"Herding Cats" and Change 3.0 (Part 2)
The more things change, the more they remain... insane.
Could there be more than a grain of truth in such tongue-in-cheek one-liners?
My perspective on "change" has always been a bit more "hopeful", more "optimistic" - like that of Margaret Mead:
You can't put students “first” if you put teachers “last”. Those 54 characters (and how the hell most normal human beings are supposed to convey a decent idea in 140 characters is still beyond me) captured the paradox that is so often hard-wired into Change 1.0 and Change 2.0 initiatives… And, taking my lead from @TeachersJourney - I started to think about a couple more questions:
Do we really put students "first" - really, really?
If we do, do we have to put teachers "last" - or can both come "first"? The problem is I cannot really answer these questions with the self-imposed word limit I try to keep for each post - this one will have to go to a Part 3...but here goes!
the focus on change-as-an-event
the preference for command-and-control approaches to improvement
putting the organization before the people who “live” in it and those it is designed to “serve”Change 2.0 did address these issues and sought to:
acknowledge that organisational change is, in fact, a “process” of "changing people"
recognise that these people need to be “motivated” to change
pay greater attention to best practices, planning and management Surely, this type of conceptualisation is enough – process, people, planning! Loading the dice in this way has gotta work…
Sorry, but I think it’s time to burst that little “bubble”…
We cannot “change” people – and anyone who has this as her “goal” is just plain “dumb”
We cannot “motivate” anyone – and the sooner we drop this “myth about carrots and bloody sticks” the better
The truth is…..and I need some images (and a few words) to convey this: