a principal or school leader is hoping to implement a new initiative. A personal example that I am actually striving for starting tomorrow is a result of a professional development I experienced last Friday. I visited a school that implemented a school-wide approach to get students to achieve mastery with basic facts, basic measurement conversions, and other basic general math knowledge that all grade levels need. Every classroom in all grade levels took math mastery tests on Fridays. Students received five minutes to complete 100 problems on basic math. Throughout the school year as they pass each test they receive medals and earn time toward the end-of-the-year Math Blast Carnival. This is something that I thought was an amazing strategy to motivate students to master these concepts. My students need something like this in place because they struggle significantly with basic math. I believe thinking through Lewin's FFA theory will help me to get this program implemented next school year. Unfreezing resisting forces will be a starting point. All teachers at my school know their students have not mastered their math facts and they know and discuss the importance of this consistently. Eliminating the resisting forces will be focused on teachers who do not want to add another task to their plate. If I can get my hands on the school's data (the school I visited)prior to and after their program implementation I could visibly show the impact it had on scores. Once resisting forces are out of the way then I would have the staff discuss how we could implement this program with the least amount of extra work for teachers. Each classroom may structure it differently but the math skills and concepts per grade level would be the same. This would help us move into the change. I would then expect this change to refreeze in place for the remainder of the school year. Equilibrium could be established with the change in place. Teachers and administrators would then evaluate the effectiveness of the change at the end of the school year. Part of the refreezing process may be to create a Math Mastery committee. This committee could ensure that the tests are being given weekly and tracked weekly. I think the refreezing process will determine the success of the initiative.

Reference:

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Describe Lewin's Theory of FFA and explain how it might be helpful for a school leader's successful implementation of a new initiative.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 9:57 AM
Please excuse the username. Clifton Murray.

While every organization has issues with change, Lewin's force field analysis is used to distinguish which factors within a situation or organization drive a person towards or away from a desired state, and which oppose the driving forces. I found a wonderful article on change-management-coach.com. This website really hits on some great ways to present change within any organization. They give 7 points of review:

1. Define the change you want to see. Write down the goal or vision of a future desired state. Or you might prefer to understand the present status quo or equilibrium. Often goals or vision are clear or defined within the organization. This step should be consider more important that the change itself. Having the ability to clearly state your change to your staff in critical.
2. Brainstorm or Mind Map the Driving Forces - those that are favourable to change. The author says to create a diagram for this step. Using the diagram will help leadership to see and not just hear who the driving forces are and how to use them for the change.
3. Brainstorm or Mind Map the Restraining Forces - those that are unfavourable to, or oppose change. Just like the driving force you want to use a diagram. I will be posting a diagram used on the website that caught my attention.
4. Evaluate the Driving and Restraining forces. You can do this by rating each force, from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong), and total each side. Or you can leave the numbers out completely and focus holistically on the impact each has. I've never thought of using this before when putting a change into place in my leadership position. This step really creates an overview of focus points that are needed to be put into place to make the change happen.
5. Review the forces. Decide which of the forces have some flexibility for change or which can be influenced. Now that your forces have been evaluated you can now take the time and data to create the perfect change of plan.
6. Strategist! Create a strategy to strengthen the driving forces or weaken the restraining forces, or both. Creating a change of plans should always have a driving force greater than the restraining force.
7. Prioritize action steps. What action steps can you take that will achieve the greatest impact? Identify the resources you will need and decide how to implement the action steps.
Being that I'm a huge Star Wars fan I'm really using my Jedi mind as well. When we talk about The force and Star Wars we realize that The Driving Force (being good) and the Restraining Force (being bad) actually need each other to make change happen.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Amanda WitulskiMarch 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Amanda WitulskiMarch 30, 2014 at 10:41 AM
Lewin’s theory of force-field analysis states that we must look at the forces for change as well as the resistances to change in order to change the current condition. When connecting this idea to being a future leader, it is important to review both the internal and external factors that are the driving forces. Lewin states that there are three ways to achieve results and they are to increase driving forces, decrease resisting forces and if needed, considers new driving forces. As a future school administrator that is trying to implement change, I feel that the most important idea to look at first is that of the driving forces. I feel that the use of driving forces in a positive way will help impact the school the most. I believe that people respond more to the positive than the negative.
In looking to a personal experience, my current administrator does a great job of using the forces for change to implement new ideas within our school. She definitely focuses much time on the accountability piece and I feel that sometimes the other forces of change do not hold as much of an importance. I also feel that not all of the forces of change are apparent at identical times. Sometimes staffing shortages may be a force of a change or sometimes changing demographics but what I have found evident from this week’s voice thread and my peers responses is that across the board accountability is the most prominent driving force for change in the world of education today.

Reference: Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 11:49 AM
Lewin’s theory of force field analysis is defined as a dynamic balance of forces working in opposite directions within an organization, originating from either in the internal or external environment of the organization or behavior of the change agent (Lundenburg, F. & Ornstein, A., 2012). In order to effectively embark on change from a leadership position, Lewin suggests the school administrator plays an active role in the initiation of the change, in attempts to reduce any resistance to the change. Prior to the initiation the administrator must assess the potential of change and resistance, in addition to the balance that is needed to move towards the desired condition. Lewin proposes three ways in doing this: increasing the driving forces, reducing the resisting forces, or considering new driving forces (Lundenburg, F. & Ornstein, A., 2012).
Looking at Table 8-1 from the text, I feel that the 8 steps that are listed clearly define and organize the process that a school leader could follow when implementing change. While going through this FFA process, Lewin uses the vocabulary unfreezing-reducing the forces acting to keep the organization in its current condition, moving-the development of new values, attitudes and behaviors through internalization, identification or change in structure, and refreezing-the final step, stabilizing the change at a new quasistantionary equilibrium (Lundenburg, F. & Ornstein, A., 2012). By going through these steps and processes as a school administrator, there will be more likely an end result with everyone ending on the same page. Being able to go through the thought process and experiences with all key stakeholders, and letting them fully understand and sort out the needed changes will enable and allow future success and development, not only for the staff but for the building/district as well.

