15451256 learning organizations and general systems theory in education

8/14/2019 15451256 Learning Organizations and General Systems Theory in Education

1/140

Knowledge Area Module 3: Principles of Social Systems

Student: William Molnar: [email protected] ID !3"#!$3

Speciali%ation: K&'( )eaders*ip

+aculty Assessor: Dr. ,anice -arfield: [email protected]+aculty Mentor: Dr. Wade Smit* wade.smit*@waldenu.edu

Walden /ni0ersityMarc* '12 (!!"


2/140

A S45A64

S S+ 73'!: 489 5I9S + 5-A;I organi%ations and t*e relations*ip of general systems t*eory to

education pro0ides information on t*e components of organi%ations and e>plains *ow t*e

organi%ational model fits t*e field of education. In addition2 t*e ?readt* contains a description of

general systems t*eory and its application to education2 including an analysis of differences

?etween open and closed systems and suggestions regarding w*ic* system ?est descri?es t*e

education system.


3/140

A S45A64

9D/6 73(7: 6/559;4 59S9A568 I; 5-A;I


4/140

A S45A64

9D/6 7137: P5 +9SSI ;A) P5A64I69 I; K&'( 9D/6A4I ;A) 5-A;Iplain t*e laws of t*ermodynamics and t*eir use in ?usiness and

industry. It will demonstrate t*e use of entropy and organi%ationEdisorgani%ation as laid out in

t*e laws of t*ermodynamics. +ollowing t*is2 t*e demonstration will s*ow t*e impact of SengeBs

systems t*in ing on ?usiness and industry. 4*e final section will demonstrate *ow t*e laws of

t*ermodynamics and t*e fift* discipline can ?e applied in t*e field of education.


5/140

4A )9 + 6 ;49;4SBREADTH....................................................................................................................1SBSF 8310: THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS..........................1

Introduction................................................................................................................................'

)earning rgani%ations..............................................................................................................'

W*at Is an rgani%ationF...........................................................................................................1

Structure o t!e Le"r#$#% Or%"#$&"t$o#.......................................................... .' Te"( Le"r#$#%......................................................................................... .......)Le"r#$#% D$*"+$,$t$e* $# Or%"#$&"t$o#*................................................. ............8C"-"c$t to Le"r#.................................................................................. ........10

Society as an rgani%ation.......................................................................................................''

Systems 4*eory........................................................................................................................'$

C,o*e/ "#/ O-e# S *te(*.............................................................................1) T"* o Ge#er", S *te(* T!eor ...................................................................1 T!eor o Hu("# Be!"2$or............................................................................ 0

Systems 4*in ing.....................................................................................................................('

4*e +i0e Disciplines................................................................................................................((

6*allenges of Initiating 6*ange...............................................................................................($

4*ree Kinds of Power: A 6omparati0e Dimension.................................................................(G

Nor("t$2e 4o5er........................................................................................... )

Coerc$2e 4o5er............................................................................................. 8Re(u#er"t$2e 4o5er................................................................................ .....4*e 9ducation System as a ;ormati0e rgani%ational Structure............................................3!

Summary..................................................................................................................................31

DE4TH 36ED7C 83 8: C7RRENT RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS........36

Annotated i?liograp*y...........................................................................................................3$

)iterature 5e0iew 9ssay..........................................................................................................G!

Sc!oo, "* " S *te(............................................................................. ..........)0Or%"#$&"t$o#", C!"#%e $# t!e or orce.......................................................)Or%"#$&"t$o#", Mer%er*.................................................................................)9Or%"#$&"t$o#", Re",$t ............................................................................. ......)'Or%"#$&"t$o#", C!"#%e $# t!e H$%! Sc!oo,.............................................. ......)8Le"/er*!$- "#/ Or%"#$&"t$o#", C!"#%e.........................................................86

rgani%ational 6*ange and Sc*ool 5eform............................................................................7G

E#tre-re#eur$", Le"/er*!$-........................................................................... 1

ii


6/140

Or%"#$&"t$o#", Cu,ture...................................................................... ............rgani%ational 6*ange in 8ig*er 9ducation..........................................................................."1

Summary.................................................................................................................................."G

A44LICATION...........................................................................................................100ED7C 8338: 4ROFESSIONAL 4RACTICE IN ;1 ED7CATION ORGANIZATION........ .100

Introduction............................................................................................................................'!!

ac ground............................................................................................................................'!!

Systems 4*in ing 4*eory......................................................................................................'!'

Difficulties in Practicing Systems 4*in ing..........................................................................'!(

4*e Program...........................................................................................................................'!1

Second )aw of 4*ermodynamics..........................................................................................'!$

PowerPoint Demonstration....................................................................................................'!"

Summary................................................................................................................................'!"

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................1 )

iii


7/140

59AD48S S+ 73'!: 489 5I9S + 5-A;Iamine t*e roles of t*e learning organi%ation and t*e relations*ip oft*e general systems t*eory to t*e pu?lic education system. 4*e readt* component contains an

analysis and e0aluation of t*e wor s of classical t*eorists )udwig 0on ertalanffy2 Amitai

9t%ioni2 and Peter Senge. A comparison and contrast of t*e ma or t*eoretical concepts of t*ese

aut*ors results in a summary of t*e ways in w*ic* t*eir t*eories impact t*e structure of t*e

education system. Included in t*e readt* component is a discussion of *istorical and

contemporary wor s to gi0e a ?road range of perspecti0es.

)earning rgani%ations

Senge C'""! stated t*at learning organi%ations are places Hw*ere people continually

e>pand t*eir capacity to create t*e results t*ey truly desire2 w*ere new and e>pansi0e patterns of

t*in ing are nurtured2 w*ere collecti0e aspiration is set free2 and w*ere people are continually

learning to see t*e w*ole toget*er Cp. 3 . If t*e mem?ers of an organi%ation wor as a group2

t*ey will direct t*eir efforts toward a s*ared goal or 0ision. It is t*roug* colla?orati0e effort t*at

t*ey will continue to stri0e for t*eir 0ision. 4*eir success or failure is not t*e pointJ rat*er2 t*e

point is t*at t*ey are wor ing toget*er to reac* t*eir desired goal. 4*e ?asic rationale for suc*

?e*a0ior is t*at in situations of rapid c*ange2 only organi%ations t*at are fle>i?le2 adapti0e2 and

producti0e will e>cel. +or t*is to *appen2 Senge argued t*at organi%ations need to Hdisco0er *ow

to tap into peopleBs commitment and capacity to learn at all le0els Cp. 1 . 8e also commented:

)earning organi%ations are possi?le ?ecause deep down we are all learners. ;o one *as to teac*

an infant to learn. )earning organi%ations are possi?le ?ecause not only is it our nature to learn

?ut we lo0e to learn. ne could argue t*at t*e entire glo?al ?usiness community is learning to


8/140

(

learn toget*er2 we are ?ecoming a learning community. Cp. $ . Alt*oug* all people *a0e t*e

capacity to learn2 t*e structures in w*ic* t*ey function may not ?e conduci0e to reflection and

engagement. +urt*ermore2 people may lac t*e tools and guiding principles to ma e meaning of

t*e situations t*at t*ey face. rgani%ations t*at e>pand t*eir capacity to ensure t*eir future

re uire t*at t*eir mem?ers e>perience a fundamental s*ift in t*eir mindset. Senge C'""!

e>plained:W*en you as people a?out w*at it is li e ?eing part of a great team2 w*at is most

stri ing is t*e meaningfulness of t*e e>perience. People tal a?out ?eing part of somet*ing larger

t*an t*emsel0es2 of ?eing connected2 of ?eing generati0e. It ?ecomes uite clear t*at2 for many2

t*eir e>perience as part of truly great teams stand out as singular periods of life li0ed to t*efullest. Some spend t*e rest of t*eir li0es loo ing for ways to recapture t*at spirit. Cp. '3

rgani%ations nurture new and e>plorati0e patterns of t*in ing2 ?elie0ing t*at indi0iduals

s*ould loo at situations or pro?lems from different perspecti0es to find new solutions. 4*e

desires of t*e group must ?ecome independent and li?erated2 and people must feel t*at t*ey *a0e

c*oices in *ow t*ey intend to ac*ie0e t*eir goal. Sometimes2 t*is re uires a c*ange in ways of

t*in ing. As c*ildren2 people learnJ as adults2 t*ey continue to learn a?out new ideas2 t*oug*ts2

or processes. It is t*roug* t*is colla?orati0e learning organi%ation t*at people e>plore2 e>c*ange2

and ac*ie0e t*e desired goals. 4*e organi%ations t*at succeed will now *ow to support peopleBs

commitment and t*eir capacity to learn at all le0els.

)earning organi%ations are different from traditional and aut*oritarian2 controlling

organi%ations. In aut*oritarian2 controlling organi%ations2 t*e Hw*o is more important t*an t*e

Hw*at. ne person can determine anot*erBs professional future2 and t*ere is little recourse to

t*at determination. 4*e wielding of power o0er ot*ers is t*e essence of an aut*oritarian

organi%ation. In aut*oritarian organi%ations2 t*e centrali%ation of aut*ority means t*at t*ose at


9/140

3

t*e top of t*e *ierarc*y will ?e far more influential t*an t*ose at t*e ?ottom2 e0en t*oug* ?etter

solutions to e>isting pro?lems may actually lie in t*e *ands of t*ose wit* less aut*ority. Senge

C'""! used t*e terms enrollment and commitment to descri?e t*e indi0iduals w*o ?elong to

learning organi%ations. 8e felt t*at people must enroll in a 0ision if t*ey truly ?elie0e in it.

