How ironic it is to be assigned a book that correlates directly with tumultuous changes my school district is experiencing. Let me first begin by saying this book couldn't come at a better time. Reading the book provides an overview of personal values that may be compromised at work. I wonder if there is a distinction between the two? Is it possible to have personal values and work values or does one have just one set of values that are applicable to any given situation?
In the book, it appears as if Heyerson invites change without risking your job. In other words push back is welcome, although it must be gentle and not offensive. Heyerson has developed a continuum with a wide spectrum that ranges from resisting quietly and staying true to one self to organizing collective actions. Her rationale is to promote a sense of self while in the work environment. Currently, I find myself split between two strategies on the spectrum. I see myself turning threats into opportunities as well as leveraging small wins.
In lieu of recent events within my school district, I am uncertain if the spectrum will work in our current work environment. There is a serious budget crisis. The impacts of the crisis his impacted jobs that lead to layoffs and cuts. Therefore, I seriously doubt if the powers that be would be responsive to a temperate radicals attempt to create an inclusive culture. I am beginning to wonder if any one would if even want to be a temperate radical because of possible job loss. However, if we look at the spectrum strategy of collective action the union can be viewed as taking on this role.
Lastly, although the author is strongly against simply leaving a work environment before at least attempting to try to promote change. I can honestly say I dont know if that is the right thing to do. I think leaving the work environment relies heavily on the situation. In an ideal world, with an ideal school district a tempered radical approach could definitely work. However, in the current state of my school district, I am beginning to wonder if the only alternative is to find a new work environment and try to create change as a tempered radical.
In the book, it appears as if Heyerson invites change without risking your job. In other words push back is welcome, although it must be gentle and not offensive. Heyerson has developed a continuum with a wide spectrum that ranges from resisting quietly and staying true to one self to organizing collective actions. Her rationale is to promote a sense of self while in the work environment. Currently, I find myself split between two strategies on the spectrum. I see myself turning threats into opportunities as well as leveraging small wins.
In lieu of recent events within my school district, I am uncertain if the spectrum will work in our current work environment. There is a serious budget crisis. The impacts of the crisis his impacted jobs that lead to layoffs and cuts. Therefore, I seriously doubt if the powers that be would be responsive to a temperate radicals attempt to create an inclusive culture. I am beginning to wonder if any one would if even want to be a temperate radical because of possible job loss. However, if we look at the spectrum strategy of collective action the union can be viewed as taking on this role.
Lastly, although the author is strongly against simply leaving a work environment before at least attempting to try to promote change. I can honestly say I dont know if that is the right thing to do. I think leaving the work environment relies heavily on the situation. In an ideal world, with an ideal school district a tempered radical approach could definitely work. However, in the current state of my school district, I am beginning to wonder if the only alternative is to find a new work environment and try to create change as a tempered radical.