Learning is change. In my graduate studies in education we had to take a course in change management. At the time, I was not connecting the liberal learning seminar to my studies on theories of education. However, since my education was so engaging, I actually retained something in the back of my mind. The first part of this equation of learning was influenced by John Dewey.
When it came to learning, Dewey is my "leader of learning." I just ate up all that experiential learning and using activity to engage students. I love all of his theories of learning. There was that one issue about democracy in education that did not seem to synthesize at the time.
Dewey had beliefs in education and reform. I was not paying attention at the time and the words education reform and my organizational change management seminar never crossed paths in my brain. Until now. Dewey's words now jump off the page
"I
believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the
threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward
arrangements, are transitory and futile."
Did Dewey mean that reforms will fail that are forced upon educators? I think Dewey clarifies himself in another of his stated beliefs
"I
believe that the individual who is to be educated is a social individual and
that society is an organic union of individuals. If we eliminate the social
factor from the child we are left only with an abstraction; if we eliminate the
individual factor from society, we are left only with an inert and lifeless mass."
I wonder are we loosing track of the social individual during education reform? Can we continue down this path of educating students to get a robotic job, or the work of the day, and eliminate these social factors? Dewey does not seem to think so.
"I
believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation
for future living."
Learning is change. Let me tackle the change portion of this equation, and my learning in the course on organizational change management. We studied John Kotter and his book Leading Change.
In class, we threw around saying like "Culture eats strategy for lunch" with reckless abandon. We memorized the models of proven organizational change management from Lewin's three-step process and Kotter's eight-step process, to Bullock and Batten known for planned change, Neckhard and Harris for a change model formula, and Nadler and Tushman for congruence model. Of course we studied the scholarly works from Harvard University and MIT on how to institute successful organization change. Communication of the vision and buy in from all the actors seemed to be the overarching theme of successful change.
None of the books addressed the Miegs Field model of change management. Perhaps it was still to early in the life of this new model. The model that keeps change top secret until the moment it happens, does not allow voices to be heard because they just drag out the process, and a system that thinks they know what is best for the society. Miegs Field did enact change overnight in a most undemocratic manner. If you asked people today if they think it a good idea to tear down Northerly Island in favor of a few private pilots to build a landing strip, then you would hear the protests.
With the exception of Miegs Field, successful change involves communication. Kotter even addresses the predominating political organization when he asserts:
"Organizations
of the future will have to value candid discussion far more than they do today.
Norms associated with political polite –ism,
with non-conformational diplomaticese, and with
killing-the-messenger-of-bad-news will
have to change. The volume knob of the
dishonest dialog channel will have to be turned down."
Organizations with communication dysfunctions must find a way to communicate to effect real change.
So when it looks like east-is-east-and-west-is-west and never-the-twain-shall-meet, then the time is now to read the other textbook from my graduate organization change seminar:
