Transformational Change

Kathy Dyer and George Thompson wrote this 2018 guide to what transformational change requires of school districts and the leaders who guide them. Below it, a 2026 update sets their framework beside two research reviews on school leadership and on how long new practices take to settle in.

A how-to guide for educators by Kathy Dyer and George Thompson

“Transformational change.” It has a great ring to it, doesn’t it? While multiple definitions exist, they seem to share similar phrases, such as holistic, profound, and over time. Many feel that the process of transformational change needs to mirror what it seeks to create, which might lead us to this oft quoted remark, “We must be the change we want to see happen in the world.” Many schools, states, and districts are looking to make substantive, transformational change. In this article, we’ll clarify what transformative change is, talk about some of the challenges for this type of change, and describe the need for transformational leadership. This piece will help you understand what transformational change requires, what it can do for you, and how you can get started.

What Is Transformational Change?

In most change models, we create a picture of what we think should be, then work hard to make reality fit that picture. Transformational change, however, focuses on a more strategic approach. Rather than simply inserting new demands or practices into existing systems, transformational change requires changing the system itself. Changing the system calls for building a common understanding of the need for change, assessing where capacity is needed, and then developing that capacity to sustain the change. In many ways, the internal nature of transformational change aligns with Heifetz and Linsky’s (2002) work on adaptive leadership, which requires “experiments, new discoveries, and adjustments from numerous places in the organization or community.”

Transformational change is a result of either organizational transformation or the implementation or installation of a program, project, or initiative that impacts the structure and culture of the organization. For instance, in some places, an educational assessment, implemented properly, requires changes in the structure (rules, roles, and relationships) and culture (beliefs, values, traditions) of the school and/or district.

We mentioned organizational transformation. What we mean is transforming an organization from one type of organization (bureaucracy) to another type (learning organization). It is useful to assess whether the organization has the capacity to be transformed. Using a set of standards to complete a self-assessment can provide strong suggestions regarding what systems need attention to support the transformation.

How do we go about capacity building to sustain change? Consider these three questions to get the process started:

1. How is the core business of our school district defined?
2. Is there a common understanding of the challenges that confront the district?
3. Is there a vision of the future, a vision that is sufficiently compelling to earn the attention of those whose support is needed?

The Challenge of Transformational Change

All transformation requires the approach above. Let’s consider a challenge that many school districts face — balancing accountability and answerability — which may provide an impetus for transformative change.

Accountability is the responsibility for results, whereas answerability is the responsibility for explaining or justifying one’s actions. In districts, accountability involves activities like improving performance and reporting numbers, measuring learning, and reporting to stakeholders. Answerability, meanwhile, involves improving performance and showing growth, supporting learning, and dialoguing with stakeholders.

Districts deal with both accountability and answerability daily. In conversations with superintendents this year, several said that accountability kept them from working on the answerability pieces they wanted to focus on. What’s more, they realized that their current systems might not have the capacity to support a change toward answerability.

Making this shift requires transformational change, and it’s not always an easy process. Why are transformation efforts so challenging? Sometimes the reason is a lack of attention given to developing the organizational capacity necessary to support and sustain change. Other times, initiatives start with the flawed assumption that there is already a common understanding of why the change is needed. Without these key components — organizational capacity and a common understanding of the change—leaders can’t engage in true transformational change.

Sometimes we must remind ourselves that resistance to change is not really in the system itself, but in the perceptions of those working in the system. How do we shift perceptions? What information is needed? (But sometimes the resistance is in the system itself, as is the case when support, even ownership, for a change exists, but the structures and culture are not supportive.)

A Framework for Transformational Change

The following framework is useful for those who are leading the change effort. Consider these as capacity indicators of the organization — questions leaders should consider prior to implementing or installing a new initiative, project, or program.

• Purpose and values: Are the beliefs and assumptions that underlie the initiative consistent with those of the organization?
• Sense of direction: Do we have valid reasons to believe the initiative will support and enhance the goals of the organization?
• Leadership commitment: It is likely the initiative will earn commitment and support from key organizational leaders?
• Assessment mechanisms: Do we have both traditional measures and a commitment to developing new ones to determine the progress and success of the initiative?
• Infrastructure for taking action: Are the existing culture and structure of the organization supportive of the aims and means of the initiative?
• Resource allocation: Will those closest to the work required have access to and flexible use of the resources needed for successful implementation?

Transformational Leadership

In Michael Fullan’s model of change in education, he talks about moral purpose (vision and values), sharing and building new knowledge (sense of direction and assessment mechanisms), and the idea of creating coherence in the system (sense of direction and infrastructure for taking action). Fullan reminds us: “Don’t forget the why questions. Don’t get lost in the how-to questions” (Fullan, 2003). Transformational leaders understand the idea that moral purpose is a driving factor in transformational change. The interactions and relationships between people are what will carry transformational change efforts, sustained by systems that can support the change.

Transformational leaders stir peoples’ emotions — they hold clear goals, have high expectations, and inspire people to reach for what might seem improbable. That deep commitment to shared purpose, values, and direction is key, inspiring people to look beyond themselves to something greater than themselves, then offering support, encouragement, and recognition along the way.

Those who lead transformation must understand that the necessary changes will impact the structure and culture of the organizations they lead. Such change requires attention to both the systemic and the technical properties of the organization. In Shaking Up the Schoolhouse, Phillip Schlechty says that in leading systemic change “leaders must be prepared to lead movements and to mount campaigns. It is not enough to manage people, products, and procedures; they must become masters at managing symbols as well” (p. 164). According to Schlechty, “The leadership required is transformational rather than transactional” (p. 164).

In developing educational leaders, the Schlechty Center (2017) uses this frame: transformational leadership versus transactional leadership.

Successful transformation efforts in school districts require balancing control and letting go in a highly collaborative way. They require a codeveloped vision through stakeholder engagement, activating the heart, and transparency about the work. They necessitate combining ideas about moral purpose and sharing differing ideas. Transformational change can be a challenging process, but an incredibly rewarding one. With this in mind, district leaders can be prepared to initiate successful transformational change efforts.

Transformational change in education: what the research says about making it last

Transformational change in education asks a district to change the system around a practice, not only the practice itself. As Kathy Dyer and George Thompson explain above, that work starts with a shared understanding of why change is needed and with building the capacity to sustain it. Two bodies of research published since their article help leaders judge how much capacity and time that takes: a large review of what school principals do, and implementation research on how new programs settle into schools.

What the leadership research adds

In 2021 the Wallace Foundation published a synthesis of two decades of research on principals by Jason Grissom, Anna Egalite and Constance Lindsay. The authors drew on 219 studies published since 2000 and linked four groups of principal behavior to better outcomes: focusing work with teachers on instruction, building a productive school climate, forging collaboration and professional learning among teachers and others, and managing personnel and resources well. Dyer and Thompson’s six capacity questions, including leadership commitment, infrastructure for taking action and resource allocation, cover much of the same ground at the district level.

The review also reports effects on student attendance, on chronic absenteeism and on teacher satisfaction, turnover and retention, with larger effects in urban schools and in schools with more students living in poverty. It is fair to add its cautions. The Wallace page notes that the methods behind the report’s achievement findings have since been challenged, with later analyses showing much smaller impacts. Leaders should read it as support for investing in school leadership, not as a precise forecast of what one change effort will produce.

The same review contains a fact that matters to any plan lasting several years. Average principal experience fell from about 10 years in 1988 to about seven years in 2016, and was under six years in the highest-poverty schools. A change effort that depends on one principal’s commitment can lose that person before the work takes hold, which is a reason to share the vision with teacher leaders and district staff early.

Why transformational change takes years

An implementation science brief by Aaron R. Lyon written for education agency leaders gives a sober picture. It reports that when new social, emotional and behavioral programs are adopted in schools, only 25 to 50 percent are likely to be implemented with enough fidelity to produce their intended effects, and that only one in three efforts to install new programs is successful. It says full implementation is a long process, sometimes taking two to three years or more, and that evaluating too soon can wrongly conclude a program failed when it was never fully installed.

Lyon also describes one-time, “train and hope” professional development as largely ineffective for changing professional behavior, even when the training is long, unless it is paired with supports such as ongoing consultation or coaching. Sustained use is hard even after good implementation, and usually only parts of a program continue over the long term. These figures concern social, emotional and behavioral programs, so they are indirect evidence for whole-system redesign. They are still useful for a district that plans to measure results after one school year.

The brief notes that more than 60 implementation frameworks exist and that none has been shown to be better than the others, so leaders should choose one that fits the project. It lists common themes that fit Dyer and Thompson’s argument: implementation unfolds in stages, it happens at several levels at once, and both the practice and the setting may need adapting. For the setting, the brief mentions organizational policies, leadership and infrastructure, which is close to the “structure and culture” Dyer and Thompson say must change.

Questions a district leader can decide this year

1. Which of the six capacity indicators in the original framework is weakest in this district, and who will build it?
2. When will the first honest look at results happen, and does that date allow for the two to three years the research suggests?
3. Is every training session followed by coaching or consultation for the teachers who attended?
4. If the superintendent or a key principal leaves, who else can explain the purpose of the change and run it?
5. Which parts of the new practice are core and must stay fixed, and which parts of local policy and structure should change to support it?

Dyer and Thompson also point out that resistance sometimes sits in the system itself, as when support exists but structures and culture do not allow the change. The questions above are meant to find that kind of obstacle early. District teams working on professional learning can pair them with the edCircuit professional development guide.

Further Reading

1. AdvancEd – Transformational Leadership – A Matter of Perspective
2. Oregon Dept. of Ed – Six essential elements for lasting change
3. Democrat & Chronicle – Free your mind and school transformation will follow

More on edLeaders