Lundenburg, F. & Ornstein, A. (2012). Educational Administration Concepts and Prints, Sixth
Edition. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM
Kurt Lewin's concept of force-field analysis is the understanding that there is a natural equilibrium in every organization that maintains the status quo. This equilibrium is maintained through opposing forces. On one side of the equilibrium are the pressures for change. The opposing force is the resistance to change. The two forces act like opposing magnets pushing and pulling, creating a balance of status quo. How do we create change and move the equilibrium?
In order to create change in an organization, those pressuring change must change the dynamic of the opposing force, resistance to change. There are multiple ways to change this dynamic. First we need to understand why there is a resistance to change. Lewin explains that there are seven basic reasons for resistance, they include: Interference with need fulfillment, fear of the unknown, threats to power and influence, knowledge and skill obsolescence, organizational structure, limited resources, and collective bargaining agreement (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). By changing these factors the pressure for change can move the equilibrium where it will remain until change needs to occur again. Lewin explains this using a three step process, unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. This begs the question, how do we reduce the resistance to change? According to Lewin there are six methods to reduce resistance, they are, participation, communication, support, rewards, planning, and coercion.
Those pushing for change can use participation to include those resistant in the decision making process. This gives them an invested reason to see it success. Communication is used to explain why the change is needed, how it will help them, and how it will benefit the organization as a whole. Support can be used to make the change less stressful, such as trainings and guidance from the leadership. Rewards can be used to compromise for change such as in collective bargaining. Planning should be used in an effort to not “spring” the change on personnel. By informing them early and easing them into the change personnel will become more receptive. Lewin offers coercion as the last resort to implement change. This includes threatening personnel with job loss or transfer to reduce resistance. These six methods can have an effect on the reasons people are resistant to change and allow the equilibrium to move.
Currently, I see this struggle in my current building through updates in technology. Technology is more and more available and changing just as fast as we incorporate into the field of education. Over the past two years administration has been pushing an online resource called Edmodo. Edmodo is basically a social media for educators where they can communicate homework assignments, quizzes, and other resources by posting them on this online forum. There was resistance from many teachers who explained that they already have too much to do and don’t have time to update Edmodo every day. Through communication, administration explained examples of how it reduces the amount of work teachers already do in other areas, such as answer emails regarding questions about homework. Many teachers were included in the initial trainings and were made a part of the process by providing training to their departments where they could discuss the advantages in a small group setting. This process took about two academic years to implement fully as some were more resistant to others and some needed additional training.
Through participation, communication, support, and planning our leadership was able to implement a change in our building to increase communication with students and parents, as well as increase accountability of students. With technology changing every day and the necessity of it being integrated into the learning process there will be more and more situations where change is needed and the equilibrium needs to be moved.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (1991). Educational administration: concepts and practices (5 ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Amiee ErfourthMarch 30, 2014 at 5:10 PM
“Change has become the norm for most schools” (Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2012). Today’s schools are faced with many demands ranging from increased accountability measures to budget short falls. Administrators are expected to do more with less. Change has become the only constant in schools.
With change often comes resistance. Kurt Lewin created a three-step model to help explain resistance to change. His model is called force-field analysis. In his model he discusses the balance of forces. “He believes that we should think about any change situation in terms of driving forces or factors acting to change the current condition (forces for change) and resisting forces or factors acting to inhibit change (resistance to change) (Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2012). The driving forces for change and the resisting forces for change are constantly working against each other to create a state of equilibrium. If the driving force, an administrator trying to implement a new teacher evaluation model, is met with resistance from the teaching staff, a shift in equilibrium occurs. If the administrator is unable to overcome the resisting forces, the desired outcome of putting into place the new evaluation model, may be stalled.
Lewin gives three ways to help shift the balance of forces so that the desired condition or outcome may be met: increasing the driving forces, reducing the resisting forces, or considering new driving forces. (Lunenber &Ornstein, 2012 p. 191). If an administrator is pushing the new evaluation model and increases the driving forces by connecting teacher evaluations to job placement, the administrator has just increased the driving force but since the resisting force has not been lessened, tension will now occur. Lewin suggests a better way to move toward the desired effect is to reduce the resisting force.
Once resisting forces have been reduced, Lewin’s three-step model of unfreezing, moving, and refreezing can be applied. This model is also very similar to William Bridges’ approach to managing transition. His three steps are: endings, the neutral zone, and new beginnings (Garmston &Wellman, 2013, p. 135). These two models are similar in nature and both focus on how to reduce tension to drive change. One way an administrator might use unfreezing is to provide some research to show why the new evaluation model will be a better tool. The principal may point out how this model will help improve the teacher’s skill set and is meant to build on the skills the teacher already has in place. This would be considered the “end” to the old evaluation model.
Now the administrator and teachers can enter Bridges’ neutral zone or Lewin’s moving phase. At this point, administrators should take time to meet with staff to gauge their fears and try to find ways to help them overcome their resistance to change. After finding out the needs of the staff, the principal could then arrange for professional development opportunities to help prepare staff for the coming changes. Time spent listening to the staff fears, is time well spent. This gives the administrator opportunities to open lines of dialogue and help staff begin to take ownership of the new project. If the administrator is able to get a few key teachers to find value in the new program, they can often help sell the new initiative better than the administrator can. If staff are allowed to participate in the planning phase, more buy in will occur.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Amiee ErfourthMarch 30, 2014 at 5:12 PM
The final phase of Lewin’s model is the refreezing phase or what Bridges’ calls new beginnings. Now that forces have been lessened and new expectations have been created, administrators and staff can begin to bring stabilization and equilibrium back to the organization. This would be the point that administration would formally adopt the policy and put it into effect. Teachers would now know their new expectations and begin to feel more comfortable with the process. In essence, the dawning of a new policy, a new beginning.
References:
Garmston, R.J., & Wellman, B.M. (2013). The Adaptive School: A Source Book for Developing Collaborative Groups (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 7:32 PM
Lewin’s Force Field Analysis is fairly simple model that describes the differences between driving forces and restraining forces. Driving forces are the positive forces for change and restraining forces are the obstacles to change. In the ever changing educational world it’s vital for an administrator to understand these two forces to successful administer change within their building and district. Lewin’s overall theory suggest that when driving forces out weigh restraining forces that the status quo or equilibrium will change.
If an administrator can understand and uses these forces to their advantage it will aide them in their attempts to successfully administer change in their school. Most importantly an administrator will be knowledgeable in understanding that staff will naturally resist change and not be caught of guard when this happens. In addition understanding Lewin’s theory will arm the administrator with the means to take on resistance to change through positive driving forces to get from the present state to the desired state.
Lundenburg, F. & Ornstein, A. (2012). Educational Administration Concepts and Prints, Sixth
Edition. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 30, 2014 at 8:38 PM
As described by Lunenberg and Orstein (2008), Kurt Lewin developed the force field analysis to help people better understand resistance to change. Lewin’s FFA analyzes any change situation as a dynamic relationship between a set of driving forces and a set of resisting forces. Lunnenberg and Orstein emphasize that Lewin’s analysis “points out that increasing one set of forces without decreasing the other set of forces will increase tension and conflict in the organization” (Lunenberg & Orstein, 2008, p. 207). Administrators seeking to initiate change within their schools should consider Lewin’s FFA to assist them identifying and reducing change resistors.
School administrators would be wise to consider Lewin’s FFA if they are planning to effectively implement a new initiative. Throughout my ten years in education, I have experienced many plans for change-most often the purposed changes were connected with improving student achievement. After reading about Lewin’s force field analysis, I would say that most of the plans for change that I experienced accounted for the driving forces but did not account for the resisting forces. As a result of not considering both the driving and resisting forces, the changes usually were not effective in improving student achievement.
Co-teaching is an example of an initiative that a school administrator may want to implement in their school. The driving force/pressure for the co-teaching initiative in this situation would most likely be accountability. Even though accountability is a driving force all educators need to consider, it is equally important that administrators consider resisting forces to changes. An administrator that forces a change, such as co-teaching, on a district without considering the resisting forces to that change would most likely see ineffective results. In the example of implementing co-teaching, a resisting force could include organizational structure. So while co-teaching may be a change driven by accountability, administrators that do not attempt to reduce the resisting forces often will not see the intended results.
There are six methods for reducing resistance to change that are highlighted by Lunenberg and Orstein, which are: participation, communication, support, rewards, planning, and coercion. As an administrator, the method I would utilize the most in an attempt to reduce resisting forces to co-teaching would be to encourage participation by the purposed co-teachers to help develop organizational structures. Enlisting the help of people, who experience the effects of the change, will help to motivate them to carry-out the change because they will have a sense of ownership.
Lewin’s force field analysis helps people understand resistance to change by highlighting the dynamic relationship between driving forces and resisting forces to change. School administrators should consider Lewin’s FFA when purposing changes. As Lewin suggests, organizational leaders that do not reduce resisting forces will most likely experience increased tension and conflict within their organizations. Similarly, school administrators that implement change without reducing resisting forces will most likely experience increased tension and conflict within their schools, most likely having a negative impact on the desired result of the implemented change.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Mr. KayJuly 7, 2014 at 6:26 PM
Kurt Lewin developed the concept of force-field analysis (FFA) in 1951 and it is widely used today to help understand the process of change within an organization. According to Lunenberg and Ornstein (2008), Lewin believed that, “We should think about any change situation in terms of driving forces or factors acting to change the current condition (pressures for changes) and resisting forces or factors acting to inhibit change (resistant to change)” (p.244). To me, this definition is difficult to digest. After doing some digging, I found an example that lays out this theory in simpler terms.
In my opinion, the concept of FFA is quite simple when thinking of this example. According to Connelly (2014), let’s first assume we are all sitting down reading this blog post. We are all presumably sitting in a chair. There are two forces acting on us at this very moment. Gravity is pulling us down (driving force) and the chair is resisting gravity’s pull (restraining or resisting force) and it is keeping you from falling to the floor. Both forces are working in equilibrium. If we were to stray away from the equilibrium we would have to increase or decrease one of the forces. So, we could increase the amount of gravity and this would eventually lead to the chair breaking and you following to the floor. Or we could weaken the chair and have you fall to the floor. Lewin applied this thinking to social interactions. Lewin proposes that whenever driving forces are stronger than restraining forces, the equilibrium will change (Connelly, 2014).This example makes a complicated theory in writing, easier to grasp and understand to me. This theory and example play an important role in school administrators operations.
According to Lunenberg and Ornstein (2008), school administrators must play an active role in initiating change and in attempting to reduce resistance to change (p. 244). Principals can think of the organizational state as the equilibrium that is a result of the driving and resisting forces. In order to change the balance of the equilibrium, a principal can increase driving forces, decrease resistant forces, or consider new driving forces altogether. Principals need to be able to assess situations appropriately in order to not throw off the equilibrium (state of the school). Lewin also points out that increasing one set of forces without decreasing another set will create conflict in your organization (p.244). When I read this last sentence it reminded me of my past administrators and how they tried to implement change in my building.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownJuly 8, 2014 at 12:05 AM
Wilberta Wittkopp

Change is hard for most humans. People tend to like things to stay the same. They like things stable, predictable and like a routine. I believe that humans are very much creatures of habit. Teachers are not an exception to feeling content with not changing. Lewin refers to not wanting to change as Resisting Force. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2012) explain some of the resistance to change as being interference with need fulfillment, fear of the unknown, threats to power and influence, knowledge and skill obsolescence, organization structure, limited resources and collective bargaining agreements. With this in mind, in education there are forces that require change. The YouTube video Who Moved Cheese? explained how change is necessary and the different reactions to change. Lewin refers the forces that require change as Driving Forces. Lewin’s Theory of Force-Field Analysis explains it as having the Driving Forces are on one side and the Resisting Forces are on the other side and each force is pushing against the other (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012). As each force is pushing against each other, only when both forces are equal is it the current condition. This middle Lewin calls the Equilibrium. To get to the new initiate or desired condition, the driving force either has to be increased or the resisting force lowered.
This theory can be very beneficial for educational leaders to have the understanding of resistance. Due to some of the high demands of the Driving Forces in Education, school leaders may want to just push staff with new ideas or indicatives. If there is a lot of resistance, this will just cause anxiety and friction with the staff. In a video by Change Management Consult on Force Field Analysis applied Isaac Newton law of physics to reminds us that, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” which implied why it would be better to lower Resisting Forces. Also with this in mind, Equilibrium much be reached before moving to a new initiative. Lunenburg & Ornstein (2012, p. 191) stated, “Put another way, when we push people, they are likely to push back.” Therefore, it is best; to take away some of the Resisting Forces then to just keep push the Driving Forces.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownJuly 8, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Continue:

