Using Continuous Improvement Theory to Break institutional Inertia

Part of the institutional inertia exhibited within many organizations is recognizing a problem exists but either failing or refusing to identify where the institution is compared to where its leaders want the institution to go.  Strategic change planning must initially identify where the institution wants to be in the future and then determine how it will achieve subsequent objectives and goals.  The planning process includes the strategic attention to current changes in the institution, its external environment, and how these factors impact the organization’s current and future objectives. Without focused reflection, organizational leaders can get lost in the institution's dysfunctional inertia.

Effective Schools Research integrates tenets of the Continuous Improvement Theory into a sustainable school improvement framework.  The continuous improvement management approach reinforces Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQM) system, comprised of 14 points posited as “essential for business success” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 33).  Deming’s TQM system and the “Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle” (p.34) grounds the well-documented Brazosport sustained reform initiatives.  Given its genesis in the PDCA cycle, the Continuous Improvement Theory effectively aligns well with other existing research shown to result in sustainable school improvement. 

Effective Schools Researchers examine sustainable learning organizations and consistently find “effective schools have strong and effective leadership” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 51).  Other studies (Purkey & Siegel, 2002; Burns & Martin, 2010) posit leadership based on invitational theory encourages people to tap into their unlimited potential.  As a comprehensive model, inclusive of many vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations, invitational leadership requires leaders with high emotional intelligence to develop a culture of collaboration. 

Let’s examine a practical problem that exemplifies dysfunctional inertia:  Too often parents from low SES, urban schools are considered disengaged from the school.  Overcoming this problem only becomes possible and sustainable by improving the home-school correlate (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  A continuous improvement plan is needed to break the inertia perpetuating the problem and preventing reform.

Dysfunctional inertia continues to blame disengaged parents for student failure and poor school climate.  By contrast, strong and effective leadership humbly poises the question: “Is it reasonable to suggest many parents in low SES, urban school districts were previously students in that school district?”  Therefore, the culture of the community is that schools are a place of failure.  Education failed to free them of the bondage of poverty--as promised!  As a result, the opportunity gap chained these parents to the achievement gap. 

When that is the prevailing cultural reality, then it becomes psychologically viable to suggest members of the community would avoid such an institution BECAUSE it reminds them of past failure or lack of success.  If that is truly a significant element of the community's culture, then the district will need to admit, "Previous strategies failed you but, to be effective, an essential part of our current approach is the need for your help ensure we are successful with your children. We need your help.”

Such a message may exhibit a level of honesty that too few want to verbalize.  However, a true invitational leader embraces that message.  Transformation will follow only by helping parents become effective partners to mitigate the opportunity gap.  Recognizing the community CURRENTLY perceives the school as a failing institution must come before inertia can be broken. 

Poor communication or delay in inspiring action would result in the current system’s inertia to consume the function needed to promote positive change.  “Reculturing” a system (Dufour et al, 2008, p. 22) requires alignment between collaboration and effective organizational learning. Plan effectively by beginning with the end in mind is a tenet of Covey’s (1989) habits of effective people.  Based on this tenet, educational leaders must collaborate with stakeholders and begin resetting a system in need of reform by beginning with the end in mind.  This should help solidify non-negotiable goals through collaboration, empowerment, and shared mission.  This process can result in development and implementation of an effective, action-based, improvement plan without delay.

Positive change needs new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clear mission (Anderson, 2014).  Unintended consequences, which often fall into the pool labeled “negative change,” typically ignore those characteristics connected with positive change.  It is not enough to want to change or to need to change, for change to take place positive experiences must occur. 

Without quality and commitment to the action steps, any continuous improvement plan will be ineffective for promoting positive change.  Therefore, the Continuous Improvement Framework posits oversight responsibility of the school leadership team is an essential element of school improvement.  Given the complexity of schools, it is easy for initiative to wane or get lost.  Lezotte and Snyder (2011) believe change efforts need champions, which means “the school leadership team and the individual correlate teams must accept responsibility to act as the champions for their change strategies” (p.140). Frequent monitoring and then adjusting form the central tenet for the continuous improvement framework (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  Effective leaders model the image of a learner.  Therefore, the effective leader examines updated research, best practices, and seminal systems to identify potential ways to optimize the organization’s effectiveness.

The Continuous Improvement Framework details a process aimed to revise the cultural mindset among staff.  Champions of a successful change initiative move onto new goals while previous followers assume more leadership roles in the process of continuous school improvement.  Therefore, the process, which is “data-driven, research-based, results-oriented, focused on quality and equity, collaborative in form, ongoing, and self-renewing” will result in continuous school improvement based on the effective schools framework advancing the learning-for-all mission (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 140). 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2017) Using continuous improvement theory to break organizational inertia

                [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Anderson, C.J. (October 17, 2014) Invitational education theory and a framework for effective collaboration. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://ucan-cja.blogspot.com/2014/10/invitational-education-theory-and.html

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New

                York: Free Press

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:

APQC.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

                work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

                Retrieved from: http://www.effectiveschools.com/images/stories/escorrelates.pdf

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.