Systems2 not e>ternal forces or indi0idual mista es2 can sometimes precipitate t*eir own

pro?lems. In *uman systems2 structure includes t*e perceptions2 goals2 rules2 and norms t*at

people use to ma e decisions. Structure2 for e>ample2 produces ?e*a0ior. 4*e organi%ation can

*a0e an influence on ?e*a0ior t*at is prompted ?y structure ?ecause t*e students are taug*t t*e

goals and norms of t*e organi%ation. Perception2 goals2 and norms in an organi%ation are agreedupon ?y repetition and practice. 6*anging t*e structure can produce different patterns of

?e*a0ior. ecause structure in *uman systems includes perceptions2 goals2 rules2 and norms2

redesigning oneBs own decision&ma ing ?e*a0iors redesigns t*e system structure.

4*e world does not comprise separate2 unrelated forces2 ?ut people sometimes *a0e

difficulty seeing t*e w*ole structure. Systems t*in ing is a conceptual framewor comprising a

?ody of nowledge and tools t*at people *a0e de0eloped o0er t*e past $! years to clarify

patterns and facilitate an understanding of *ow to c*ange t*ings effecti0ely and wit* t*e least

amount of effort. asically2 systems t*in ing is a?out finding t*e le0erage points in any system.

ne of SengeBs C'""! contri?utions to t*e fift* discipline2 or systems t*in ing2 is

personal mastery2 t*e discipline of redefining and s*aping a personal 0ision. Personal mastery

includes c*anneling energies2 practicing patience2 and seeing reality in a new way. 4*is

discipline starts w*en people clarify w*at really matters to t*em and ?egin to see t*eir *ig*est

aspirations.


10/140

1

ecause of t*e pressure from people in positions of aut*ority2 indi0iduals at t*e lower

le0el of an organi%ation feel constrained. Deeply ingrained assumptions2 generali%ations2 or

images influence *ow t*ey understand and ta e action in t*e world. Inner reflection can *elp

people to identify internal images of t*e world2 ?ring t*ese images to t*e surface2 and *old t*em

up to scrutiny. W*en a pro?lem arises2 people often point a finger at ot*ers2 ?ut in order to ?ring

a?out effecti0e c*ange2 t*ey need to identify t*e source of t*e pro?lem and reinterpret t*eir

0iews of w*at *appened.

90ery learning organi%ation *as a s*ared 0ision in w*ic* e0eryone is enrolled and

committed to ac*ie0ing. 4*is 0ision is one t*at people are compelled to attain for t*eir own aswell as t*e organi%ationBs impro0ement. If t*e organi%ation is see ing a 0ision under t*e prete>t

of compliance2 it is sure to fail ?ecause once t*is 0ision is accomplis*ed2 t*ere is not*ing else to

attain. 5eal learning gets to t*e *eart of w*at it is to ?e *uman ?ecause it allows people to

recreate t*emsel0es. 4*us2 for learning organi%ations2 it is not enoug* merely to sur0i0e. Senge

C'""! commented2 HSur0i0al learning or w*at is more often termed Ladapti0e learningB is

important2 indeed it is necessary. ut for a learning organi%ation2 Ladapti0e learningB must ?e

oined ?y Lgenerati0e learning2B learning t*at en*ances our capacity to create Cp. '1 .

W*at Is an rgani%ationF

rgani%ations are systems2 and li0ing organisms are essentially open systems ?ecause

t*ey e>c*ange matter wit* t*eir en0ironment C ertalanffy2 '"#" . 6on0entional p*ysics and

p*ysical c*emistry *a0e dealt wit* closed systems2 w*ic* are isolated from t*eir en0ironment2

and only in recent years *as t*eory included irre0ersi?le processes2 open systems2 and states of

dise uili?rium. P*ysical c*emistry e>plains t*e reactions2 t*eir rates2 and t*e c*emical

e uili?rium e0entually esta?lis*ed in a closed 0essel. 4*e laws of t*ermodynamics apply only to


11/140

$

closed systems. In particular2 t*e second principle of t*ermodynamics is t*at in a closed system2

a certain uantity2 entropy2 must increase to a ma>imumJ e0entually2 t*e process stops w*en it

reac*es a state of e uili?rium. 4*e second principle states t*at entropy is a measure of

pro?a?ility. 4*us2 a closed system tends toward a state of most pro?a?le distri?ution2 for

e>ample2 in a mi>ture of red and ?lue glass ?eads or in molecules t*at *a0e different 0elocities.

ot* are in a state of complete disorder2 so separating all of t*e red ?eads from t*e ?lue ?eads in

a closed space2 or placing2 for e>ample2 all fast molecules at a *ig* temperature on t*e rig*t side

and all slow ones at a low temperature on t*e left in a closed container is a *ig*ly impro?a?le

outcome.W*en applying t*e model of open systems to t*e p*enomena of animal growt*2 it

?ecomes clear t*at t*e t*eory refers not to p*ysical2 ?ut ?iological2 units. 4*e same is true in t*e

fields of cy?ernetics and information t*eory2 ?ot* of w*ic* *a0e garnered so muc* recent

attention. 90ery li0ing organism is essentially an open system. 4*e c*emical processes wit*in

li0ing cells represent t*e fundamental p*enomenon of life: meta?olism. In principle2 t*e

con0entional formulations of p*ysics are inapplica?le to t*e li0ing organism open system and

steady state2 and one may well suspect t*at many c*aracteristics of li0ing systems t*at are

parado>ical in 0iew of t*e laws of p*ysics are a conse uence of t*is.

;ot only does t*e open system *a0e t*e a?ility to restore its steady state after a

distur?ance2 ?ut it also s*ows e uifinality. In most p*ysical systems2 t*e initial conditions

determine t*e final state. +or e>ample2 t*e final concentrations of a c*emical e uili?rium depend

on t*e initial ones. If t*ere is a c*ange in eit*er t*e initial conditions or t*e process2 t*e final state

is altered. ital p*enomena s*ow a different ?e*a0ior in t*at t*e final state may ?e attained from


12/140

#

different initial conditions and in different ways. Analysis *as s*own t*at closed systems cannot

?e*a0e e uifinally.

roadly spea ing2 ertalanffy C'"G$ identified t*ree aspects of t*e open system t*at are

not separa?le in content2 ?ut distinguis*a?le in intention. 4*e first is systems science2 t*e

scientific e>ploration and t*eory of systems in t*e 0arious sciences and general systems t*eory as

a doctrine of principles applied to all stems. ertalanffy stated2 H-eneral systems t*eory is Nt*eO

scientific e>ploration of Lw*olesB and Lw*olenessB w*ic* not so long ago2 were considered to ?e

metap*ysical notions transcending t*e ?oundaries of science Cp. '$G . System refers to t*e

general c*aracteristics of a large class of entities2 con0entionally treated in different disciplines.4*e interdisciplinary nature of general systems t*eory pertains to formal or structural

communalities a?stracting from t*e Hnature of elements and forces in t*e system C ertalanffy2

'"G$2 p. '$" 2 wit* w*ic* t*e special sciences are concerned. In ot*er words2 system&t*eoretical

arguments pertain to and *a0e predicti0e 0alue insofar as general structures are concerned.

Similar considerations apply to t*e concept of organi%ation. Atoms2 crystals2 or molecules are

organi%ations. In ?iology2 organisms are2 ?y definition2 organi%ed entities. Alt*oug* t*ere is

copious data on ?iological organi%ation from ?ioc*emistry2 cytology2 *istology2 and anatomy2

t*ere is no t*eory of ?iological organi%ation2 t*at is2 a conceptual model t*at e>plains t*e

empirical facts. 4*e c*aracteristics of an organi%ation2 w*et*er of a li0ing organism or a society2

include t*e concepts of w*oleness2 growt*2 differentiation2 *ierarc*ical order2 dominance2

control2 and competition. Suc* notions do not appear in con0entional p*ysics.

Structure of the Learning Organization

9t%ioni C'"#' defined t*e learning organi%ation as Han organi%ation t*at is continually

e>panding its capacity to create its future Cp. ( . 8e suggested t*at one s*ould not e uate formal


13/140


14/140


15/140

"

difficult issues2 stop waiting for someone else to do somet*ing2 and sol0e pro?lems

?efore t*ey grow into crises.

4*e +i>ation on 90ents: 4*e primary t*reats to our sur0i0al2 ?ot* of our organi%ations

and of our societies2 come not from sudden e0ents ?ut from slow2 gradual processes .t*e

erosion of a societyBs pu?lic education system2 results from slow2 gradual processes.

4*e Para?le of t*e oiled +rog: If you place a frog in a pot of ?oiling water2 it will

immediately try to scram?le out. ut if you place t*e frog in room temperature water2 and

donBt scare *im2 *eBll stay put. ;ow2 if t*e pot sits on a *eat source2 and if you gradually

turn up t*e temperature2 somet*ing 0ery interesting *appens .t*e frog will do not*ing.In fact2 *e will s*ow e0ery sign of en oying *imself. As t*e temperature gradually

increases2 t*e frog will ?ecome groggier and groggier2 until it is una?le to clim? out of

t*e pot. 4*oug* t*ere is not*ing restraining *im2 t*e frog will sit t*ere and ?oil ?ecause

t*e frogBs internal apparatus for sensing t*reats to sur0i0al is geared to sudden c*anges in

*is en0ironment2 not to slow2 gradual c*anges .)earning to see slow2 gradual processes

re uires slowing down our frenetic pace and paying attention to su?tle as well as t*e

dramatic.

4*e Delusion of )earning from 9>perience: 4*e most powerful learning comes from

direct e>perience. We learn ?est from e>perience ?ut we ne0er directly e>perience t*e

conse uences of many of our most important decisions.

4*e Myt* of t*e Management 4eam: 4*e management team2 t*e collection of confident2

e>perienced managers w*o represent t*e organi%ationBs different functions and areas of

e>pertise .are supposed to sort out t*e comple> cross&functional issues t*at are critical

to t*e organi%ation. 4eams in ?usiness tend to spend t*eir time a0oiding anyt*ing t*at


16/140

'!

will ma e t*em loo ?ad personally and pretending t*at e0eryone is ?e*ind t*e teamBs

collecti0e strategy2 t*us maintaining t*e superficial appearance of a co*esi0e team. Most

management teams ?rea down under pressure .4*e team may function uite well wit*

routine issues. ut w*en t*ey confront comple> issues t*at may ?e em?arrassing or

t*reatening2 t*e LteamnessB seems to go to pot. CArgyris2 as cited in Senge2 '""!2 pp. '7&

($ . People in t*e same system tend to produce similar results. 4*e systems perspecti0e

re uires t*at people loo ?eyond indi0idual mista es2 personalities2 e0ents2 or e0en ?ad

luc to understand important pro?lems. 4*ey must loo into t*e underlying structures

t*at s*ape indi0idual actions and create t*e conditions w*ere certain types of e0ents ?ecome li ely.

Capacity to Learn

In a learning organi%ation2 t*e leaders are t*e designers and t*e teac*ers w*o are

responsi?le for ?uilding organi%ations t*at allow people to e>pand t*eir capa?ilities to

understand comple>ity2 clarify 0ision2 and impro0e s*ared mental models. 4*ey are responsi?le

for learning. )earning organi%ations will remain merely a good idea until people ta e a stand for

?uilding suc* organi%ations and inspiring t*eir 0ision.

+or Senge C'""! 2 real learning allows people and organi%ations to recreate t*emsel0es.

+or a learning organi%ation2 it is not enoug* to sur0i0e. Senge agreed t*at sur0i0al learning2 or

adapti0e learning2 is important2 ?ut for a learning organi%ation2 Hadapti0e learning must ?e oined

?y Lgenerati0e learning2B learning t*at en*ances our capacity to create Cp. '1 . 8e contended

t*at t*e a?ility of t*e systems t*eory to compre*end and address t*e w*ole2 and to e>amine t*e

interrelations*ip ?etween and among t*e parts2 is t*e way to integrate t*e fi0e disciplines.


17/140

''

People often loo to actions t*at produce impro0ements in a relati0ely s*ort time.

8owe0er2 from a systems perspecti0e2 s*ort&term impro0ements may in0ol0e significant long&

term costs. +or e>ample2 cutting ?ac on researc* and design can ?ring uic cost sa0ings2 ?ut

t*ey also can se0erely damage t*e long&term feasi?ility of an organi%ation. Part of t*e pro?lem is

t*e nature of t*e feed?ac pro0ided. Some of it is Nself&Oreinforcing2 wit* small c*anges ?uilding

on t*emsel0es. HW*ate0er mo0ement occurs is amplified2 producing more mo0ement in t*e same

direction. A small action snow?alls2 wit* more and more and still more of t*e same resem?ling

compound interest CSenge2 '""!2 p. 7' .

Society as an rgani%ationAlmost 3! years ?efore Senge2 9t%ioni C'"#' too a similar approac* to organi%ational

structure. In '"#'2 *e defined an organi%ation as a social unit de0oted primarily to t*e attainment

of specific goals. In '"#12 *e asserted t*at society is an organi%ation and t*at people are educated

?y organi%ations. Modern society places a *ig* moral 0alue on rationality2 effecti0eness2 and

efficiency. 9t%ioni felt t*at modern ci0ili%ation depends on organi%ations as t*e most rational and

efficient form of social grouping. 8e 0iewed organi%ations as powerful social tools.

rgani%ations are not a modern in0ention. 4*e p*arao*s of 9gypt used organi%ations to

?uild t*e pyramids2 t*e emperors of 6*ina used organi%ations to construct great irrigation

systems2 and t*e first popes created a uni0ersal c*urc* to ser0e a world religion. 9t%ioni C'"#1

stated2 HModern organi%ations *a0e more organi%ations fulfilling a 0ariety of societal and

personal needs Cp. ( . Modern society *as so many organi%ations t*at it re uires a w*ole tier of

second&order organi%ations to organi%e and super0ise t*em.

;ot all t*at en*ances rationality reduces *appiness2 and not all t*at increases *appiness

reduces efficiency. rgani%ations use *uman resources to ac*ie0e t*eir goals2 so t*e less t*at


18/140

'(

organi%ations alienate t*eir personnel2 t*e more efficient t*e employees ?ecome. 8appiness

*eig*tens efficiency in organi%ationsJ inefficient organi%ations cannot sustain a producti0e

standard of li0ing2 an ele0ated le0el of culture2 and a democratic society. In many ways2

organi%ational rationality and *uman *appiness are engaged in a sym?iotic relations*ip t*at

pro0ides ?enefits to ?ot*.

4*e pro?lem wit* modern organi%ations2 according to 9t%ioni C'"#1 2 is t*at t*ey must

construct *uman groupings t*at are as rational as possi?le w*ile producing a minimum of

undesira?le side effects and a ma>imum of satisfaction. 9t%ioni noted2 H rgani%ations are social

units deli?erately constructed and reconstructured to see specific goals. Sc*ools are an e>ampleof an organi%ation Cp. 3 . rgani%ations *a0e di0isions of la?or2 power2 and communication

responsi?ilities t*at are not random or traditionally patterned. 4*ey are deli?erately planned to

en*ance t*e reali%ation of specific goals. rgani%ations *a0e one or more power centers t*at

control t*e concerted efforts of t*e organi%ations and direct t*em toward t*eir goals.

9t%ioni C'"#1 stated:

4*e goals of organi%ations are to pro0ide orientation ?y depicting a future t*atorgani%ations want to reali%e. 4*ey set down guidelines for organi%ational acti0ity. -oalsser0e as standards ?y w*ic* mem?ers of an organi%ation and outsiders can assess t*esuccess of t*e organi%ation2 t*at is2 its effecti0eness and efficiency. Cp. $

9t%ioni also asserted t*at anot*er goal is t*e state t*at organi%ations attempt to reali%e2 e0en

t*oug* t*e attempt may not ?e successful. If t*e goals are reac*ed2 t*ey are assimilated into t*e

organi%ations or t*eir en0ironment. 8owe0er2 w*ose image of t*e future does t*e organi%ation

pursue: t*at of top e>ecuti0es2 t*e ?oard of directors2 t*e trustees2 or t*e ma ority of t*e

sta e*olders. Actually2 organi%ations do not ascri?e to any of t*ese images. 4*e organi%ational

goals are t*e future state t*at organi%ations stri0e to reali%e collecti0ely.


19/140


20/140


21/140

'$

Systems 4*eory

Senge was not t*e first to identify organi%ations as systems. A 8ungarian ?iologist2

)udwig 0on ertalanffy2 de0eloped t*e general systems t*eory2 w*ic* was esta?lis*ed as a

science in t*e '"$!s. Systems t*eory studies t*e structure and properties of systems in terms of

t*e relations*ips from w*ic* new properties or w*oles emerge. Systems t*eory unites t*e

t*eoretical principles and concepts of ontology2 science2 p*ysics2 ?iology2 and engineering. 4*e

t*eory *as ?een applied in geograp*y2 sociology2 political science2 organi%ational t*eory2

management2 psyc*ot*erapy2 economics2 and more. It is fitting to discuss ertalanffyBs general

systems t*eory ?ecause it *as made a significant contri?ution to organi%ational t*eory andmanagement2 t*e two foci of t*is paper. ertalanffy wor ed to identify structural2 ?e*a0ioral2

and de0elopmental features common to particular classes of li0ing organisms. According to

)as%lo Cas cited in ertalanffy2 '"G$ 2 ertalanffy opened up

Somet*ing muc* ?roader and of muc* greater significance t*an a single t*eoryJ *e created a new

paradigm for t*e de0elopment of t*eories. 4*ese t*eories are and will ?e system&t*eories2 for

t*ey deal wit* systemic p*enomena&organisms2 population2 ecologies2 groups and societies. Cpp.

'(&'3

ertalanffyBs C'"#" researc* e0ol0ed into t*e general systems t*eory. 8e defines a

general system as any t*eoretical system t*at is of interest to more t*an one discipline. 8e ?ased

t*is new 0ision of reality on an awareness of t*e essential interrelatedness and interdependence

of all p*ysical2 ?iological2 psyc*ological2 social2 or cultural p*enomena. 4*e systems 0iew

percei0es t*e world as relations*ips and integrations. Systems are integrated w*oles2 w*ose

properties cannot ?e reduced to t*ose of smaller units. Instead of concentrating on ?asic ?uilding

?loc s or su?stances2 t*e systems approac* emp*asi%es t*e principles of organi%ation. 90ery


22/140

'#

organism is an integrated w*ole and2 t*us2 a li0ing system. In ertalanffyBs 0iew2 *uman sur0i0al

was t*e paramount purpose for *is de0elopment of t*e general systems t*eory. ecause of a lac

of et*ical and ecological criteria for *uman affairs2 people seem to ?e concerned only wit* t*e

management of larger profits for a small minority of pri0ileged *umans.

ertalanffy C'"#" commented:

4*e need for a general system consciousness was a matter of life and deat*2 not ust forus ?ut also for all future generations on our planet. 8e ad0ocated a new glo?al morality2an et*os t*at does not center on indi0idual 0alues alone2 ?ut on t*e adaptation ofman ind2 as a glo?al system2 to its new en0ironment. Cp. >>i

Models2 principles2 and laws apply to generali%ed systems or t*eir su?classes2 irrespecti0e oft*eir particular ind2 t*e nature of t*eir component elements2 and t*e relation or forces ?etween

t*em. It seems legitimate to as for a t*eory2 not of systems of a more or less special ind2 ?ut of

uni0ersal principles applying to systems in general. In t*is way2 ertalanffy postulated a new

discipline called general systems t*eory2 w*ose su?stance is t*e formulation and deri0ation of

t*e principles t*at are 0alid for systems2 in general.

An organi%ation is a system2 so t*e general systems t*eory is applica?le to it. 6oncepts

similar to t*at of an organi%ation are alien to con0entional p*ysicsJ *owe0er2 t*ey appear

e0eryw*ere in t*e ?iological2 ?e*a0ioral2 and social sciences2 and t*ey are indispensa?le for

dealing wit* li0ing organisms or social groups. A ?asic pro?lem facing modern science is a

general t*eory of organi%ation. -eneral systems t*eory is2 in principle2 capa?le of pro0iding

definitions for suc* concepts and putting t*em up to uantitati0e analysis. -eneral systems

t*eory is a general science of w*oleness:

'. 4*ere is a general tendency towards integration in t*e 0arious sciences natural and

social.


23/140

'G

(. Suc* integration seems to ?e centered in a general t*eory of systems.

3. Suc* t*eory may ?e an important means of aiming at e>act t*eory in t*e

nonp*ysical fields of science.

De0eloping unifying principles running 0ertically t*roug* t*e uni0erse of t*e

indi0idual sciences2 t*is t*eory ?rings us nearer to t*e goal of t*e unity of science.

4*is can lead to a muc* needed integration in scientific education. C ertalanffy2

'"#"2 p. 37

Closed and Open Systems

6on0entional p*ysics deals only wit* closed systems2 meaning t*at t*ey are isolated from

t*eir en0ironment. 8owe0er2 some systems are not closed systems simply ?ecause of t*eir nature

and definition. 90ery li0ing organism is essentially an open system t*at maintains itself in a so&

called steady state. It is only in recent years t*at an e>pansion of p*ysics in order to include open

systems *as ta en place. 4*e t*eory of open systems *as s*ed lig*t on many o?scure p*enomena

in p*ysics and ?iology and *as led to important general conclusions. ertalanffy C'"#"

e>plained:

A general model of an Lopen systemB causes a contradiction ?etween t*e t*ermodynamics

of li0ing organisms and t*e second law of t*ermodynamics. An open system t*at imports

free energy or negati0e entropy from t*e outside can legitimately proceed toward states

of increasing order. Cp. $(


24/140

'7

4*e t*eory of open systems deals wit* t*e laws go0erning reactions in closed systems2 w*ic* do

not e>c*ange matter wit* t*eir en0ironment. 4*ese laws are solely concerned wit* reactions and

steady states e0entually reac*ed in suc* closed systems. ertalanffy C'"G$ stated:

I t*erefore *ad to ela?orate some principles for reaction inetic in open systems and t*ey produced some surprising results. 4*is de0elopment was facilitated during t*e last ($years ?y an e>pansion of t*ermodynamics2 w*ic* now includes irre0ersi?le processes andopen systems in a generali%ed t*ermodynamic approac*. Cp. 11

4*e ?iop*ysics of open systems is important for t*e simple reason t*at t*e con0entional

t*eory of closed systems is not applica?le to li0ing organisms. Suc* studies of open systems *a0e

promoted important generali%ations of p*ysical t*eory so t*at including li0ing systems into

science *as led to new formulations of p*ysical laws not pre0iously co0ered ?y con0entional

p*ysics. 4*ese generali%ations *a0e concerned pro?lems considered ?eyond scientific

e>planation and p*ysical laws.

4*e t*eory of open systems teac*es somet*ing completely different. It s*ows t*at an

e uifinal process is always ?ound to occur w*ene0er an open system is approac*ing its steady

state following a distur?ance. A li0ing organism2 suc* as an organi%ation2 maintains itself in a

state of *ig*est organi%ation in a state of fantastic impro?a?ility. ertalanffy C'"G$ commented:

4*e apparent 0iolation of p*ysical laws in t*e animate world disappears wit* t*e

generali%ation of t*ermodynamics and its application to open systems. +or in an open

system2 we o?ser0e not only entropy production t*roug* irre0ersi?le processes2 ?ut also a

transport of entropy2 w*ic* may 0ery well ?e negati0e. W*ile t*e entropy c*ange in a

closed system is always a positi0e2 t*e entropy ?alance in an open system can ?e

negati0e. +or t*is reason2 a li0ing system in steady state can maintain an impro?a?le state

of *ig* organi%ation. It may e0en de0elop and reac* le0els of *ig*er *eterogeneity and

organi%ation2 as it *appens in em?ryogenesis and p*ylogenies. Cp. 1#


25/140

'"

ertalanffy also contended t*at ci0ili%ations are not organisms li e plants or

animals. 4*e concept and model of a system *as ?een central to recent de0elopments in

t*e social sciences2 as s*own ?y American functionalism in sociology. Prosaic

p*enomena suc* as ur?an de0elopment appear to flow as life cycles and system laws t*at

can ?e represented ?y mat*ematical e uations.

Task of General Systems Theory

4*e tas of t*e general systems t*eory is to study t*e c*aracteristics of general systems

and to concentrate on t*ose aspects of reality t*at are inaccessi?le to con0entional scientific

treatment: organi%ation2 *ierarc*y2 and competition. Starting wit* t*e formal concept of systemas a comple> of interacting components2 and wit* t*e *elp of relati0ely simple mat*ematical

met*ods2 one may not only de0elop a?stract t*eorems ?ut also apply t*em successfully to

concrete p*enomena Ce.g.2 t*e educational organi%ation . 5esearc*ers are only at t*e ?eginning

of t*is new de0elopment2 and a strict systemati%ation depends on future researc*.

4*e goal of general systems t*eory is clearly circumscri?ed. It aims to ?e a general t*eory

of w*oleness of entire systems in w*ic* t*e many 0aria?les interact and w*ose organi%ation

produces strong interactions. -eneral systems t*eory does not deal wit* isolated processes2 wit*

relations ?etween two or a few 0aria?les2 or wit* linear causal relationsJ t*ese are t*e domain of

classical science. Suc* a t*eory ?ecame possi?le only after researc*ers *ad o0ercome

mec*anistic pre udices and *ad a?andoned mec*anistic metap*ysics. 4*e distinction ?etween t*e

specific c*aracteristics of open and closed systems plays a special role in general systems t*eory2

w*ose applications range from t*e ?iop*ysics of cellular processes to t*e dynamics of

populations2 from t*e pro?lems of fis*eries to t*ose of ?e*a0ioral science2 and from t*e pro?lems

of psyc*iatry to t*ose of political and cultural units. -eneral systems t*eory is symptomatic of a


26/140

(!

c*ange in world0iew: 4*e world is no longer a ?lind play of atoms2 ?ut rat*er a great

organi%ation

Theory of Human Behavior

4*ere *a0e ?een few attempts to apply general systems t*eory in a narrow sense to t*e

t*eory of *uman ?e*a0ior. Personality t*eory is an area of contrasting and contro0ersial t*eories.

All t*eories of ?e*a0ior lac scientific proof2 and t*e general systems t*eory cannot ?e e>pected

to pro0ide solutions. 4*e t*eory will *a0e s*own its 0alue if it can open new perspecti0es and

0iewpoints capa?le of e>perimental and practical application. ertalanffy C'"#" 2 w*en as ed

w*et*er general systems t*eory is essentially a p*ysicalistic simile inapplica?le to psyc*ic p*enomena2 responded:

4*e system concept is a?stract and general enoug* to permit application to entities ofw*ate0er denomination. System t*eorists agree t*at t*e concept of LsystemB is not limitedto material entities ?ut can ?e applied to any Lw*oleB consisting of interactingcomponents. Cp. '!$

ertalanffy C'"#" also stated t*at in t*e field of p*ilosop*y of *istory2 one mig*t2

per*aps2 spea of t*eoretical *istory2 admittedly in its ?eginnings. 4*is term e>presses t*e aim of

lin ing science and t*e *umanities2 particularly t*e social sciences and *istory. 4*e researc*

tec*ni ues in sociology and *istory are entirely different2 ?ut t*eir o? ecti0e is essentially t*e

same. Sociology is concerned wit* *ow *uman societies are2 w*ereas *istory see s to determine

*ow societies de0eloped and continue to e0ol0e. -eneral systems t*eory *as contri?uted to t*e

e>pansion of scientific t*eory2 *as led to new insig*ts and principles2 and *as identified new

pro?lems t*at re uire furt*er e>perimental or mat*ematical study. 4*e limitations of t*e t*eory

and its applications in different fields are e0ident2 ?ut t*e principles are essentially sound.


27/140

('

4*e *ierarc*ical structure of mind de0elopment *as its roots in ertalanffyBs C'"#"

general systems t*eory. 4*e structure of mind de0elopment can ?e fully grasped from t*e

perspecti0e of *is t*eory. ertalanffy ?ecame dissatisfied wit* reducti0e e>planations for t*e

?e*a0ior of li0ing organisms. 8is answer to t*ese o?ser0ations was t*at life is primarily a system

of self&organi%ation2 a de0elopmental unfolding at progressi0ely *ig*er le0els of differentiation

and organi%ed comple>ity. 4*ese w*oles are not reduci?le to t*eir parts ?ecause t*e factor of life

depends upon t*e interaction of t*e parts as a systemJ t*erefore2 t*e w*ole is more t*an t*e sum

of its parts CSenge2 '""! .

4*e organi%ation is dynamic2 not static2 and open2 not closed. It searc*es spontaneouslyand acti0ely for stimulation rat*er t*an waiting passi0ely to respond. It is not difficult to apply

ertalanffyBs C'"#" t*eory to t*e organi%ational structure of t*e pu?lic education system2 w*ic*

is an open system ?y design. 9ducation comprises many parts2 yet t*e w*ole education system is

more t*an t*e sum of t*ese parts. Systems t*in ing plays a dominant role in areas ranging from

industrial enterprise and armaments to esoteric topics of pure science. Professions and o?s *a0e

appeared as systems design2 systems analysis2 and systems engineering2 to name ?ut a few.

Systems 4*in ing

Practicing a discipline is different from emulating a model. ;ew management

inno0ations are t*e promising practices of leading firmsJ *owe0er2 suc* a description may do

more *arm t*an good2 leading to piecemeal copying and catc*&up strategies. Systems t*in ing is

t*e fift* discipline ?ecause it integrates t*e ot*er disciplines of a s*ared 0ision2 mental models2

team learning2 and personal mastery2 and fuses t*em into a co*erent ?ody of t*eory and practice.

In systems t*in ing2 t*e w*ole can e>ceed t*e sum of its parts. A 0ision wit*out systems t*in ing

lac s t*e deep understanding of t*e forces necessary to mo0e forward.


28/140

((

Systems t*in ing integrates t*e disciplines of a s*ared 0ision2 mental models2 team

learning2 and personal mastery to reali%e its potential. Mental models identify s*ortcomings in

t*e manner in w*ic* people see t*e world. 4eam learning de0elops t*e s ills of people so t*at

t*ey can loo for t*e representation t*at lies ?eyond indi0idual perspecti0es. Personal mastery

fosters t*e moti0ation of people to learn *ow t*eir actions affect t*e world. Systems t*in ing

defines t*e su?tlest aspects of t*e learning organi%ation2 a place w*ere people can disco0er *ow

t*ey can create and c*ange t*eir reality.

4*e +i0e Disciplines

W*at distinguis*es learning organi%ations from more traditional organi%ations is t*emastery of certain ?asic disciplines2 or component tec*nologies. 4*e fi0e disciplines t*at Senge

C'""! identified as con0erging in inno0ati0e learning organi%ations are systems t*in ing2

personal mastery2 mental models2 a s*ared 0ision2 and team learning. Senge added t*at people

are agents w*o can act upon t*e structures and systems of w*ic* t*ey are a part. 8e asserted t*at

all of t*e disciplines are in t*is way Hconcerned wit* a s*ift of mind from seeing parts to seeing

w*oles2 from seeing people as *elpless reactors to seeing t*em as acti0e participants in s*aping

t*eir reality2 from reacting to t*e present to creating t*e future Cp. #" . I will pro0ide a ?rief

e>planation of eac* discipline later in t*is document.

ne of t*e ey c*allenges in organi%ational management is t*e application of simplistic

framewor s to comple> systems. People *a0e tended to focus on t*e parts rat*er t*an on t*e

w*ole2 and in so doing2 t*ey *a0e failed to 0iew t*e organi%ation as a dynamic process. A ?etter

appreciation of systems may lead to t*e implementation of more appropriate action. Senge

C'""! asserted2 HWe learn ?est from e>perience ?ut we ne0er directly e>perience t*e

conse uences of many of our most important decisions Cp. (3 . People also *a0e tended to t*in


29/140

(3

t*at cause and effect are related. 8owe0er2 an appreciation of systems t*in ing *as led people to

recogni%e t*e use of2 and pro?lems wit*2 suc* reinforcing feed?ac . Anot*er ey aspect of

systems t*in ing *as ?een t*e e>tent to w*ic* it in0ol0es delays2 or Hinterruptions in t*e flow of

influence w*ic* ma e t*e conse uences of actions occur gradually CSenge2 '""!2 p. 7! .

Along wit* systems t*in ing are t*e ot*er four disciplines mentioned pre0iously. Senge

C'""! 0iewed a discipline as a series of principles and practices t*at people study2 master2 and

integrate into t*eir li0es. Senge ?elie0ed t*at t*e fi0e disciplines can ?e approac*ed at one of

t*ree le0els: HPractices: w*at you doJ Principles: guiding ideas and insig*tsJ 9ssences: t*e state

of ?eing of t*ose wit* *ig* le0els of mastery in t*e discipline Cp. 3G3 . 9ac* discipline pro0idesa 0ital dimension2 and eac* is necessary to t*e ot*ers if organi%ations are to learn. +ollowing is a

?rief description of eac* discipline:

Personal mastery: Senge C'""! stated2 H rgani%ations learn only t*roug* indi0iduals

w*o learn. Indi0idual learning does not guarantee organi%ational learning. ut wit*out it no

organi%ational learning occurs Cp. '3" . 8e also contended Hpersonal mastery is t*e discipline of

continually clarifying and deepening our personal 0ision2 of focusing our energies2 of de0eloping

patience2 and of seeing reality o? ecti0ely Cp. G . Personal mastery goes ?eyond competence and

s ills2 alt*oug* it in0ol0es t*em. It also goes ?eyond spiritual opening2 alt*oug* it in0ol0es

spiritual growt*. Mastery is a special ind of proficiency. It is not a?out dominance2 ?ut rat*er

a?out calling. ision is 0ocation rat*er t*an ust a good idea. Personal mastery can ?e 0ery

adapta?le in t*e teac*ing field. 4eac*ers are constantly clarifying personal 0isions for t*eir

students and focusing on energies ?y constantly moti0ating t*em to learn. 4eac*ers also need to

de0elop patience w*en students do not fully grasp t*e concepts t*at t*ey are teac*ing.

Mental models: Senge C'""! asserted t*at t*ese are Hdeeply ingrained assumptions2


30/140

(1

generali%ations2 or e0en pictures or images t*at influence *ow we understand t*e world and *ow

we ta e action Cp. 7 . 4eac*ers are always ma ing assumptions a?out w*at students s*ould

already now and deducing generali%ed statements. 4eac*ers understand *ow to ta e action

?ecause t*ey now w*at students need to learn to succeed in t*e world.

A s*ared 0ision: Senge C'""! argued t*at if any one idea a?out leaders*ip *as inspired

organi%ations for t*ousands of years2 it is t*e capacity to *a0e a s*ared picture of t*e future. Suc*

a 0ision can ?e upliftingJ it can encourage people to e>periment and to ?e inno0ati0e. It can

foster a sense of t*e longer term2 somet*ing t*at is fundamental to t*e fift* discipline2 or systems

t*in ing.Senge C'""! also stated:

W*en t*ere is a genuine 0ision 2 people e>cel and learn2 not ?ecause t*ey are told to2 ?ut ?ecause t*ey want to. ut many leaders *a0e personal 0isions t*at ne0er gettranslated into s*ared 0isions t*at gal0ani%e an organi%ation .W*at *as ?een lac ing is adiscipline for translating 0ision into s*ared 0ision&&not a Lcoo ?oo B ?ut a set of

principles and guiding practices .4*e practice of s*ared 0ision in0ol0es t*e s ills ofuneart*ing s*ared Lpictures of t*e futureB t*at foster genuine commitment and enrollmentrat*er t*an compliance. In mastering t*is discipline2 leaders learn t*e counter&

producti0eness of trying to dictate a 0ision2 no matter *ow *eartfelt. Cp. "

In education2 0isions e>tend as t*e result of t*e reinforcing process. Increased clarity2

ent*usiasm2 and commitment positi0ely impact ot*ers in t*e organi%ation. As people

communicate2 t*e 0ision grows clearer2 and as it ?ecomes clearer2 peopleBs ent*usiasm for its

?enefits grow. 4*ere are limits to growt*2 ?ut ?y de0eloping t*e ind of mental models descri?ed

earlier2 people can significantly impro0e t*e functioning of t*e organi%ation.