Lewin offers three steps as a process for change (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012). The first step is what Lewin referred to as unfreezing. Communicate is very important in this step. People need to be completely educated about the change to understand the rationale of the change, why it is necessary and how it is beneficial to them. “Unfreezing might be accomplished by introducing new information that points out inadequacies, in the current state or by decreasing the strength of current values, attitudes and behaviors. Crises often stimulate unfreezing” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, pp. 192-193.) The second step is Moving Step. This step is when the change is occurring. Therefore, this is the most critical and hardest step. This step takes continual teaching about the change, repetition about the importance of the change, and encouragement. This Changing Step may take quite a bit of time.
The third step is the Refreezing Step. This step is making the change now how things are done.

Our school will be starting a new change after having summer training with Chris Weber who is the co-author of Simplifying Response to Intervention. I believe our school administration has an understanding of change by having this in-depth training. My knowledge of Lewin’s Theory will be helpful in the implementation. I am excited to be the new principal of initiating this change. I feel like I have been a person who does not resist change. I look forward to the challenge and believe that we must move forward. However, when technology changes need to be made, I do notice that I struggle with this change. Any time my laptop needs to be updated; I start to feel resistant to these changes. I like my computer how it is right now. I know how to use it and location of everything I need. I am comfortable and when it is working to my satisfaction I see no value in changing something that is not broken. Keeping this analogy in mind will help me to think about how staff might feel about changes we are purposing after our summer training.

References
Change Management Consultant. (n.d.) Force Field Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.change-management-consultant.com/force-field-analysis.html

Lunenburg, Fred C. & Ornstein Allan C. (2012). Educational Administration Concepts and Practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Who Moved My Cheese? The Movie by Dr. Spencer Johnson (On-line) Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91YxXk3fmw8.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownJuly 8, 2014 at 12:11 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownJuly 10, 2014 at 7:47 AM
As described by Lunenburg and Ornstein (2012) Lewin's Theory of FFA promotes the idea that a current condition cannot be changed into a desired condition until the forces for change outweigh the resistance to change. A situation in a district will remain stagnant as long as those forces for change and the resistant are at battle with one another. In order to reach the next level, there must be and increase in driving forces, the resisting forces must be reduced, and we need to consider new driving forces.

This three step model could be helpful for a school leader's successful implementation of a new initiative. The first step requires "unfreezing". This is where a sense of urgency is created. New information is provide that proves change is necessary. This could be significant data, a crisis of come sort, any information that shows that it is time to change. In a situation in our district where we've had to look at data that is difficult to see, I've heard this step referred to as "calling the baby ugly".

After the unfreezing happens, and that sense of urgency is present, we enter the "moving" phase. This step involves the development of new ideas, attitudes, behaviors, etc. It where we change our ways of functioning. Administrators who help to develop vision and strategy will be able to thrive in this step. According to our text, it is also vital to communicate the change vision, empower broad-based action, generate short-term wins, and consolidate gains to produce more change. This step requires great leadership and hard work on the part of all involved. I would refer to this "moving" step as where all the work happens.

The final step is "Refreezing". This is where the district begins to function under a new norm. This step is where the change is stabilized and a new equilibrium is met. Expectations are now higher and different that before. In order to maintain the new initiative, the refreezing step has to have occurred,

References:
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: concepts and practices. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co..
ReplyDelete
Replies
JoshuaJuly 10, 2014 at 8:12 AM
Lewin's theory describes the processes involved in organizational change. Force Field Analysis focuses particularly on the resistance to change, and working to reduce resistance to change. This is in contrast to trying to make change by focusing on pressure for change. An analogy for Lewin's theory are chinese finger traps. If you try and pull your fingers out, the traps become tighter and more difficult to remove. One must do the counter-intuitive thing and move the fingers together in order to remove the fingers from the trap.
FFA suggests that when leaders encounter resistance to change, leaders should focus on why people are resisting and instead try and reduce the barriers. This makes a lot of sense. When faced with opposition, leaders who try and ram change down people's throats may create resentment, and may actually face a greater amount of resistance as egos are enflamed and heels are dug in.
Rather, leaders should look at why people are resistant to change. Are they afraid of the unknown? Greater information and clarity can help with that. Are people not equipped to handle the change? Then there may need to be some training. Threats to power and influence are more difficult to deal with, though a school setting is probably slightly easier as teaching tends to be more altruistic. Additionally, people who have certain power and responsibility and are losing a little, may be able to have some responsibility in another area of the organization.
ReplyDelete
Replies
TiffanyAlexaJuly 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM
According to Lunenburg & Ornstein (2012), Lewin’s Three-Step Model of managing change looks at organizational behavior as a vibrant balance of powers working at opposed ends of a continuum within a group. Lewin surmised that change should be viewed by the forces that act as an impetus to the change that is set to occur. Furthermore, one should look at the forces beyond the occurring change to determine if they are forces for the change, or forces that resist the change (Lunenburg & Ornstein, p.191).
Lewin’s model is essential for administrators to understand, as the current norm of education is change, and school leaders must be true leaders in these changes, to not only perpetuate the adjustment, but to reduce employee conflict to the dynamics of the field of education. Administers, as leaders to their districts, need to be proactive in order to alleviate tensions when they can, in order for change to occur as seamlessly as possible.
I see a connection between Lewin’s model, and the need for administrators to be structures for support in districts for teachers as we prepare to move from GLCE’s to common core. In my district we have had numerous meetings revolving around the topic of transitioning from the GLCE’s, which teachers seem to be comfortable with, to high stakes achievement and the onset of Common Core. Lewin’s model sees the first step of effectively managing change to reduce forces that keep the organization in its current condition (Lunenburg & Ornstein, p.191). I see this being addressed as administration argues and supports the need for change to better meet the needs of students.
In the second phase of the Lewin model, is developing new ideas ad behaviors, which will help the transition to occur more fluidly. This step may not be accomplished without some resistance. In our district we are utilizing the Stages evaluation process, which aligns with Marzano based theories for effective education practices. Furthermore, at the conclusion of this school year, many transitions and moves were implemented within our district. While this was met with lots of resistance from many staff members, the overall goal of this was to best meet the needs of the district, and to work to make improvements in areas where structures had been weak.
Lastly, the third step of the Lewin model is to stabilize the changes that have been implemented. While our district has not seen this change take place as of yet, we will realize these changes when we return in the fall to see new building leadership and teachers who are performing in different capacities. This last step in the process may take several weeks to months for everyone to properly process, and to see the benefits of.
As I previously stated, change is the norm of education. If we as building leaders can be proactive to help our staffs’ transition so that these changes are as smooth as possible, then the transitions can also be carried forward and made less stressful for our students and their families. The Lewin model is concise and simplistic, while still meeting the need of successfully implementing changes within a building or district.

