LdC Template #11
Influential Practitioners (Leadership Challenge): Leading in a COP
Enhancing Action Research and Leadership Possibilities
through the Development of your Collaborative Skills
Module 11 Name:
James D. Lett
The process below relates to the following new Leadership
Provocative Question(s):
What
makes a good innovation? Use three (3)
different experts to prepare.
Introduction
The elements of a good innovation
included a well-defined change process, identifying and addressing the Stages
of Concern (SoC), and assessing the Levels of Use (LoU). I think that there are
some elements of these is Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory. However, the
Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) provides an excellent framework for
adequately addresses the innovation implementation process at each from start to
initial phase completion.
The Change Process
From
Perry’s (2010) dissertation, Rogers (1995) has established some key elements of
a change model. A communication change model pinpoints how information is
distributed and how mutual understanding is developed. The first participant is
a change agent. The change agent introduces the innovation or new concept to an
adopter who represents the second participant. The network of communication
developed between the change agent and the adopter is referred to as the change process. This process is not
linear. Rather, it involves a series of interchanges within a specific
environment where its circumstances and constraints dictate the development of
the change process and affects how the adopter interprets the innovation.
Rogers’ (1995) Diffusion of Innovations model established the basis for
communication change theory.
Perry (2010) highlights
Rogers’ (1995) four essential components Diffusion of Innovations Model. These
components include the innovation, communication channels, time, and social
system. An innovation is a concept, practice, or approach that is seen a novel
experience within a specified context. Its purpose is to correct a problem or
enhance conditions within a setting. There are five features that engage
adopters or contribute to resistance – relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialablity, and observability. The next component in the diffusion model is communication
channels. Communication channels describes how the innovation will be shared
from one individual to another. This exchange may occur through the use of
social media, face-to-face interaction, or some other effective medium (Perry,
2010). The third and final component of the Diffusion of Innovation model is
the social system as it relates the environment in which the innovation is
initiated. The social system is described as the interconnected elements where
participants engaged in shared problem-solving in effort to achieve a mutual
objective. It is comprised of organizational structures, key stakeholders, the
myriad of decisions, and other environmental effects that impact the diffusion
of innovation.
Stages of Concern
Before implementing an
innovation, the implementer may need to address participant concerns. France
Fuller (1969) was the first to address feelings
and perceptions as concerns. Fuller
conducted detailed studies about the concerns of student teachers. Unrelated
concerns are those that are not directly related to work or work related tasks.
Rather, concerns are related to personal circumstances removed from the work
setting. Self concerns are concerns that occur predominantly at the beginning
of the change process. At this time the focus is on the profession but still
personal as participants focus on how they will be affected by change. Task
concerns occur when the participants begin to focus their concerns on the
actual work. Impact concerns focus on task effectiveness and opportunities for
improvement. Fuller found that more than two-thirds of the concerns for
pre-service teachers were related to self and task sections. Two-thirds of the
experienced teachers had concerns in the task and impact areas. Fuller
acknowledge that at any time teachers may have concerns at any level. However,
most have concerns in specific area (Hall and Hord, 2006).
Levels of Use
Levels of Use investigates the behaviors of participants. Implementers
seek to evaluate change innovations in terms of use, nonuse, and to what
extent. There are eight Levels of Use and the LoU is the second diagnostic
measurement of the CBAM. The behaviors of the users and nonusers are
foundational elements used to illustrate where participants are in the change
process (Hall and Hord, 2006). The LoU would is most useful in an innovation as
a tool to help with the assessment the usage. Specifically, the implementer would
be able to determine what adjustment need to be made to improve usage and
assist participants in reaching Level VI (renewal). According to the author,
most users arrive at mechanical use. Still, consistent interaction, assessment,
and evaluation will help implementers make the necessary changes throughout the
process that will lead to successful renewal.
Summary
A good innovation starts with a well
defined change process. The change process is essentially built upon a
foundation of communication. It starts with an implementer and an adopter.
Information is then passed on throughout the selected group to encourage mutual
engagement. From that point there are several components to the diffusion of
innovation. A good innovation also considers the concerns of the participants
and addresses these concerns based upon the Stages of Concerns (SoC) model.
Participants may be at different stages. Dependent upon the situated context,
they flow between more than one stage. It is essential that an implementer
appreciate these concerns early so that they can be adequately addressed.
