The factors affecting organizational change are many and
varied. Assuming we are talking about a
sufficiently complex organization – and a family can fit that description – to
even identify problems and the location of such problems can be very
difficult. I bring this up because I am
addressing with these postings of late the dynamics of planning and instituting
change. To date, I have shared my
thoughts regarding general strategies of change, an individual’s cognitive and
emotional postures, performance in change efforts, and, now, the holistic
approaches a person sees when engaged in change. More recently, I pointed out that a person
when confronted with a change challenge develops theories regarding that
change. I identified two basic
theories: theories-in-use and espoused
theories.[1] This posting will make comments concerning
the effectiveness of theories-in-use. That
is, in a situation where there is a significant organizational problem
demanding a solution or, at least, amelioration, our explanations as to what
needs to be done should be able to lead one to implement those process changes
that result in those solutions. If there
are less than satisfactory results, in terms of the environmental factors, one
should have a clear understanding of the social and psychological forces at
play. When theories-in-use become
policies and subsequent behavior changes occur, it behooves those seeking
change to have an honest appraisal of what’s going on not only on the part of
those implementing the change, but also on those affected by the change. Those latter subjects can be customers,
clients, patients, or students. It is
students in which I am basically interested.
And it is changes in curricular efforts that I am proposing: specifically, adoption of more federalist
based content to civics instructional efforts of individual schools and school
districts. Looking at effectiveness
naturally leads to consideration of the environment in which change efforts
occur.
Certain ideas offered by James Q. Wilson[2] are
helpful in regard to evaluation of organizational efforts. He points out a somewhat obvious fact. That is, organizations can be evaluated by
focusing on both or either of the following:
the outcomes of what they do or the processes they perform. Different types of organizations, by their
very nature, lend themselves to one or both or neither of these foci. Usually, corporations that produce a physical
product, let us say a car company, can be evaluated by both of these areas of
review. For example, one very telling
outcome is a car company’s profits and another is the dependability of its cars
– how long they operate effectively, for example. On the other hand, those privy to how the
cars are manufactured can look at the different phases of production, the
technology the company employs, how well the different aspects of their
production and marketing process interact, etc.
But when you talk about schools, that is a different kettle of fish.
Wilson points out that schools are almost immune to such
scrutiny both in terms of outcomes and processes. For one thing, the outcomes – how effective
the efforts are to educate youngsters – are often not manifested for
years. Attempts to mitigate this
condition, such as end of course tests, are deficient, at best. And the processes educators use are not so
well-defined as those that go into producing a car. I am not saying that the process is beyond
any supervision or evaluation – I advocate placing monitoring cameras in the
classroom so that administrators can see what is going on – but the teaching
process is subtle, diverse, and resistant to systemic logic. Often what very well “works” is unorthodox, spontaneous,
and counterintuitive. The social
dynamics within a classroom are complex and challenges facing the average
teacher are subject to constant change.
My wife, also a retired teacher, and I often comment that we are
grateful we don’t teach in the era of social media and hand-held devices.
So the first thing, I suggest, that a change agent might want
to look at when either planning or evaluating change efforts is whether the
environment is amenable to viewing and judging the outcomes of the change and/or
the processes of the change. If so, what
techniques and measures, if pertinent, do the agent and participants have
available? This, judgements over
effectiveness, has to be attempted at each phase of the change process. That process consists usually (and in varying
order) of problem identification, change planning, change implementation, testing,
and evaluation. A serious part of that
process consists of reviewing what the theories-in-use are that the participants
harbor about the change effort. This is
done by asking, observing, and re-asking in an ongoing dialogue among all affected
parties. The whole evaluative effort is assisted
by having clear goals and aims (more on this below). Given that, as I established in an earlier
posting, I am promoting a normative-re-educative type strategy, these conversations
are essential and can be emotionally charged.
How to handle them denotes, to a great deal, how talented those in
charge of facilitating the change – the change agents – are in facilitating.
In terms of working off clear goals and aims, certain
techniques borrowed from the more rational strategies can be implemented. One technique is to reduce certain aspects of
the process to specific goals and objectives and to translate them into
specific protocols with distinguishable steps and success points along the
process; that is, break down the process to manageable and measurable
accomplishments. I once worked for a
non-profit that had us do this; each success was called a “milestone.” This is useful as long as one avoids the
temptation to be “enslaved” by the language.
If the staff involved in the change effort can keep such a tool as just
that, a tool, then it can be helpful to use it.
Added to the list of those things to look for is whether participants
adopt such a device and lose sight of the overall demands of the change
project.
In my next posting, I will return to theories-in-use
effectiveness and write specifically about the signposts that determine how
well they serve those engaged in a particular change effort.
[1]
See Argyris, C. and
Schon, D. A. (1985). Evaluating theories in action. In W. G. Bennis, K. D.
Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.), The planning
of change, Fourth edition, (pp. 108-117). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
[2] Wilson, J. Q.
(1989). Bureaucracy: What government
agencies do and why they do it. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment