Targets of Change and Force Field Analysis

Change in a school happens at multiple levels. A specific change targets specific aspects, and every change is shaped by forces that push for it and forces that push against it. Two tools help a school head plan: the targets of change framework, and Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis.

Why understanding targets matters

Organisational change is the process by which an organisation moves from its present state to a desired future state to increase its effectiveness. It aims to increase the organisation’s ability to create value by finding better ways of using resources and capabilities.

The need for change is based on external or internal forces. A performance gap (a disparity between existing and desired performance) signals one. Current procedures may not be up to standard. A new idea or technology might improve current performance.

A school changes for two reasons.

1. External forces. Government policy shifts, parent expectations change, technology arrives, competition increases.
2. Internal forces. The school has decided it can do better; new ideas, new opportunities.

Either way, the change needs to be targeted. Trying to change everything at once tends to change nothing. Targeting specific aspects produces real shifts.

Four targets of change

Four levels describe what change is targeted at.

1. Human resources

Investment in training and development. Promotion and reward systems. Restructuring the top-management team. Socialising employees into the organisational culture. Changing organisational norms and values to motivate a multicultural and diverse workforce.

Changes that target the people. New training programmes. New senior team. New culture work.

In a school: a major investment in teacher development. Restructuring the senior leadership. Hiring with new criteria. Shifting from one norm to another (e.g., from rote teaching to active learning).

Human resource changes are often the most fundamental. A school is its people; changing the people changes the school.

2. Functional resources

Transferring resources to the functions where the most value can be created in response to environmental change. An organisation can improve the value its functions create by changing its structure, culture, and technology.

Changes that target how the school’s functions work. The academic side, the admin side, the operations side.

In a school: restructuring how the curriculum function is organised. Combining or separating functions. Shifting resources from a declining function to a growing one.

Functional resource changes are about how the school’s parts are arranged and what each part does.

3. Technological capabilities

Efforts aimed at giving an organisation the capacity to change itself in order to exploit market opportunities. Adoption and use of new technologies. Development of new products and technologies and modifying existing ones. Technological capabilities are a core competence.

Changes that target the school’s technology. Hardware, software, systems, digital practices.

In a school: introducing a new school management system. Adopting online learning tools. Building data analytics capability. Modernising classroom technology.

Technology changes can be ends in themselves or means to other ends. A school adopting an MIS to better track student outcomes is using technology to enable other changes.

4. Organisational capabilities

Changes in organisational design, strategy, culture, and structure. Comprehensive changes that penetrate the entire organisation.

The deepest level. Changes that affect the whole school: its identity, its strategy, its culture, its structure.

In a school: shifting from a national curriculum to an international curriculum. Restructuring as a chain rather than a single school. Reinventing the school’s identity for a different demographic.

These changes are big, slow, and risky. Most schools do not undertake them often. When they do, they require sustained leadership over years.

Change is generally bottom up

As a general rule, change is bottom up. Real change often starts at the operational level and works up. A new teaching practice tried by one teacher, then adopted by a section, then by the whole school, then formalised in policy.

Top-down change (decreed by the principal, implemented from above) often produces compliance without commitment. Bottom-up change (emerging from practice, supported by leadership) tends to produce commitment and lasting change.

A school head should look for changes that staff are already trying or wanting to try. Backing these is often more powerful than imposing a top-down change.

Evolutionary vs revolutionary change

Successful organisations often run two types of planned change at the same time.

Evolutionary change

Evolutionary change is gradual and narrowly focused: incremental. Small steps over time. Each step builds on the last. The change accumulates.

In a school: improving the assessment practice in one subject, then another, then another. Gradually upgrading the teacher development programme. Slowly building the technology infrastructure.

Evolutionary change is the more common kind. It is also the more sustainable kind.

Revolutionary change

Revolutionary change is sudden, drastic, and broadly focused: transformational. Big change all at once. Restructuring. Fundamental shift.

In a school: switching curriculum systems. Major reorganisation. Founding a new branch.

Revolutionary change is risky. It produces big effects, good and bad. It uses up significant resources and political capital.

Successful organisations do both. They run evolutionary change continuously and revolutionary change occasionally. A school that only does evolutionary change tends to get stuck in the current paradigm. A school that only does revolutionary change tends to exhaust itself.

The Sociotechnical Systems Theory

Sociotechnical Systems Theory describes changing role, task, or technical relationships to increase an organisation’s effectiveness. It says that work has both social and technical dimensions, and both need to change together. Changing the technology without changing the social practice (or vice versa) produces partial change. Changing both together produces real change.

In a school: introducing a new MIS without changing how staff use data is technical change without social change. Training staff on data use without giving them the right tools is social change without technical change. Doing both together is sociotechnical change.

Force Field Analysis

Force Field Analysis (Kurt Lewin) is a strategic tool for understanding what a change requires. Two sets of opposing forces in an organisation shape how change takes place: forces for change, and forces against or resistant to change.

The model is simple and useful. For any proposed change, identify the forces pushing for it and the forces pushing against it. The change happens when forces for outweigh forces against.

How to use Force Field Analysis

Take a specific proposed change in your school. For example: introducing project-based learning in grade 5.

1. List the forces for change.

• Pressure from parents wanting modern teaching.
• Three teachers already interested and trained.
• Available curriculum materials.
• Principal’s strategic priority.
• Two competing schools have already adopted it.

2. List the forces against change.

• Senior teachers committed to current methods.
• No additional budget for materials.
• Board exam pressure favouring traditional teaching.
• Existing assessment system not aligned with PBL.
• Time pressure from existing workload.

3. Estimate the strength of each force. Some forces are stronger than others. A simple 1-5 rating works.

4. Identify the levers. Forces you can strengthen (the for-change forces) or weaken (the against-change forces).

5. Plan the change. Strengthen the for-change forces. Weaken the against-change forces. The net balance determines whether the change happens.

Why Force Field Analysis matters

The tool forces a structured analysis of any change before launching it. Many changes fail because the planner did not see the forces against the change. The change is announced and dies on impact with unseen opposition.

A school head who runs Force Field Analysis before a major change:

1. Sees the opposing forces clearly.
2. Plans to address them rather than ignoring them.
3. Identifies allies (forces for change) she can mobilise.
4. Recognises when a change is not yet viable and waits.

A school head who skips this analysis launches changes blind and is surprised by what happens.

Combining the tools

A school head can use Force Field Analysis together with Kotter’s eight-step model. Force Field Analysis informs step 3 (Develop Vision and Strategy) by identifying the forces the strategy must address. It also informs step 5 (Empower Others to Act) by identifying the structural barriers that must be removed.

Together, the tools give a school head:

1. Targets. Where in the school is the change happening (HR, functional, technological, organisational).
2. Type. Evolutionary or revolutionary.
3. Forces. What is pushing for and against.
4. Process. The eight Kotter steps.

A change planned with all four lenses has a much better chance than one launched on instinct.

Flashcard

What are the four targets of change in an organisation and what does Force Field Analysis do?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Four targets: Human Resources, Functional Resources, Technological Capabilities, Organisational Capabilities.

Each target represents a level at which change can be applied. A specific change usually targets one or two; trying to change all four at once is overwhelming.

Force Field Analysis (Kurt Lewin) is a tool for identifying the forces pushing for and against a proposed change. The change happens when forces for outweigh forces against.

How to use it:

1. List the forces for the change.
2. List the forces against the change.
3. Rate the strength of each force.
4. Identify which forces you can strengthen or weaken.
5. Plan the change strategy.

A school head who runs Force Field Analysis before launching a change sees opposing forces clearly and can plan to address them, rather than being surprised when resistance appears.