Last week, I had the opportunity to learn with several high school and middle school leadership teams.  I felt like a fish out of water.  Rather than participating in the heavy lifting and work of the day, I spent most of my day observing the learning process and the conversations that were transpiring around the room.  Participating as a keen observational learner rather than a participatory learner was foreign to me.  I’m used to being in the thick of the learning…attempting to deconstruct and reconstruct the information in context of implementation.  But my role in this situation forced me to heighten my senses and focus on the process of learning, and by listening to what I was hearing and not hearing within the groups, discover the implementation challenges as we move the initiative forward.

On my return drive home (about 2 hours), I had considerable time to reflect on the experiences of the day.  I immediately thought of the difficulties all leaders face when encouraging change and Fullan’s work in Motion Leadership.  Specifically, I found myself questioning why groups have such a hard time grappling with actually “doing” the work of change.  Pfeffer & Sutton refer to such obstacles as the “knowing-doing gap,” while Fullan uses the second part of the “Ready-Aim-Fire” metaphor, to draw special attention to the implementation dip.  Regardless of the term used to describe the lagging feeling and lack of results following introduction of a change initiative, I wondered why it happened and what could be do to make implementation easier?

Implementation Dips = Implementation Gaps

Using the work of Herold & Fedor, Fullan deconstructs the “Myth and Reality of Change” using the following graphic representation:

While the image looks a bit intimidating at first glance, with minimal explanation, it actually makes sense…at least to my pea-brain!  First, look at the dashed line labeled as MYTH.  This is the level of implementation perceived by those who initiate the change, usually principals or central office administrators.  Notice that at the point of introduction of the change, the perception is that, while slow at first, implementation begins with introduction.  This myth contributes to the performance (implementation) gap.

Next, the Depth of Decline and complimentary downward arrow represent the steps that implementers take backward when change is introduced.  The natural tendency is to resist the change.  Some may even refuse or sabotage the intiative, while others may just drag their feet.  Regardless, the initiative slides backward until all participants have ample time to weigh the costs and benefits of implementation.  The triangle represents the amount of time it takes for the initiative to bounce back to the level of implementation at introduction…which was non-existant!  Hence, the reason why an implementation gap develops, due in part to the implementation dip!

So what can be done to minimize the dip and ultimately the gap?  What should leaders know, and what can they do?

Change-Savvy Leadership

Fullan reminds leaders that during implementation, they will not likely be the most loved person in the organization.  Change is difficult for people to swallow and it requires them to step out of their comfort zones and take risks.  Leaders must be cognizant that people are uncomfortable and likely not enjoying the change process.  It is the leader’s responsibility to help people get through the implementation dip and decrease the amount of recovery time needed really start implementation.   According to Fullan,

“A combination of resolute leadership and empathy enables leaders to find alternative ways when they get stuck.  They demonstrate persistence with flexibility but never stray from the core purpose.”

More concretely, Pfeffer & Sutton offer the following tips in The Knowing-Doing Gap:

• Why before how.
• Knowing comes from doing and teaching others how.
• Action counts more than elegant plans and concepts.
• There is no doing without mistakes.
• Fear fosters knowing-doing gaps, so drive out fear.
• Fight the competition, not each other.
• Measure what matters and what can help turn knowledge into action.
• What leaders do, how they spend their time and how they allocate resources, matters.

While Pfeffer and Sutton present a list of common sense suggestions, I am guilty of violating all of them at one time or another.  Instead of thinking of how the change impacts the people immersed in it, I allow myself to get caught up in the implementation itself.  Interestingly, Pfeffer and Sutton’s suggestions focus more on developing the human capital and less on the nuts and bots of forcing change to happen.  I’ve come to the realization that unless leaders build the capacity in the individuals implementing change before the change is initiated, the depth of decline is deeper and the recovery time is much longer.  As a leader, I need to remember to invest considerable time and energy on the front-end of change to minimize the implementation dip…and have realistic expectations for those implementing the change.

I think I finally understand what I actually learned during my observational experience.  Even though the presenter was well-prepared and engaging, and the content was meaningful and relevant, my learning had little to do with productive group work.  As I eavesdropped on conversations and analyzed how leadership teams were processing action steps, I realized that my role in implementation was much different than I originally believed.

Leading change and fostering implementation requires that I build an environment of trust, collaboration, and innovation.  I will likely stumble many times on this new journey, but I’m committing myself honoring the implementation dip by building capacity in those around me.

Council Bluffs…here I come!