I chose to look at the transformational process of change for my research paper and found it timely and critical for the success of the SNAP-Ed team. Maybe I need to take a step back and look at myself as well as the bigger organization and its impact on the changes we are and will endure. I found the idea of which category I primarily fall into interesting and something worth spending more time and energy reflecting on (King, 2014). As Dr. King stated in his PowerPoint video this week, the majority of the population or employees fall into the Pragmatists area. Initially, in doing the readings and listening to the information, that is where I saw myself as well. Then I drew the continuum line and tried to envision which pole I would lean closer to. The more I worked on this the more I saw myself as an Originator in many instances and situations, but it is as so many items I review, very contextual. It is also fun to try to figure out where the SNAP-Ed team I work with plot out on this continuum too (King, 2014).
In trying to place myself on this line, I started to reflect on and remember examples where I would be more in the Pragmatist or Originator camp. One example that came to mind was the movement of SNAP-Ed into piloting and working with youth during the school year as opposed to only the summer food program. This move came about when our new Community Leader had been with the organization for a short time and had been discussing the needed and eventual move to youth audiences in the future. I knew that a few Program Assistants were really excited and eager for the move to the new audience and I also knew that their level and number of classes were not meeting standards (number of classes per week needing to be taught based on FTE). During one of our conference calls our SNAP-Ed team had in February or early March, that was scantly attended, two of what Dr. King identified as the naysayers were not on the call. I broached the subject of allowing a few of the program assistants with the will and desire be allowed to approach the schools to pilot a few programs before the school year ended. It was a more radical approach, moving fast for our program, and challenged the engrained structure.
The move was risky and uncertain and once those couple of members on the team who were not on the call returned, things became rather rocky for a brief period. I moved as soon as I got the go ahead and had several Program Assistants talking to schools and starting to make plans. The couple of people on the team who had missed the phone conversation (the naysayers) started immediately questioning the appropriateness of this. Were we prepared to do this? Were we moving too fast? What about the IRB – Institutional Review Board? Our policies and procedures only allowed us to work with adults. Some of the traits of the Originators really fit this situation perfectly. Others felt I had little regard for policies and procedures that were in place for many years. Although the Community Nutrition Leader was planning to change the target audience this was all to happen later when we could take our time and inch it into place. Slowly and methodically was the normal pattern in the past (King, 2014).
Upon closer examination, it was discovered that no IRB was needed for any of our programming because our data and results were reported to funders only and not shared in research articles. This resulted in many happy program assistants who no longer have to read a script and follow the more rigid procedures in collection of evaluations. This was one nice side effect of this pilot. Our program is now fully integrated into the youth audiences and although we still have those who fall on the resistance or even anger side of change, most have really embraced the change and believe it is energizing the program. One program assistant went so far as telling me it has renewed her love of the position! This moving ahead in times of change allowed those who piloted the youth audiences to share at our in-service in the late summer as the idea went state wide. It was a step to allow others to feel a little less nervous about the change. They could see the possibilities and ask questions of those who had done it. From a risky move into a change that was to eventually happen, more good came than not I believe. Would I have moved as fast if I had it to do again? Would I have waited to get permission from the remainder of the team? Would the program assistants have been as empowered and excited to be the first to pilot the idea?
So where do I personally fit on the continuum? I believe I still am mostly a Pragmatist with an Originator in several contexts. This is especially true when working with the Community Nutrition Leader, who I classify as an Originator with a hint of Pragmatist too.
King, J. (2014). Leading in Times of Change, Video PPT.
King, J. (2014). Leading Change, Supplement for AEE 8420, Spring, 2014.