Adapt, anneal or …..!
Darwin’s claim that the species most capable of adapting will be the one that survives has proven true in many contexts. And context is king, really.
So it is that in this age of disruption, there is an emerging drive for dexterous, versatile and adaptive leadership. This has been called for in students, and in curriculum. There is a growing clamour for resilience, leadership, innovation and entrepreneurialism.
However to what extent do we ask whether teachers are leading the way in role modelling these prerequisite skills (and adaptation in particular)?
If we accept Uhl-Bien’s (2007) contention that “we are on the precipice of an epoch….which is about an economy where knowledge is a core commodity and the rapid production of knowledge and innovation is critical” (p.299), then we accept that this is the age of disruption. Educators have a fundamental role to prepare future generations for this world that awaits. This contextual reality represents leadership opportunities but also challenges because it requires major shifts in the expertise and skills demonstrated and taught at school. Change inevitably requires adaptation. This adaptation must occur not only at the micro individual teacher and leader level but also at the macro, systems and global policy level.
Fadel was recently quoted as saying “the pace of change is not only exponential; it is hyperbolic” (2017). Khanna (2016) makes similar claims when establishing the case that our growing interdependence and intermeshing is accelerating the speed of change. The CSIRO (2016) state that digital disruption, innovation, globalisation and an evolving knowledge economy mean the world is more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. Hollingworth (2016) warns that the interconnectedness of our world today will amplify the storms that strike us. Berger & Johnston (2015) also note that coping with the complex changes of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (VUCA) “requires whole new ways of making sense of the world and of taking action to make a difference” (p. 1). Boix-Mansilla and Jackson (2011) elaborate how an increasingly complex dynamic exists, one in which competing tensions (economic growth versus environmental sustainability, interconnectedness versus sovereignty, universal human rights versus religious plurality, improved standards of living versus competitiveness, wealth versus career security) arguably have a disproportionate impact on the fabric of our lives. Fadel and Trilling (2009) contend that success measured on raw quantitative statistics of material wealth requires a different approach given the emergence of disturbing qualitative wellbeing indicators. Our educational systems and leaders must therefore respond accordingly.
“The thinking that created the problems we are facing will not generate the solutions we need” Albert Einstein
Adaptive leadership is the term used to describe changing behaviours to suit changing situations, circumstances or context changes (Yukl, Mahsud, 2010). Uhl-bien et al. (2007) define adaptive leadership as “an emergent interactive dynamic that produces outcomes in a social system. It is a collaborative change movement that emerges in a non-linear manner from interactive exchanges, or more specifically from the spaces between agents” (p. 306). This means there exists constantly evolving circumstances for teachers to recognise opportunities to learn by immersing themselves into the emerging situation. Such experiences are not necessarily structured or planned by rather evolve unexpectedly and require versatility in seizing the opportunity for growth. Seah et al. (2014) emphasise the iterative and evolving nature of the relationship between leadership and the organisational culture (2014).
Adaptive leadership’s importance derives from the complex and shifting journey that leaders and organisations must navigate to remain effective and relevant. The premise is that adaptive leadership is most effective because it occurs in the space between extremes when navigating competing forces; between that of the old and the new, between equilibrium and disequilibrium. This tension exists at the individual, organisational and systems level. The manner in which leaders and organisations manage such contrasting tensions is considered from the perspective of technical versus adaptive challenges, and differences between authority versus leadership. Yet despite the contextual relevance of adaptive leadership, its significance and applicability remains limited given differing circumstances and difficulties in both affecting change and interpreting the efficacy of doing so. An assessment is made of how leadership must adapt to the increasingly complex context and interconnected problems faced by society. Adaptation therefore is not only a sound, but also an essential, response to the prevailing context.
We live in a state of flux. This flux creates disequilibrium. Research on adaptive leadership confirms these are asymmetrical times (Heifetz et al., 2009). Berger and Johnston (2015) affirm that the unpredictability of our future will require a new skill set from leaders. The premise of Strom’s work (2014) holds a similar vein. He argues that balance, order and certainty are fallacies and that wise leaders read the patterns of life effectively, moulding themselves to the needs of the moment. If operating in the midst of a series of crises has become the norm, it is unsurprising then that such a space requires mixed strategies and calls into question the ability of leaders to operate within absolute paradigm structures. Yukl and Mahsud (2010) argue that flexible and adaptive leadership is important when unusual events disrupt work or create an immediate problem that require a leader’s attention. Effective leaders learn to enjoy living in that “grey area” between the known and the unknown, where uncertainty and unpredictability reign (Heifetz et al., 2009), “you need to live in the disequilibrium” (p. 29). Indeed such conditions necessitate their thriving. This thesis is illustrated below, where the productive zone (of disequilibrium) exists between the limit of tolerance and the threshold of change.
Figure 1. The Productive Zone of Disequilibrium (Heifetz et al, 2009, p. 30)
From a macro, systems level the CIM Call to Action (2008) research paper emphasises the importance of educational reform in order to meet the needs of a new global context. Fadel, Bailik and Trilling (2015) reinforce this when stating “schools need to drive a shift from a world where traditional knowledge is depreciating rapidly in value, towards a world in which the enriching power of deep competencies is increasing” (p. 7). Fullan and Langworthy (2014) also reflect the required shift in pedagogical approach in Figure 4 below. Analysis of the authors’ argument supports the notion that an adaptive approach is required to move from the ‘old’ (content knowledge) through to the ‘new’ (deep learning achieved from discovering and mastery of content using ubiquitous technology).
Figure 4. How the New Pedagogies are Different (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014)
Yukl and Mahsud (2010) remind us that “when a sudden, unusual event threatens to disrupt normal operations…. a rapid but appropriate response is needed to minimize the adverse effects on the organisation. How well leaders handle these immediate crises is an indicator of flexible and adaptive leadership” (p. 2). This is similar to Hollingworth’s (2016) use of the analogy of an innovative corporate leader as a freestyling alpinist who has to rapidly assess shifting situations and adapt accordingly. Such fundamental shifts in prioritisation and systems focus requires foresight, innovation and versatility. Achieving outcomes as the pace of change affecting organisations increases emphasises the relevance and significance of adaptive teachers leaders as people who can manage such a context (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Society will inevitably experience more disruption, disenfranchisement and discord if there is an inability to adapt to this reality.
This has proven relevant with given the seismic changes to curriculum and pedagogy over the past decade or so. Yukl and Mahsud (2010) contend that because of the changing nature of the work landscape, there are increasingly different roles for different types of positions. The point being that if a leader is to transition from one role to another, whether internally or externally to the company, then that leader will need to be able to recognise the adaptation required. Specifically they state:
“Being flexible and adaptive often includes finding innovative ways to deal with new problems and opportunities, but the types of decisions and actions needed for effective leadership may not be consistent with traditional role expectations in an organization………it is important for leaders to understand the different contexts that require flexible and adaptive behaviour. For each context they need to know how to diagnose the situation and identify the types of behaviour that are appropriate. In addition, they need to know how to use many different behaviours skilfully”.
This is pertinent to teachers seeking to role model best practice to their students utilising their own personal experiences.
While there is more understanding today about change, processes and systems used to manage and lead, the procedures and mechanisms one might follow to implement adaptive leadership remains elusive. This is due in part to the difficulty associated with measuring the impact of adaptive leadership styles using accepted scientific approaches (Heifetz et al, 2009) and in the rigidity of many processes born from arguably over zealous accountability measures that stifle creativity. The authors raise the important distinction between technical and adaptive challenges and recognise limitations in relating measurement of success to notions of survival (2009). Technical challenges have known solutions. They are easier to identify and quantify, though not necessarily to solve. Adaptive challenges however are less precise, intangible and are usually resolved through a more organic process of trial and error. Our fast-paced world means that many schools or businesses simply don’t have the luxury of time for trial and error. This can make it challenging for organisations to retain a sense of identity, purpose and belonging. Authors Yukl, Mahsud (2010) as well as Seah et al. (2014), also support the contention that the nature, and ability to assess the impact, of adaptive leadership remains ambiguous. In fact, Seah et al. (2014) refer to difficulties designing a process model of a leader-driven organisational adaptation because theirs was “inductively derived” and case-specific. This is perhaps unsurprising given the highly non-linear and organic nature of adaptive leadership.
Such contrasting tensions are partially explained by the distinction between authority and leadership. Where today’s context yearns for leadership, the structures, processes and procedures inherited from yesterday delineate degrees of authority. Heifetz et al. (2009) state that “conflating leadership and authority is an old and understandable habit” (p. 27). The authors argue that authority is bestowed or conferred whereas leadership is expressed and earned. The authors state, “if life presented exclusively technical problems, people would get what they need looking routinely to authorities for solutions to problems” (2009, p. 24). This suggests then that authority is better suited towards technical problems that require specific, quantifiable solutions. These adaptive challenges necessitate leadership. Adaptive leadership. Such a dynamic creates tensions between stakeholders used to the status quo and change agents seeking to engage with the emerging disruption. “By practicing adaptive leadership beyond authoritative management, you risk telling people what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear” (Heifetz et al, 2009, p. 27).
Helpfully, Uhl-Bien et al (2007) propose an explanatory solution to these tensions in their description of the process of “annealing”, defined as: Multiple agents struggle with localized effects created by a given environmental perturbations. As these agents develop localised solutions…..they affect the behaviours of other interdependently related agents, who subsequently build on the original response to create higher order responses. This process extends to broader network levels…” (p. 303).
The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew” Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln was prescient then in his claim “we must think anew” when rising with the occasion. Note that he is not quoted as arguing “we must rise to the occasion”; the distinction being that “rising to” something is simply a reactive response, whereas “rising with” refers to adapting proactively to the circumstances. It follows then that adaptive leadership will play a fundamental role in the 21 st century. The fluid, intermeshed and complex characteristics of our global societal landscape necessitate an appropriately involved response on an individual and macro, systems level; one that is more adaptive and versatile. Leaders and organisations who can ‘read the play’ and strategically respond accordingly. As the complexity of the context increases, so too will the number of different roles required increase.
It is therefore in schools’ best interests to capture the skills of adaptive teachers. The operative themes in the literature are that conventional, traditional, orthodox ways of doing business are no longer the appropriate or most effective modus operandi. We need teachers and leaders who challenge the status quo, embrace diversity of opinion, acknowledge limitations in expertise, seek input, and most importantly who are not only able to “learn from experience, but rather learn from reflecting on experience” as Dewey (1933, p. 78) is famously quoted. Indeed, it is in doing so that teachers will role model the all-important learning competency of adaptability. Such an approach crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries and orthodox authority structures. This ethos needs to infuse our commitment to add value to pedagogy and challenge organisational processes, to anneal, and in doing so to look at ways to adapt, unlearn, learn, and relearn.
