No one really likes change. Some people embrace it, some people get a thrill out of it, but surely no one actually enjoys it - humans are creatures of habit; we crave regularity and familiarity. So if you are a school leader with change on your agenda, it’s important to approach it in the most effective way. Get it wrong, and you end up with disgruntled staff and poor outcomes for students. So how should you go about it?

1. Map out the journey

For staff to truly buy into a change, they need to understand the rationale for it, believe in the theory and evidence supporting the approach and, most importantly, be able to see how the change translates into their individual classrooms and departments.

It is clear that improvement initiatives will not succeed unless there is buy-in. Dufour (2007) states that staff need to rally around an initiative or project, and without a good level of buy-in, attempts to implement change will only generate resentful compliance that may ultimately lead to failure.

2. Make sure everyone is capable

There is no use telling every teacher they need to, for example, use Socratic questioning if half of them have forgotten what that is.

So leaders should commit to what Elmore (2004) refers to as “reciprocal accountability”. This principle calls upon leaders to help build the capacity of members of the group to accomplish what they have been asked to accomplish, thus empowering the staff through knowledge and understanding, as opposed to imposing a rigid framework.

3. Take control - the right way

Hallinger (2003) explores the concept of different types of leadership, citing two contrasting approaches: transformational and instructional leadership.

An instructional leadership style depends very heavily on individuals to motivate and drive change. It focuses mostly on the role of a senior leadership team or an individual principal in coordinating, controlling, supervising and developing incentives and instruction in the school (Bamburg and Andrews, 1990; Hallinger and Murphy, 1985). Hallinger and Murphy emphasise that instructional leaders lead from a combination of expertise and charisma, using a hands-on approach.

However, this type of direct involvement in teaching and learning is simply unrealistic for a prolonged period of time and, after a potentially successful start and embedding period, can actually begin to be oppressive for staff and leaders (Hopkins, 2013). Instructional leadership can breed a sense of complacency and, in turn, dependency. The belief or implied perception that a leader can do everything better than anyone else is a root cause of inhibited productivity and can create unnecessary dependencies between leaders and team members.

Conversely, transformational leadership, as described by Hallinger (2003), focuses on developing the organisation’s capacity to innovate. Rather than focusing specifically on direct coordination, control and supervision, transformational leadership moves away from a top-down model and puts the emphasis of leadership on stimulating change through bottom-up participation (Day et al, 2001; Jackson, 2000). That essentially means collaborative leadership - or at least sharing the responsibility for decisions and methodology, and discussing options as a group.

Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2001) state that the delivery of change “is best explored at the group or collective level rather than at the individual leaders’ level”.

In fact, the majority of research supports the idea that the delivery of new incentives is significantly more effective if the responsibility is distributed.

4. Aim for collective teacher efficacy

The concept of collective teacher efficacy (CTE), as introduced in the 1990s by Albert Bandura, is rooted in his concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1993; 1997). He defines CTE as “a group’s shared belief in the conjoint capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” - essentially, a belief among all that the job can be done and that they can be the ones that do it.

Eells’ (2011) synthesis of various research projects identified CTE as pivotal to student progress. So what does she cite as the main factors contributing to increased CTE?

• Advanced teacher influence: This is defined by the degree to which teachers are provided with opportunities to participate in important school-wide decisions.
• Goal consensus: Reaching consensus on goals not only increases collective efficacy, it also has a direct and measurable impact on student achievement.
• Teachers’ knowledge about one another’s work: Teachers gain confidence in their peers’ ability to influence students’ learning when they have more intimate knowledge about each other’s practice.
• Cohesive staff: Cohesion is defined as the degree to which teachers agree with each other on fundamental educational issues.
• Responsiveness of leadership: Responsive leaders show concern and respect for their staff and protect teachers from issues that detract from their teaching time and focus.

Adam Riches is a senior leader for teaching and learning, a head of English and specialist leader in education

This article originally appeared in the 27 September 2019 issue under the headline “Extinguishing the fear of change”