4eam learning: Senge 0iewed suc* learning as Ht*e process of aligning and de0eloping

t*e capacities of a team to create t*e results its mem?ers truly desire Cp. (3# . It ?uilds on

personal mastery and s*ared 0ision2 ?ut people also need to ?e a?le to act toget*er. Senge

suggested t*at w*en teams learn toget*er2 t*ere are good results for t*e organi%ation.


31/140

($

6*allenges of Initiating 6*ange

Almost 3! years after ertalanffyBs C'"#" first pu?lication2 Senge C'""" identified nine

c*allenges or forces t*at oppose profound c*ange. 8e ?ro e t*em down into t*ree categories:

6*allenges of Initiating 6*ange:

6*allenge of 6ontrol o0er neBs 4ime: t*e c*allenge of finding enoug* time to de0ote to

reflection and practice.

6*allenge of Inade uate 6oac*ing2 -uidance and Support: t*e support needed for

inno0ation wit*in groups and of ultimately de0eloping internal resources for ?uilding

capacity to c*ange.6*allenge of 5ele0ance: ma ing a case for c*angeJ articulating an appropriate ?usiness

focus and s*owing w*y new efforts suc* as de0eloping learning capa?ilities are rele0ant

for ?usiness goals.

6*allenge of )eaders*ip 6larity and 6onsistency: pre0enting a mismatc* ?etween

?e*a0iors and espoused 0alues2 especially for t*ose c*ampioning c*ange.

6*allenge of +ear and An>iety: getting ?eyond t*e feeling t*at t*is is a waste of time or

t*at t*ings are out of control.

6*allenge of negati0e Assessment of Progress: t*e lac of connection ?etween t*e

traditional ways of measuring success2 ?ot* metrics and time *ori%on and t*e

ac*ie0ement of a pilot group.

6*allenge of t*e Pre0ailing -o0ernance Structure: t*e conflict of pilot groups see ing

greater autonomy and managers concerned a?out greater autonomy leading to c*aos and

internal fragmentation.


32/140

(#

6*allenge of Diffusion: w*en people cannot easily transfer nowledge across

organi%ational ?oundaries2 ma ing it difficult to ?uild on eac* ot*erBs success around t*e

system.

6*allenge of Strategy and Purpose: t*e c*allenge of re0itali%ing and ret*in ing t*e

organi%ationBs intended ?usiness focus2 its contri?ution to t*e community and its identity.

Cpp. (G&31

Senge C'""" also stated:

In ?usiness today2 t*e wor Hleader *as ?ecome a synonym for top manager. W*en people tal a?out Lde0eloping leadersB t*ey mean de0eloping prospecti0e top managers.

W*en t*ey as Lw*at do t*e leaders t*in FB t*ey are as ing a?out t*e 0iew of topmanagers. 4*ere are two pro?lems wit* t*is. +irst2 it implies t*at t*ose w*o are not in topmanagement positions are not leaders. 4*ey mig*t aspire to L?ecomeB leaders2 ?ut t*ey donot Lget t*ereB until t*ey reac* a senior management position of aut*ority. In education2 ateac*er must go t*roug* t*e ran s to ?ecome a ?uilding administrator and t*en a districtadministrator.

Second2 it lea0es us wit* no real definition of leaders*ip. If leaders*ip is simply a position in t*e *ierarc*y2 t*en2 in effect2 t*ere is no independent definition of leaders*ip.We ?elie0e2 specifically2 t*at leaders*ip actually grows from t*e capacity to *old creati0etensionJ t*e energy generated w*en people articulate a 0ision and tell t*e trut* a?outcurrent reality. Cp. '$

If top management in organi%ations *as limited power2 w*y do people in organi%ations

continue to cling to t*e ?elief t*at only t*e top can dri0e c*angeF 4*is ?elief *olds t*e top

management responsi?le for c*ange. Alt*oug* t*at 0iew mig*t ?e disempowering on one le0el2

it pro0ides a con0enient strategy if t*e real goal is to preser0e t*e status uo. nly top

management can implement different types of c*ange2 suc* as reorgani%ing or creating a new

corporate strategy. Senge C'""" asserted2 H)eaders are people w*o Lwal a*ead2B people

genuinely committed to deep c*anges in t*em and in t*eir organi%ation. 4*ey naturally influence

ot*ers t*roug* t*eir credi?ility2 capa?ility2 and commitment. And t*ey come in many s*apes2

si%es2 and positions Cp. '" .


33/140

(G

Three inds of !o"er# $ Comparative Dimension

In '"#'2 9t%ioni defined power as

An actorBs a?ility to induce or influence anot*er actor to carry out *is directi0e or any

ot*er norms *e supports. In organi%ations2 enforcing t*e collecti0ity norms is li ely to ?ea condition determining t*e power&*olderBs access to t*e means of power. Cp. $

People in positions of power regularly *a0e access to t*e means of t*at power2 for e>ample2

principals *a0e access to sc*ool superintendents. Power 0aries according to t*e p*ysical2

material2 or sym?olic means employed to ma e t*e su?ordinates2 t*e educators in t*e education

system as one e>ample2 comply. 4*ere are t*ree types of power: normati0e2 coerci0e2 and

remunerati0e.

;ormati0e power relies on t*e allocation and manipulation of sym?olic rewards anddepri0ation t*roug* t*e employment of leaders2 t*e manipulation of t*e mass media2 t*eallocation of esteem and prestige sym?ols2 t*e administration of ritual2 and t*edistri?ution of acceptance and positi0e response. In coerci0e power2 t*e power rests ont*e application or t*reat of coercion2 or on suc* p*ysical sanctions as t*e infliction of

pain2 deformity2 or deat*. 5emunerati0e power is t*e control o0er material resources andrewards t*roug* salaries and wages2 commissions and contri?utions2 and fringe ?enefits.C9t%ioni2 '"#'2 p $

%ormative !o"er

9ducation is a normati0e power. 4*ere are two inds of normati0e power. ne is ?ased

on t*e manipulation of esteem2 prestige2 and ritualistic sym?olsJ t*e ot*er is ?ased on t*e

allocation and manipulation of acceptance and positi0e response. 9t%ioni C'"#' referred to t*e

first ind as pure normati0e power and t*e second as social power. Pure normati0e power is

more useful to t*e organi%ation ?ecause it follows directly along t*e *ierarc*y. Social power

?ecomes organi%ational power only w*en t*e organi%ation can influence t*e groupBs powers2

suc* as w*en a teac*er uses t*e class climate to control a de0iant c*ild. Most organi%ations tend

to emp*asi%e only one means of power and rely less on t*e ot*er two. Applying force2 for


34/140


35/140

("

sc*ool setting2 one also mig*t e>pect to find *ig*er le0els of alienation in organi%ations w*ose

management style applies coercion to control t*e wor ers.

/tilitarian organi%ations2 or industries2 use remuneration as t*e ma or way to control

lower&le0el participants2 and calculati0e in0ol0ement c*aracteri%es t*e orientation of lower le0el

participants C9t%ioni2 '"#' . Industrial organi%ations can ?e classified as t*ose w*ose lower le0el

participants are predominantly ?lue&collar wor ers2 w*ite&collar employees2 or professionals. Is

education a utilitarian organi%ationF 4*ere are two sc*ools of t*oug*t on t*is: Some t*eorists

*a0e suggested t*at education is a utilitarian organi%ation2 ?ut 9t%ioni categori%ed education as a

normati0e organi%ation ?ecause in a normati0e organi%ation2 t*e process of de0eloping anormati0e culture in a sc*ool first focuses on t*e 0ision of its leaders2 and t*en aids t*e

community to *one a mission t*at is understood and rele0ant at all times to e0ery teac*er2

student2 and parent. 4*e degree to w*ic* t*is mission is e>perienced in e0ery program acti0ity

will determine t*e degree to w*ic* a program creates a safe2 caring en0ironment t*at nurtures

growt* and2 ultimately2 academic performance.

&emunerative !o"er

5emuneration is t*e predominant way for organi%ations to control ?lue&collar wor ers. It

may not ?e a fundamental factor in determining t*eir orientation to wor in general2 or t*eir

c*oice of a particular line of wor 2 ?ut it is central in t*eir orientation to particular o?s and to t*e

organi%ation as a control structure. t*er factors2 including t*eir ?asic 0alues2 degree of

unioni%ation2 intrinsic satisfaction from wor 2 prestige and esteem deri0ed from t*e wor 2 and

some social relations on t*e o?2 also influence wor ersB o? orientation and performance.


36/140

3!

