This article explores how educational leaders navigate change by balancing strategic frameworks with the human experience of transition. It considers leadership by focusing on purpose, trust, and shared responsibility, using recognised change theories and real experiences within educational institutions.
Transformation in schools is frequently represented as an organised process that includes a beginning, a growth stage, and a conclusion. In reality, it rarely occurs in such an organised way. In my experience, change feels like navigating through shifting tides. Some days the waters are calm and manageable, whereas on other days, they pull us in unexpected ways. In this context, leadership means not dictating a sole path, but instead supporting a community in finding balance as conditions evolve and progress. Every successful journey requires a specific objective, a target that justifies the effort of leaving familiar shores. In the initial phases of my leadership journey, I learned that a significant purpose cannot be announced from a distance; it has to be understood, felt, and accepted.
As Fullan reminds us, “You cannot mandate what matters” (Fullan 22). This insight shaped my understanding that sustainable change depends on ownership rather than compliance. Kotter captures this human dimension of change clearly when he notes, “People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings” (Kotter and Cohen 14). Once teachers, students, and parents saw the vision not as an abstract plan but as a pathway to deeper learning, momentum began to build collectively rather than individually.
My attempts to understand how best to guide this movement first led me to Lewin’s foundational model of change. His concept of “unfreezing” offered an important starting point (Malik); before moving towards something new, we must loosen our attachment to established routines. This reframed my thinking. Rather than questioning why change had yet to occur, I started inquiring about which beliefs or practices were keeping us stable and how they could be respected while inviting movement. As a result, conversations shifted from resistance to reflection.
At this stage of the journey, John Dewey’s differentiation between habitual action and reflective action gained particular importance (Young). Routine action, shaped by habit, tradition, authority, or impulse, can feel efficient and reassuring, especially in busy school contexts, but it often limits growth when practice goes unquestioned. Reflective action, by contrast, requires educators to engage deliberately with evidence, stay open to alternative perspectives, and take responsibility for the impact of their decisions. During the change, progress was sustained not through compliance, but when educators felt inspired to observe, question, and make informed decisions about their methods.
Alongside this shift in professional thinking, Kotter’s eight-step model provided a useful framework for maintaining change over time. Instead of considering the steps as a strict order, their significance was in strengthening essential factors for success, including urgency, shared leadership, visible progress, and the embedding of new practices into culture. When these factors were deliberately considered, change appeared less forced and more collectively embraced, enabling staff to progress with confidence rather than compliance.
Kotter’s work then provided momentum beyond this initial shift. His emphasis on urgency, guiding collaboration, and celebrating early wins reinforced the idea that no leader navigates change alone. Small achievements, a teacher trialling a new approach, a student responding differently to a text, a parent offering thoughtful feedback, became markers of progress. These moments reassured us that we were moving forward, even when the destination was not yet fully visible.
Frameworks by themselves, however, do not guarantee significant transformation. Transition should be deliberate, acknowledging that individuals require time to release before they can completely invest in what follows. This is where Bridges’ Transition Model gained significant influence. Although Lewin and Kotter focused on organising the external process, Bridges illuminated the internal experience of change, including emotions, uncertainty, and shifts in professional identity. As Bridges famously says, “It’s not the changes that affect you, it’s the transitions” (Bridges 3). Educators who had traditionally relied on established practices and methods understandably felt uneasy. Acknowledging this neutral space became crucial. Instead of imposing strict deadlines, I learned how to create space for reflection, inquiry, and encouragement. This balance echoed Myatt’s emphasis on combining high expectations with strong support (Myatt).
Clear purpose and supportive transitions must be followed by professional learning that empowers rather than overwhelms. Development transformed into a continuous conversation instead of a one-time occurrence. Rather than offering strategies as definitive solutions, we explored them collectively, enabling teachers to experiment, improve, and practice collaboratively. This shared ownership reduced anxiety and enhanced unity, emphasizing the idea that professional development arises from curiosity, practice, and teamwork.
Equally important was the responsibility to lead by example. Advocating for experimentation was not enough; I had to model it. Classroom visits were guided by curiosity rather than checklists. I reflected openly on my own leadership practice, acknowledged when something did not work, and celebrated learning alongside teachers. By positioning myself as a learner in the experience, the culture gradually shifted from risk avoidance to participating in shared exploration.
No journey is finished without monitoring and evaluation, not as scrutiny, but as guidance. Informal practices and reflective conversations ensured continued alignment with purpose. Monitoring evolved into a conversation about what is effective, what requires modification, and how we can support each other. These discussions maintained momentum and ensured consistency.
Stakeholder engagement remained central throughout. Schools are complex ecosystems influenced by educators, learners, guardians, administrators, leaders, and wider partners. Viewing stakeholders through a power and interest perspective promoted a transition from informing to collaboratively constructing. Teachers became architects of change rather than recipients. Student voice influenced pacing and task design. Parents grew more confident through transparent and open communication. Leadership teams ensured coherence with wider priorities, keeping the work purposeful and aligned.
During this journey, research has continually backed one concept: change that honours human experience is more sustainable. Strong professional cultures are built on trust, collaboration, and collective responsibility. These guidelines impacted the decision-making process. Progress was recognised not as achievements but as evidence of shared resilience, while challenges were considered essential to growth rather than signs of failure.
Leadership through change, I have realised, is not about steering through calm conditions. It is about guiding people through uncertainty with clarity, compassion, and shared purpose. It focuses on helping people manage uncertainty through empathy, mindfulness, and shared objectives. It requires knowing when to offer direction and when to grant independence. It demands recognition that people, not strategies or plans, are the true drivers of transformation.
Reference List
Bridges, William. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. 3rd ed., Da Capo Press, 2009.
Bridges, William. “Bridges Transition Model.” William Bridges Associates, 1988, wmbridges.com/about/what-is-transition/.
Fullan, Michael. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 4th ed., Teachers College Press, 2014.
Kotter, John P., and Dan Cohen. The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Harvard Business Press, 2002.
Lewin, Kurt. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics.” Human Relations, vol. 1, no. 1, 1947, pp. 5-41.
Malik, Priyanka. “Lewin’s 3-Stage Model of Change Theory: Overview.” Whatfix, 16 Jan. 2025, whatfix.com/blog/lewins-change-model/.
Myatt, Mary. “High Challenge, Low Threat.” Mary Myatt Learning, 29 May 2025, www.marymyatt.com/blog/high-challenge-low-threat.
Young, Patricia A., et al. “When Reflection Becomes Routine.” Educational Studies, vol. 56, no. 5, 2020, pp. 537-554.
Rasha Elsaid is the Head of Arabic at North London Collegiate School Dubai, with 22 years of experience as an educator and 16 years in educational leadership, working across the school, within large teams, and with educators across Dubai. An NPQSL graduate and Chartered Manager, she leads Arabic provision within an international IB context. Recently, Rasha embarked on a Master’s degree with the University of Bristol.
Rasha is committed to supporting her team and contributing to sustainable improvement in teaching and learning. Her work is shaped by a strong interest in research-informed practice, reflective leadership, and collaborative ways of working.
Parent Portal