Challenges & Strategies in the Sustainability Phase

Change Leadership

As a leading Ed tech company, RP has been known for its innovation in the online education world for over twelve years. While quite a few changes have been instigated from the top-down, the shift to incorporating “on demand” or strictly academic tutoring into our program offerings is organic. In fact, it is not actually a change as it has been occurring over the past year and a half, but the formalization and training element is the actual change. This bottom-up implementation plan is being conducted as a response to communicated need to the change, a direct product of collaboration and feedback (Asana, 2025). In fact, the goal of Nudge Theory is “not just to implement the change, but to garner support for everyone involved”, and can be considered executed already due to the demand from on-the-ground stakeholders (Frontline Education, 2020). Leadership’s role in this case is to clarify the shift in programming and provide training and resources to increase stakeholder confidence.

A much underscored requirement for successful change is frequent, clear, and empathetic communication, along with multiple opportunities for feedback. Eikenberry and Turmel point out in “The Long-Distance Leader” that the lack of interpersonal communication in online management is often the cause of the greatest miscommunication events (Eikenberry & Turmel, 2018). It is crucial that the implementation of this change addresses the known needs of the stakeholders multi-dimensionally. Feedback acquired through one-on-one meetings and team-meetings, alongside surveys, will guide the development of professional development, resources, SOP’s, templates, and talking points across the faculty and the advising teams.

Difficult Conversations

All change comes with some resistance and frequently requires challenging moments among change leaders and stakeholders. When approaching these conversations, it is important not only to clarify the change itself, but to elicit buy-in, strengthen trust in the process, acknowledge the fear that comes with change, and strengthen confidence in the meaning behind the change. When approaching these conversations intentionally, the change leader can add to the overall effectiveness of the implementation itself: “It is believed that the perception of organizational justice greatly influences the beliefs, attitudes, intentions, behaviors, and emotions of employees” (Rehman et al., 2021). When an organization is approaching a new change from a history of poor change management (as in this case), they must be even more cognizant of the challenges of these conversations and increase their focus on communicating the “justness” or “positive impacts” of the changes alongside the contributions of the stakeholders.

The variety of changes that have occurred at RP over the past several years has been such that Faculty Leaders have integrated feedback conversations into their monthly one-on-one meetings with tutors, and the door is wide open to solicit feedback from other departments. Grenny et al. wrote in their 2002 book “Crucial Conversations” about the importance of creating a safe space when entering these conversations (Grenny et al., 2002). Focusing on true dialogue as the form of conversation and entering with clarity of purpose ensures both sides will be heard in their concerns and move towards a positive outcome; while feelings need to be validated, action steps should be emphasized. Considering the source of this change - requests from tutors for training on an additional tutoring program types - these conversations have already started out as productive and include tutor collaboration. Conversations with advisors and parents, on the other hand, are anticipated to be slightly more complicated.

One difficulty in identifying the differences in tutoring program types is the language used around the two programs. Education is a value that falls somewhere on a spectrum for everyone, and what “learning” is can actually mean multiple different things. For at least the past seventy years, people have been arguing over what the American education system means to them and what it should look like, and people who come to RP for tutoring are no exception (Chickering & Bowen, 1979). Nobody wants what they hold as high value to be described as otherwise, therefore, carefully choosing the descriptions of the different programs and training the advisors who speak with families is a high priority. Additionally, by separating out two different programs, it’s imperative that we avoid the binary concept that one program includes one element while the other program cannot. For example, some of the conversations that need to happen at the outset of a program are goal oriented - what does the student or parent want out of the program: cognitive or metacognitive support, academic focused or holistic/personal approaches, long term or short term support (i.e. immediate assignment completion and last-minute exam review, or study skills and deep learning abilities), is the convenience of flexible scheduling more valuable regardless of the tutor or will the regularity of consistent support be a priority, does the student thrive on hearing multiple viewpoints on a topic or would they benefit from mentorship and individualized learning development? Approaching conversations with students and families with these targeted and carefully worded questions will help identify their needs, but it is also important to avoid the language around “you can get this, but you can’t get this other part, too”. Approaching conversations with the advisors with an open mind and with a view towards collaboration will help the leadership team develop training materials that incorporate the language the advisors know is effective and help address their concerns in the shift towards offering two distinct services.

There are entirely separate challenges for conversations with tutors, even though the change is originating with their concerns. Clarity in process and parent communication is a long-term struggle, as there is a wide variety of competencies and investment among the faculty. Feedback surveys and meetings have provided a guideline as to the types of training and communication templates needed, but developing them in a way that is effective and applicable in the long term is a challenge. If change leaders can work with other departments to get specific labeled designations on the two programs (at least inwardly, if not customer-facing) and incorporate it into the LMS, that will ease the transition. This would allow tutors to quickly identify which templates to use for parent communication, which session flow guides to use for class planning, what contributions to expect from the family and student, and what level of approach is appropriate. SOPs and templates will still be provided, but additional training will need to occur if the internal designation cannot be achieved.