W*ite&collar wor ers suc* as teac*ers are predominantly controlled ?y remunerati0e means2 ?ut

less so t*an ?lue&collar wor ers. ;ormati0e controls2 alt*oug* secondary2 play a more important

role among w*ite&collar employees. 9t%ioni C'"#' contended t*at normati0e organi%ations are

rgani%ations in w*ic* normati0e power is t*e ma or source of control o0er lower participants w*ose orientation to t*e organi%ations is c*aracteri%ed ?y *ig* commitment.)eaders*ip2 ritual2 manipulation of social and prestige sym?ols and resociali%ation areamong t*e more important tec*ni ues of control. Cp. 1!

4*e 9ducation System as a ;ormati0e rgani%ational Structure

Alt*oug* t*ere are only ( common types of coerci0e organi%ations Ce.g.2 prisons and

custodial mental *ospitals and ( types of utilitarian organi%ations Ce.g.2 ?lue&collar and w*ite&collar industries 2 t*ere are at least " types of normati0e organi%ations. +i0e of t*ese

organi%ations *a0e a pronounced normati0e pattern and ot*er patterns t*at are relati0ely minor:

religious organi%ations2 including c*urc*es2 orders2 and monasteriesJ a su?category of political

organi%ations2 w*ic* *a0e a strong ideological programJ general *ospitalsJ uni0ersitiesJ and

0oluntary associations. )ess typical in t*e sense t*at coercion plays an important secondary role2

are sc*ools2 w*ere remuneration plays an important part.

9t%ioni C'"#' stated:

9ducational organi%ations employ normati0e controls wit* coercion as a secondarysource of compliance. ;ormati0e controls in sc*ools include manipulation of prestigesym?ols suc* as *onors2 grades2 and citations2 personal influence of t*e teac*er Htal swit* t*e principal2 scolding and sarcasm demanding apologies and similar means w*ic*are ?ased on appeals to t*e studentBs moral commitments and on manipulation of t*eclass or peer groupBs climate of opinion. 6oercion *as declined in significance o0er t*elast decades for modern education de&emp*asi%ed Hdiscipline as a goal and stressesinternali%ing of norms. Cp. 1$

;ormati0e controls are common in elementary sc*ools. A?out *alf of t*e controls

manifest as censure2 w*ic* includes scolding2 sarcasm2 demand for an apology2 ridicule2 and


37/140

3'

similar forms of discipline. Depri0ation2 anot*er means of control2 is normati0e ?ecause it

consists of suc* sym?olic punis*ments as sending t*e c*ild to anot*er seat2 or sending *im or *er

to t*e corner. er?al appeal2 e>planation2 and coercion are ot*er means of control.

Sc*ools are not 0oluntary organi%ations. A gap e>ists ?etween t*e acti0ities t*at would

fulfill teac*ersB internali%ed need dispositions and t*e acti0ities in w*ic* t*ey must participate.

Parents2 truant officers2 police departments2 and ot*er sta e*olders coerce c*ildren w*o attend

sc*oolJ sc*ools ma e studentsB participation in desired acti0ities contingent upon ade uate

performance in ot*ers. 8ence2 one mig*t e>pect to find more alienation in sc*ools t*an in typical

normati0e organi%ations. In most sc*ools2 a small minority of students re uire t*e large ma orityof coerci0e measures t*at sc*ools support. 9t%ioni C'"#' found t*at #!Q of t*e 12(G! teac*ers

w*om 6utts and Mosely ueried identified less t*an 'Q of t*eir students as trou?lema ers.

ocational sc*ools were a response to disciplinary pro?lems in students w*o were

alienated from regular *ig* sc*ool programs ?ecause of t*eir social ?ac ground and career

prospects. ecause 0ocational sc*ools rarely can accommodate t*eir studentsB needs2 and

?ecause t*eir function often is more custodial t*an educational2 t*ey e>perience *ig*er le0els of

alienation t*an do regular sc*ools. Special sc*ools *a0e a *ig* concentration of disciplinary

cases. 6oercion plays a more important role in t*ese special sc*ools t*an in ot*er sc*ools. Some

ot*er sc*ools regularly *a0e police officers on t*e premises. Wit*in my sc*ool district2 police

officers patrol t*e premises of an elementary sc*oolJ in addition2 a special sc*ool nown as %ero

tolerance accepts students w*o *a0e ?een suspended numerous times in order to Hget t*eir act

toget*er.

9t%ioni C'"#1 suggested t*at multipurpose organi%ations tend to ?e more effecti0e t*an

single&purpose ones ?ecause ser0ing one goal often impro0es2 al?eit wit*in limits2 t*e ser0ice


38/140

3(

rendered to anot*er goal. In addition2 multipurpose organi%ations generally *a0e more

recruitment appeal t*an single&purpose organi%ations2 in part ?ecause multiple ser0ices and *ig*

uality often go toget*er. It is difficult to t*in of many e>amples of single&purpose

organi%ations t*at *a0e more prestige t*an t*eir multipurpose counterparts.

4*ere are limits to an organi%ationBs a?ility to meet multipurpose goals. )oss of

effecti0eness occurs w*en all organi%ations of a specific category are multipurpose. In

professions suc* as teac*ing t*at *a0e a cluster of associated acti0ities2 many of t*e mem?ers

prefer to participate in a com?ination of t*ese acti0ities. 5unning an organi%ation as a speciali%ed

and essential acti0ity generates pro?lems t*at may not relate to t*e professed or original goals oft*e organi%ation. 4*e day&to&day ?e*a0ior of t*e group t*en ?ecomes centered on specific

pro?lems and appro>imate goals t*at *a0e internal rele0ance.

9t%ioni C'"#1 commented:

A common succession of goals e>ists w*en t*e ser0ice of t*e old one is *ig*lyunsuccessful lea0ing t*e organi%ation to find a new goal to ser0e if it is to sur0i0e. It ise0en more common for an organi%ation in suc* a situation to set additional goals ore>pand t*e scope of t*eir old ones. In doing t*is2 t*e organi%ation acts to increase t*ededication of its mem?ers and encourage t*e recruitment of new mem?ers./ndergraduate colleges o0er t*e last *undred years too on t*e goal of graduate training2a goal t*at is different from t*eir original goal of producing gentlemen w*o could readand write and stay out of ail. Cp. '3

An organi%ationBs self&interest may lead not only to secondary goals displacing primary

goals2 ?ut also to t*e organi%ationBs acti0ely see ing new goals or ac uiring additional goals.

Many organi%ations *a0e two or more goals. Some add more goals to t*e original ones2 ?ut many

organi%ations *ad more t*an one goal initially. Many multipurpose organi%ations tend to ser0e

eac* of t*eir goals separately2 and all of t*em toget*er more effecti0ely and efficiently t*an

single&purpose organi%ations of t*e same category.


39/140

33

9t%ioniBs C'"#1 systems model descri?es t*e relations*ips t*at allow organi%ations to

operate. 4*ere are two ma or su?types of systems models. ne is t*e sur0i0al model2 w*ic*

re uires t*at a set of re uirements ?e fulfilled to allow t*e system to e>ist. In t*is model2 eac*

relations*ip is a prere uisite for t*e functioning of t*e system. If one of t*em is remo0ed2 t*e

system ceases to operate. 4*e second su?type is t*e effecti0eness model2 w*ic* defines a pattern

of interrelations among t*e elements of t*e system t*at would ma e it t*e most effecti0e w*en

compared to ot*er com?inations of t*e same or similar elements. 4*e sur0i0al model does not

record significant c*anges in organi%ational operations2 ?ut only t*at t*e organi%ation is meeting

its ?asic re uirements. 4*e effecti0eness model e0aluates c*anges t*at *a0e occurred in t*eorgani%ation and t*eir effect on t*e a?ility of t*e organi%ation to ser0e its goal w*en compared to

its earlier state or ot*er organi%ations of its ind.

In classical t*eory2 or scientific management2 t*e wor ers are percei0ed as ?eing

moti0ated ?y economic rewards2 and t*e organi%ation is c*aracteri%ed ?y a clearly defined

di0ision of la?or ?etween *ig*ly speciali%ed personnel and a *ierarc*y of aut*ority. ut of t*is

tradition came t*e c*aracteri%ation of t*e formal organi%ation. In contrast to classical t*eory2 t*e

sc*ool of *uman relations emp*asi%ed t*e emotional2 unplanned2 nonrational elements of

organi%ational ?e*a0ior. It identifies t*e significance of friends*ip and social groupings of

wor ers for t*e organi%ation. It also points out t*e importance of leaders*ip in t*e organi%ation

and of emotional communication and participation. +rom t*ese o?ser0ations arose t*e

de0elopment of t*e concept of informal organi%ation.

In t*e structuralist approac*2 comparati0e analysis made a con0ergence of organi%ational

t*eory considera?ly more sop*isticated. 4*e earlier sc*ools of t*oug*t focused t*eir attention on

factories and pu?lic administration2 and it was only later t*at researc*ers adapted t*eir use to t*e


40/140

31

study of ot*er organi%ations. 4*e scope of t*e structuralist approac* was muc* ?roader to ?egin

wit* in terms of t*e inds of organi%ations and cultural ?ac grounds considered.

