top of page

"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!

  1. the focus on change-as-an-event

  2. the preference for command-and-control approaches to improvement

  3. 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:

  4. acknowledge that organisational change is, in fact, a “process” of "changing people"

  5. recognise that these people need to be “motivated” to change

  6. 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”…

  1. We cannot “change” peopleand anyone who has this as her “goal” is just plain “dumb”

  2. We cannot “motivate” anyoneand the sooner we drop this “myth about carrots and bloody sticks” the better

  3. The truth is…..and I need some images (and a few words) to convey this:

Number 1

Number 2