Managing expectations of tutors' tasks is an additional challenging conversation. Effectively, nothing will change regarding their daily, weekly, or monthly task requirements. However, any time there is a change in labeling/designation, or a potential for dropping a task that is disliked, there will be tutors who misinterpret the requirements and fail to complete the required tasks. Grenny, et al. elaborates on this last element of anticipation when entering into difficult topics, and multiple educational change frameworks fail to fully recognize the need to address the practical side of implementation in their efforts (Grenny et al., 2002). Addressing the potential areas of confusion or misinterpretation ahead of time with provided solutions will help mitigate some of the frustration that comes from tutors shifting their task flows in the wrong direction.

Implementation Bridge

The process of implementing, enacting, executing, or bringing to pass change is complicated and involves the input of multiple stakeholders, consideration of the context of the change, practical details, and long-term consideration of efficacy. There has been much research on multiple steps in implementing educational change, and the overall consensus is that each change and organization must be considered individually. Hord, et al. outlines a six-stage “Implementation Bridge” which can guide the development of an effective execution plan towards desired change. It includes Creating a Shared Vision, Planning & Identifying Resources Necessary for the Change, Investing in Professional Development, Checking or Assessing Progress, Providing Assistance, and Creating a Context Conducive to Change (Hord, et al., 2013). This falls under the generalized framework that the OECD developed that encompasses just four steps that can be elaborated on: smart policy design; inclusive stakeholder engagement; a conducive institutional, policy, and societal context; and a coherent implementation strategy to reach schools (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development et al., 2017). This general framework is designed for larger organizations such as regional or governmental-wide educational policy change, but it serves as recognition of the key stages of change implementation.

Addressing each stage of Hord, et al. 's Implementation Bridge, RP’s change in programming identification can be addressed clearly and in detail. Below, each step is elaborated on in the context of a mid-sized online tutoring company’s shift towards offering both holistic tutoring programming and on-demand academic tutoring.

Creating a Shared Vision: The vision of this completed shift in programming offerings includes recognition of two types of programs that can occur within each product (current products: Academic, Private Tutoring, Back Up Care) and confidence with strategies for planning individual classes vs. programs, communication around student needs and setting expectations, and making recommendations. This bottom-up shift in programming is being enacted as a response to tutor request and family shifts in goals, so the focus here is on clarifying the vision rather than creating buy-in. Training for Advisors and Professional Development for tutors to be developed by Faculty Leaders includes data about the change, why it’s happening, and how to identify the different programs, language to use when explaining the differences and making recommendations, and what to expect from the programs. The change is not communicated directly as a change to students and parents, but the different types of programs are acknowledged in session and consults. This may be the most challenging step of this process, as we are effectively re-allocating students from three different products into four (Holistic and On-Demand, and both designations within the Back Up Care brand). Developing effective conversations with the faculty and with families to identify program goals and values without diminishing either purpose, managing family expectations, and continued training all hinge on effective identification and classification of programing.
Planning and identifying resources necessary for the change: The main resources for tutors will be training around communication and program planning, additional templates to use for parent and progress updates, and guides for in-class planning. Additional SOPs will be included to emphasize what does not change among programs. Feedback surveys will be conducted every few months to guide further communication and resource development. Systems examples will be presented as guides for acquisition of academic class grades and quantitative improvement as well as classification for qualitative improvement. Resources for advisors will include guides that include visual examples, data points, and explicit language around the differences in the programs.

Investing in professional development: Professional Development for tutors occurs every month and one additional PD quarterly. Regular touch-bases in team meetings will include collaboration on approaching on-demand programs, opportunities for voicing needs, and additional feedback. Feedback from the sales team/advisors will occur in quarterly meetings as well.

Checking or assessing progress: Regular feedback surveys and team meetings - as well as 1:1 meetings with FLs - provide regular opportunities to gauge progress. Confidence levels can be measured by Likert scale feedback surveys. Collected grades and NPS surveys from students and families differentiated by program type will show quantifiable results. Advisors/CSM communication of parent feedback will be another avenue to assess progress.

Providing assistance: Tutors have monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly check-in meetings with their FLs. FLs have weekly meetings. The company has quarterly faculty meetings held as open forums.

Creating a context conducive to change: As a bottom-up change, this will be communicated as “answering your needs/frustrations/requests” when working with these newly identified programs. The change is already happening, so the “change plan” is addressing how to integrate it to meet the needs of the current tutors and better address the needs of the family. The context created the change.

Through the various stages of acknowledging stakeholder need, clarifying the end result, soliciting constant feedback, analyzing results, and auditing the process, this programming shift is a recursive improvement on a “one size fits all” vision of programming. The ultimate goal is to ease frustrations, elaborate on family and tutor needs, and provide the resources needed for stakeholders in their many forms.