On the other hand, emergent change recognizes the role of lower-level managers and employees in shaping progress. It emphasizes the importance of context and acknowledges the ‘messier’ nature of change. Unlike planned change, emergent change is less prescriptive and not as reliant on predefined goals, making it more adaptable to evolving circumstances.
When reviewing these approaches, emergent change may be more suitable for a school where staff are already effective in their roles. For example, consider a school that has progressed from ‘Requires Improvement’ to ‘Good’ under the Ofsted framework. Initially, a planned, top-down approach may have been necessary to drive improvement. However, as the school continues to develop, a shift towards emergent change could be more beneficial in its journey towards achieving an ‘Outstanding’ rating.
A useful way to visualize this shift is through Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum, first introduced in their 1958 article How to Choose a Leadership Pattern. Their model illustrates a spectrum where, on the left, decision-making is heavily manager-centric and top-down. As the continuum moves to the right, authority is increasingly distributed, eventually leading to greater staff autonomy in decision-making.
This framework provides a clear perspective on how the source of change may evolve as a school’s culture becomes more established and desirable. As a school leader, it’s essential to reflect on which approach—planned or emergent—is most appropriate for your school at any given time and how this may shift as the school grows.
0 comments:
Post a Comment