References
Dr. Marzano's teacher evaluation model aligned with his new school leadership evaluation model. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/References
Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2012). Educational administration concepts and practices.
(6th ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Greg MayerJuly 12, 2014 at 4:37 AM
Force field analysis is essentially the movement of the status quo or the process by which change takes place within an organization. It is described by Lewin in three phases: Unfreezing, reducing the forces resistant to change making it receptive to change. Moving, the process by which new information or evidence is introduced and internalized by those within the organization consequently evoking change. Refreezing, this is the stabilization of the change that has been made thus establishing a new status quo.

In the Educational arena I have seen this process take place when introducing Professional Learning Communities. Our principal unveiled the process in a staff meeting and spoke about how this process would help us use time more efficiently, better plan lessons, and use data to collaborate with colleagues to improve student success. This information unfroze the staff and lowered resisting forces. Over the course of the year we began the process and PLC's were fully integrated into the fabric of our building. Our district is now refrozen and PLC's are the norm for district PD.

I would say that this was a successful transition of a new concept and one that has been received positively. This model of FFA could be used in similar modifications or overhauls of SOP.

References:
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: concepts and practices. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co..
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownJuly 12, 2014 at 1:55 PM
Lewin described his process of Force Field Analysis(FFA) in 3 steps; unfreezing, moving and refreezing.

Lewin began describing his unfreezing process as 'reducing the forces acting to keep the organization in its current condition' (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p191). Lewin is describing a situation where the status-quo is not something that is desirable, and therefore, needs to be changed. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including providing information as to why the system needs to be changed. Lewin also states that crisis often provide the catalyst for this unfreezing stage.

Moving is the second stage that Lewin stalks about. This describes the situation after the unfreezing has taken place, and now a change needs to be made. This includes developing new ideas, procedures, and policies. This is, in effect, making the change that was brought about by the new information or crisis.

Unfreezing is the final stage in Lewin's model, and represents "stabalizing the change at a new quasistationary equilibrium" (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p 192). This stage represents establishing a new 'status-quo' or norm.

Personally, I have noticed the difficulties in changing the status quo at my current job. The push-pull relationship between administrators who feel that change is necessary, and a teaching staff that does not feel the same way is a situation that can lead to very negative outcomes.

I have also noticed this relationship between older, more experienced, teachers, and younger, less experienced, teachers. I feel there needs to be a good relationship between these two groups, with both being willing to accept advice from either side. A situation where neither group is willing to compromise, will result in the inability for these 3 stages to take place.

I think that administrators need to keep in mind that just because they feel an issue needs to be changed, they need to make sure that their teaching and support staff feels the same way. Without this, there will be an increased resistance to change, and the resisting forces will overwhelm the driving forces. As an administrator, I think it is important to find common ground with your teaching and support staffs, as well as the students and public in your school district. Without this relationship, I do not think that a smooth transition from a current condition to a desired condition can take place.

References:
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: concepts and practices. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co..
ReplyDelete
Replies
KristinaLorielJuly 13, 2014 at 5:53 PM
Kurt Lewin once said, “If you want to truly understand something, try to change it.” There could be many things that need to change at any given time, but how does an organization go about making change? Lewin, a German-American psychologist, is known as the founder of psychology. When working on any organization there will always be resistance to change. To help with the resistance of change, Lewin developed the idea of force-field analysis. He believes that the change should focus on the driving forces to change the current conditions.
When it comes to change in a school organization, the “school administrator must play an active role initiating change and in attempting to reduce to reduce the resistance to change.” For change to take place Lewin suggest three steps:
1. Unfreeze- reduce the forces that are keeping the organization in its current state. Look at any new information that is different than the current state. Such as demographic change, change in administration, or a teacher strike. Determine what change needs to be initiated.
2. Moving- once an organization in thawed out it can be changed. This is where new ideas are devolved and will evolve. This may take a small number or people or a larger number of people depending on the change that is taking place.
3. Refreezing- this is the final step of the change process. It calls for stabilization fro.m the organization
This is an excellent way for a school to initiate change. After the steps, administration can help drive new initiatives and reduce the resistance to change by doing a few things.
1. Participation- allow the members of the school to be a part of the change, this will allow the teachers to have ownership of the change.
2. Communication- before freezing the current state of the school. Have open and honest conversations about why change is needed. This will help eliminate the fear of unknown.
3. Reward- this will allow teachers to say, what’s in it for me and actually have an answer for them. The reward could be compensation or recognition.
No matter the change a few questions should be asked: Who is initiation change? How will it be implemented? A administrator should be able to answer these questions to teachers without hesitation- if administration cannot answer these questions, then the resistance to change will be increase.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: concepts and practices
(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownJuly 13, 2014 at 6:46 PM
I think that Lewin’s approach to organizational change is worthwhile for administrators to understand. Because of its simplicity, it can help anyone who is trying to create real change within a static culture. The first step is to remove the problematic stability and break things up through a process of unfreezing. There needs to be real motivation for teachers to break away from what hasn’t worked, so administrators need to arm themselves with data and gathered feedback that shows what needs changing, in addition to why the proposed changes will work. Once unfreezing has occurred, change can begin to take shape in the form of moving. The text gives examples such as new evaluation systems, modifications to teacher duties, and restricting of school districts as examples of changes made during moving. If the proposed changes are accepted by the staff, then refreezing needs to occur to stabilize the environment to make sure that the proposed changes have the opportunity to put their best foot forward for the success of the school and any stakeholders involved. All of these steps are dependent upon the administrator’s ability to reduce resisting forces while increasing driving forces. The successful administrator will get to know her/her staff well enough to know what motivates them. This will help him/her know the best ways to change both sets of forces, which is important as the text suggests because changing only one set of forces may lead to ineffectiveness or resistance.
Keeping this process in mind, and thinking of current events in education, I think it would be important for an administrator to use this process when dealing with the topic of technology. There have been many technological implementations in our district as we move students toward being 21st century learners. We have a new unified online system for grades, communication, teacher websites, etc. We are gaining new personal computing devices for students and staff. We are encouraged through workshops and professional developments to use more interdisciplinary research-based projects. All of these initiatives have faced resistance from staff members, and need that resistance reduced while increasing driving forces in order for real change to occur. The successful administrator in our district will bring in statistics from other districts to show how these initiatives will help. He/she would also support teachers as they transition to these advances in technology. All the while a rewards system should be implemented for students and staff member achievements using technology. Lewin’s approach to organizational change is an excellent guide for Baltimore County Public Schools as it makes its current transition.
ReplyDelete
Replies