This blog has been
reviewing an organizational change model that identifies the following
phases: problem identification,
staffing, “unfreezing,” rule-making, information gathering, testing,
evaluating, negotiating, conflict ameliorating, and finalizing. To date, the first three phases have been
highlighted. This posting will look at
the next two: rule-making and
information gathering.
Rule-Making
Logically,
if a change effort has met the problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” concerns
of this model, an internal need arises.
An organized change effort needs to establish its rules. This can be viewed in two ways: one, what the potential change is – in as
specific language as possible – and, two, how are the change agents going to
proceed in its change efforts?
The
first of these is self-evident – it logically falls from the problem
identification and the unfreezing activities.
The change process is, at this point, enough along to zero-in on
devising the first version of what the change is to be. In terms of this account, that would be a
change in a curricular aspect of the school’s offerings. This might be a change in the scope of what
is taught – the content of a subject – or the sequence – the instructional
process the teachers use in one or more of its courses. Of course, it can be both the scope and
sequence of a course(s) of study.
For
example, this writer, has proposed a change in the scope of civics
education. This has been extensively
described and explained in this blog.
Specifically, the change would be in the content of what comprises
either civics or American government courses.
Presently, the argument holds that the content of those courses is
guided by what this writer refers to as the natural rights construct of
governance and politics. The proposal
this writer is promoting is that that guidance should emanate from a different
construct, i.e., federation theory.
While
this change encompasses a lot of implications in the study of civics, a summary
can be stated as changing the content of those courses that now holds prevalent
liberty as a trump value to one that holds societal welfare as prevalent. If interested, the reader is directed to the numerous
past postings of this blog that present this argument.
As
for the second aspect of rule-making, the change in a group’s processes,
deserves more attention. That is, in
terms of how the change process is to proceed, the emphasis is the formation of
rules that allow federation principles to take root. Overall, the effort is to engender a feeling
of partnership initially among the cadre – the initial group of teachers that are
seeking the change – and eventually the entire staff of the school – at least
that’s the aim.
This
overall feeling entails many organizational qualities such as the values and
attitudes that include trust, appreciation of long-term interests, a communal
sense, and the like. When such goals are
enunciated or reflected by appropriate rules, there is a public commitment to
such values and attitudes.
This
blog has already made the distinction between theories-in-use and espoused
theories. That is the theories one
formulates to reflect one’s ideals and those theories that are formed as one
faces the challenges of the day. Rules
are an organizational way to further establish espoused theories. They don’t guarantee that “sinning” will not
take place, but they help avoid it.
Throughout
this blog, there are concerns that might be thought of when designing
rules. More comment will be made in
subsequent postings when this treatment of change addresses interpersonal
dynamics, but in terms of the potential change landscape, there are various
elements that need to be considered.
For
example, are individual agents bound to share all meaningful information he/she
gathers with all other agents. This can
pop up if friendships are involved, especially between members of the change
effort and others not so involved. One
can envision certain statements, actions, or other developments arising where
embarrassing information might materialize. It is best to foresee such possibilities as
best as change agents can do so.
To
further the example, what if the change effort has a racial element to it? What if a friend expresses a racist attitude
or value? This can be expressed under
the assumption that the exchange is in confidence. Does this sort of situation deserve a rule
indicating how to handle such an eventuality?
Rules,
of course, varies according to various concerns. Race, sexual matters (such as orientation),
criminal records, certification issues, rumors, reputational issues are but a
few potential areas change agents need to consider in this activity of
rule-making. This process should or
needs to consider both the substance of the change effort and the people
involved in that effort.
It
also marks a formalization of the entire effort and, as such, it takes on
certain social expectations of professionalism and, in some cases, legal
demands. A change agent needs to be
aware of this and some research should be done.
Of course, this adds to the need of having the principal involved.
Information Gathering
This next phase was mentioned above
and really is one that can be done at any time during the entire change
effort. In terms of the progression
indicated by the above order of phases, the emphasis is on gathering
information relevant to the specific proposed change. This potentially can be quite a variety of
subjects. It can be curricular
information, legal information, department of education information, district
information, personnel information, and so on.
Some of these areas are sensitive.
Some is public information, semi-public information, or private
information.
For example, personnel files, which in
the public-school system are government files can in part be private; they
might hold sensitive, private information such as medical information. Usually, if they are sensitive, they will not
be open to fellow employees gaining access.
But, the mere seeking of such information can be upsetting to the person
in question. Now, most change efforts
would not find such information relevant, but this parameter should be
mentioned regarding this phase of information gathering.
A more common concern is the teaching
habits of fellow teachers. As has been
indicated in this blog in other postings, teachers, in general, have been
allowed to see their classrooms as their domains. Many teachers do not see their workspace as a
public place, but it is. This writer has
suggested that a good evaluative tool would be to insert cameras in the classrooms
so that administration can monitor what happens in classrooms. Probably a lot of teachers would find such a
practice as invasive and unprofessional – but is it?
This is not what is being suggested
here. It is mentioned to illustrate how
teachers tend to feel about what happens in their classes. When a change agent asks about these
practices – how a teacher conducts his/her lessons – the agent might face serious
resistance. So, this attitude – possibly
based on misinformation – needs to be addressed directly.
First,
what is believed and felt by a teacher corps or subgroup of teachers should be
ascertained and, after such determination is made, a strategy, if needed,
should be devised and implemented to either change those beliefs and attitudes
or accommodate them. Overall, what
teachers do or how they perform in public schools is a public matter. And this is but one area into which a cadre
of change agents need to look.
The
next posting will look at testing and evaluating.
No comments:
Post a Comment