Finally, a good innovation needs assessment of use to determine if the
innovation will be perpetuated after the initial implementation phase has
ended.
e. Preparing for an
on-line Conversation
|
Quote/ideas from the book; applications/instances from
your workplace setting
|
Page number
|
|
Within an organization with its charter, its vision, its strategies,
and its institutional structure, each community of practice has its own indigenous
enterprise, its own vision, its own strategies.
|
244
|
|
Institutions define roles, qualifications, and the
distribution of authority – but unless institutional roles can find a
realization as identities in practice, they are unlikely to connect with the
conduct of everyday affairs.
|
245
|
|
Institutions establish relations of accountability through
charters, targets, and systems of measurements – but each community of
practice also defines its own regime of accountability. In fact, an institutional
system of accountability is unlikely to be very effective unless it is
integrated into the definition of competence of the communities of practice
it is meant to align.
|
245
|
|
Institutions provide a repertoire of procedures,
contracts, rules, processes, and policies – but communities must incorporate
these institutional artifacts into their own practices in order to decide in specific
situation what they mean in practice, when to comply with them and when to
ignore them.
|
245
|
|
Construe learning as a process of participation, whether
for newcomers or old-timers.
|
249
|
|
Place the emphasis on learning, rather than teaching, by
finding leverage points to build on learning opportunities offered by
practice.
|
249
|
|
Engage communities in the design of their practice as a
place of learning.
|
249
|
|
Give communities access to the resources they need to negotiate
their connections with other practices and their relation with the
organization.
|
249
|
f. Holding an on-line
Conversation
After
participating/viewing the “fishbowl” conversation record notes here (below)
about your responses to your peers or new thoughts based on their
postings. Be certain your notes here are
comprehensive, as were your responses to peers. (If you participate as a
“fish,” in the fishbowl your notes, which should be entered below, can be much
more succinct.)
Shawn started it off using Roger’s Diffusion of innovation.
He found that it’s the perception of newness that is important. Lynda discussed
how an innovation needs to bring something that is impactful. Marisol added how
critique is essential to a good innovation. Nika sees a good innovation is a
good idea involving a network of people in the right environment to solve the
problem at hand. It’s not built in a silo. Rachel discussed how empathy is
critical to any type of design. Other people are at the center and are central
to the innovation. Lynda discussed Wenger’s communities of practice. Innovations
needed to adaptable and allow for reification. Marisol discussed practical
wisdom and how it is important to remain open to evaluation and reassessment.
Shawn discussed how innovations are not necessarily high-level high-cost. They
can be done at relatively low costs and at the grassroots level. Rachel
discussed leveraging the local population to diffuse innovations. Lynda
discussed Hall and Hord’s Levels of Use and Stages of Concern. Innovations need
to be well designed and consider the participants who will be interacting with
the innovation. Marisol shared how participants need to understand innovation
in order for it to be successfully adopted within the practice. Rachel added an
innovation needs to be understood by participants and it needs a first follower.
g. Determining your
Leadership Challenge/New Leadership Challenge
Based on your own quotes/ideas from Wenger, your workplace
experiences, and new insights you developed as you reflected on your peers’
work, what behavior do you want to experiment with/try out for your leadership
challenge in the next few days?
For this week’s leadership challenge, I stretched my
Generation Y personality to its limits. I challenged my very hierarchal
supervisor and director to create a stronger evaluation and assessment process
for our term-to-term progress. We need to take quantitative and qualitative
look at our operation to determine where the gaps are and address how they
should be filled. Additionally, I requested that we develop some pre-term
activities so that we can react to environmental challenges more effectively.
There has been a high focus on enrollments over the past
year and half. I have perceived some strain in our staff as members feel that
they are to blame for the decreased enrollments. In truth a perfect storm of
events impacted our enrollments. We once offered free books with our classes.
However, the state regulations prohibited the continued practice. Tuition
Assistance (TA) for active duty military members once covered tuition and fees.
An unfortunate result of sequestration placed the burden of paying fees on the
student. Additionally, new service members must wait one year following initial
entry training in order to earn eligibility for tuition assistance. Next, we offered
continuous enrollments. Essentially, we approximately 29 start dates and a
student could begin taking classes almost immediately. Federal financial aid
guidelines found our schedule to be noncompliant. We did not have to worry
about this in past. However, due to the reduced payout from TA, military
students had to apply for financial aid in order to begin classes sooner and
receive full financial support for their classes. Finally, our internal
infrastructure is highly hierarchal and has been for some time. This we were
not prepared for any of these changes. My perception is that these changes and
our lack of preparation has led to increased anxiety and increased self-preservation.
At this time, I have only received an “I concur.” However,
there has been no action. I expected this response. I will continue to revisit
this. After the start of our second online session, I plan to return this and
continue. I have already developed our target activities. I need to develop an
eight to ten-week calendar detailing retention/outreach, current term
evaluation/assessment/wrap-up, and identifying key roles. I plan to take it to our
staff members who are eager to contribute more meaningfully rather than keeping
it housed among a few leaders who already feel burdened by a heavy
administrative workload.
