Part 1 Review: The Case Study Redskins No More

Part 1review The Case Study Redskins No More In A 1 Page Paper Answ

Part 1 review the case study “Redskins No More” In a 1 page paper, answer the following questions based on the case study: What change were the people in Gooding trying to avoid? Why do you think they wanted to avoid this change? What tactics did they use to resist change? Would you describe the efforts of Scott Rogers or the school board as adaptive leadership? Why or why not? How would you describe the holding environment created by the school board? Do you think it was successful? Why or why not? Citing examples, describe how the school board engaged or didn’t engage in each of these adaptive leader behaviors: (1) get on the balcony, (2) maintain disciplined attention, and (3) give the work back to people. What group would you describe as the “low-status group”? How did the school board seek to give voice to this group? Part 2 In the previous case study “Redskins No More”, the school board made a number of mistakes. For this assignment, turn back the clock and assist the school board, and Scott, with establishing a plan for how to effectively change the Redskins name. In 1-2 pages, put together an action plan to present to Scott and the school board. Pay close attention to the community opposition and work to develop strategies to help the opposition shift its beliefs and values so that the name change can occur without great incident. Be sure to include supporting evidence from your textbook and/or other scholarly research within your response.

Paper For Above instruction

The case study “Redskins No More” explores the complex process of leading organizational and community change, particularly around sensitive issues like the renaming of a mascot associated with cultural insensitivity. The people in Gooding aimed to avoid the change of the Redskins name because it was deeply rooted in tradition and identity, and there was significant resistance from community members who viewed the change as an attack on their heritage. Their reluctance stemmed from emotional attachment, fear of losing cultural identity, and skepticism about the necessity or benefits of the change.

To resist this change, community members employed various tactics such as vocal opposition, mobilization of supportive groups, and framing the change as an unjust attack on their cultural heritage. These tactics created a resistant environment, complicating the leadership efforts required for change.

Regarding leadership styles, the efforts of Scott Rogers and the school board can be assessed through the lens of adaptive leadership. Specifically, adaptive leadership involves mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and encouraging them to abandon their comfort zones for collective growth. In some respects, Scott exemplified adaptive leadership by engaging with community concerns and attempting to foster dialogue. However, at times, the school board fell short in fully embodying adaptive leadership qualities, such as genuinely empowering community members or facilitating collaborative problem-solving, which are critical for sustainable change.

The holding environment created by the school board refers to the space where stakeholders feel safe enough to express their fears, hopes, and resistance. The success of this environment depended on whether the board effectively nurtured trust and openness. Evidence suggests that the environment was somewhat successful in providing a safe space for dialogue, but it was limited by the community’s entrenched resistance and emotional investment in the old name.

In terms of adaptive leader behaviors, the school board showed some engagement in “getting on the balcony,” for example, by stepping back from immediate reactions to assess the broader situation. They maintained disciplined attention by focusing on the community’s values and concerns, though at times distraction and emotional reactions hindered this. Regarding “giving the work back to people,” the board attempted to involve community voices in decision-making, yet often fell into reactive patterns rather than truly empowering community-led solutions.

The “low-status group” in this context included community members advocating for the preservation of the Redskins name. The school board sought to give voice to this group by organizing meetings and forums where their perspectives could be expressed, yet they struggled to balance these voices against the broader imperative for cultural sensitivity and social justice.

Proposed Action Plan for Effective Name Change

To facilitate a smooth change of the Redskins name, the school board and Scott need a strategic plan rooted in inclusive dialogue, community engagement, and evidence-based persuasion. First, they should develop a communication strategy emphasizing empathy and shared values, highlighting how the change aligns with broader societal shifts toward cultural respect and inclusion (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Engaging community leaders and respected influencers early on can help sway public opinion and reduce opposition.

Second, the school board should implement educational initiatives to inform stakeholders about the problematic history of the Redskins name and its impacts on marginalized communities. This educational approach, supported by research indicating that informed communities are more receptive to change (Kotter, 2012), can help shift deep-seated beliefs and foster cultural empathy.

Third, the board must create platforms for ongoing dialogue where opposition groups can voice their concerns while being guided towards understanding the broader implications of cultural insensitivity. Facilitators trained in conflict resolution and adaptive leadership can help sustain this process, helping opponents reframe their perspective from defending tradition to embracing respect and social justice (Heifetz et al., 2009).

Additionally, involving the community in the transition process, such as through participatory decision-making on alternative team names and symbols, can empower stakeholders and foster a sense of ownership over the change (Bryson, 2004). Transparency and consistent communication are critical to build trust and minimize conflict during the transition.

Overall, this proactive, empathetic, and inclusive approach—grounded in scholarly research and community values—can facilitate acceptance of the name change while preserving community cohesion and advancing social justice objectives.

References

• Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. Jossey-Bass.
• Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.
• Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
• Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.
• Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
• Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
• Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Successful leadership practices for alleviating urban school failure. School Leadership & Management, 24(1), 3-24.
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.