Summary

4*e organi%ational systems of 9t%ioni and t*e learning organi%ational c*anges of Senge

s*owed *ow organi%ations intertwine and *ow organi%ational systems can affect t*e field of

education. I discussed t*e application to organi%ations of ertalanffyBs general systems t*eory2

along wit* *is principles of open and closed systems. 4*e leaders*ip c*allenge of t*is era lies in

addressing core issues for w*ic* *ierarc*ical aut*ority is inade uate. 6ontemporary society is

afflicted wit* serious pro?lems2 including en0ironmental degradation2 t*e decline of communityand family structures2 and t*e deterioration and ine uity of t*e pu?lic education system. ;one of

t*ese pro?lems resulting from t*e industriali%ation process is easy to address. 4*e primary agents

of t*e industriali%ation process are people and t*eir collecti0e decision&ma ing process2 mediated

t*roug* t*e large institutions of t*e industrial era: corporations2 education systems2 and

go0ernmental institutions. I ?elie0e t*at t*ese institutions will gradually redisco0er *ow t*e

natural world operates and will t*en ?egin to understand *ow to reorient institutions to em?ody

t*is nowledge.


41/140

D9P48

9D/6 73(7: 6/559;4 59S9A568 I; 5-A;Itensi0ely2 and researc*ers *a0e agreed

t*at t*ere are le0els of organi%ational learning. 6*ange t*at e>tends only to t*e formal

operational le0el usually is s*ort&li0ed. Sometimes2 c*ange is transformati0e in t*at it alters t*e

structure of t*e organi%ation and t*e way in w*ic* it is conceptuali%ed ?y its mem?ers. As

mem?ers of t*e organi%ation reac* deeper le0els of learning2 t*ey are more open to self&

e>amination2 and t*e c*ange t*ey initiate ?ecomes more sustaina?le ?ecause it is em?edded in

t*e culture t*roug* dialogue. In t*is 0iew2 culture is not somet*ing an organi%ation has J rat*er2 it

is somet*ing an organi%ation is. 6ultural in uiry *elps t*ose in0ol0ed in reform to recogni%e t*at

resistance can also e>ist as a group p*enomenon and t*at it can operate ?elow t*e le0el of


42/140

3#

conscious awareness resulting in w*at is termed o rganizational defense mechanisms 2 w*ic* can

manifest as re ection2 procrastination2 indecision2 sa?otage2 and regression.

Critical $nalysis

4*e study conducted ?y Aw?rey pro0ided details regarding t*e application of t*e t*ree&

le0el model to illustrate *ow academic culture interacts wit* c*ange initiati0es suc* as general

education reform. Aw?rey also illustrated *ow deeper le0els of cultural c*ange may ?e ac*ie0ed

?y e>amining t*e 0alues2 ?eliefs2 and assumptions of t*e reformers as well as t*eir decisions

a?out general education. 4*e ma ority of t*e article discussed t*e impediment to effecti0e

organi%ational c*ange and general education reform. nly a small portion of it discussed t*et*ree&le0el model of c*ange initiati0es. More researc* needs to ?e implemented to 0alidate t*e

aut*orBs conclusions.

&elevance

4*e article pro0ided a pleasant approac* to *elping administrators ma e reforms

and organi%ational c*ange to general education. -i0en t*e nature of organi%ational culture2

faculty and administrators form a useful picture of institutional culture. 4*is article was ?ased on

decades of researc*2 culminating in one of t*e most useful models for cultural in uiry. 4*e

model presented in t*e article s*owed *ow academic culture interacts wit* c*ange initiati0es and

encourages reformers to systematically un0eil cultural perspecti0es prior to underta ing any

discussion of structural c*ange. Administrators may ?enefit from t*is article2 w*ic* offered

information on *ow to underta e cultural in uiry and integrate cultural and structural c*ange

from t*e outset of a systemic c*ange initiati0e. Administrators also may ?e a?le to analy%e

organi%ational and system c*ange related to education in t*e inner&city sc*ool system.


43/140

3G

ac*2 S.2 Kessler2 I.2 8eron2 P. C(!!G . 4*e conse uences of assistant roles in t*e pu?licser0ices: Degradation or empowermentF Human &elations) ,- C" 2 '(#G&'("(.

Summary

4*is article considered *ow s*ifts in t*e di0ision of la?or in t*e conte>t of organi%ational

c*ange could lead to t*e empowerment or degradation of wor place roles. Periods of

organi%ational c*ange pro0ide a significant opportunity to e>plore issues of degradation and

empowerment. 4*e impact of organi%ational c*ange on t*e structure of t*e wor force *as ?een

particularly apparent in t*e ritis* pu?lic ser0ice o0er t*e last decade. A central component of

t*e organi%ational restructuring of t*is sector *as ?een alterations in wor place roles2 including

an increase in t*e num?er and prominence of assistants. 4o w*at e>tent are t*ese outcomes

sensiti0e to organi%ational conte>tF

Against suc* a general ?ac drop2 notions of empowerment and degradation *a0e

emerged as particular c*aracteri%ations of generic management approac*es to wor organi%ation

designed to secure employee consent. In analytical terms2 t*e enduring nature of t*is

organi%ational dilemma *as ?een apparent in sc*olarly attempts o0er t*e years. 4*e la?or

approac* to alterations in wor organi%ations *as ?een 0ulnera?le to accusations t*at it *as ?een

partial in its 0iew of managerial processes. 4*us2 degradation *as ?een percei0ed as a

management control strategy at t*e e>pense of t*e relations*ip ?etween wor organi%ation and

t*e searc* for managerial control.

4*e la?or process t*eory *as ?een used to frame de?ate on de0elopments in wor

organi%ations in t*e pu?lic ser0ice. 4*is ipmlies a sense of arrested de0elopment2 in w*ic*

pu?lic ser0ice managers *a0e only recently adopted management practices. 4*ese trends

fre uently *a0e ?een associated wit* t*e emergence of new pu?lic management. Alt*oug* t*ere

are a num?er of 0ariants of new pu?lic management2 a prominent interpretation e uates it wit*


44/140

37

t*e application of a form of wor organi%ation t*at undermines professional autonomy and

en*ances management control. Successi0e wa0es of pu?lic ser0ice reform *a0e ?een represented

as ena?ling a s*ift to more decentrali%ed organi%ational structures alongside e>plicit attempts at

culture c*ange2 wit* employees ?eing granted en*anced autonomy to direct t*eir wor and meet

t*e needs of customers. utcomes can ?e considered a wor &center dimension related to t*e

organi%ation of wor in terms of t*e tas s underta en ?y t*e respecti0e groups.

4*e emergence of t*e assistant role in t*e ritis* pu?lic ser0ice *as pro0ided an

opportunity to e>plore w*et*er and *ow s*ifts in t*e di0ision of la?or2 particularly wit*in t*e

conte>t of ?roader organi%ational c*ange2 lead to t*e degradation or t*e empowerment ofwor place roles. 4*is article soug*t to contri?ute to related de?ates in many ways+irstit e>plored

*ow t*e de0elopment of a specific role mig*t influence ot*er related occupational groups. 4*is

issue *as not ?een dealt wit* in a sensiti0e way ?y la?or process t*eory2 and alt*oug* touc*ed

upon in t*e pu?lic management literature and more e>plicitly in t*e professionali%ation literature2

*as rarely placed t*e su?ordinate occupation of assistant at t*e center of t*e analysis. 4*e focus

on pu?lic ser0ice assistants *as ?een considered an effecti0e way to e>amine t*e interaction

?etween roles as t*e di0ision of la?or ?egins to s*ift. It is a role typically found alongside t*at of

t*e professional2 so its de0elopment is li ely to impact not only assistants ?ut also t*e ad acent

professionals.

Second2 tg*ere is a re uirement to consider employee and managerial responses to

different control strategies. 4*e percie0ed failure to fully account for agency *as ?een a persisten

criticism of ra0emanBs wor 2 for in most critics2 la?or process t*eory pro0ides little or not

contir?ution to an understanding of eit*er employee co&operation or restistance. Interest in


45/140

3"

agency *as ?een apparent in a focus on t*e missing su? ect suggesting t*at fuller account needs

to ?e ta en of manager and particularly wor er perceptions of wor organi%ation.

4*ired2 t*ere is a need for analysis of management control strategies to ?e more sensti0e

to conte>t. If suc* strategies 0ary2 it ?ecomees important to e>plore t*e circumstances w*ic* lead

to different approac*es. In practice2 muc* of t*e la?or process de?ate *as ?een cast in narrow

terms wit* a predominant focus on wor reorgani%ation in manufacturing. More recently 2 t*ere

*as ?een recognition of t*e significance and distinti0eness of conte>t.

Critical $nalysis

In focusing on t*e su?sector rat*er t*an t*e organi%ational le0el2 t*is study *ig*lig*tedt*e influence of structure and institutions rat*er t*an agency in s*aping outcomes. 4*e

differences ?etween education and social care *ig*lig*ts t*e pat* dependent de0elopment of

assistant roles and t*e ways in w*ic* institutional infrastructure affects t*e c*aracter and impact

of t*ese roles in t*eir respecti0e su?sectors. It *as ?een stressed t*at social wor assistants2 for

instance2 *a0e long ?een integral to t*e social care wor force2 wit* institutionali%ed e>pectations

and systems in place to manage t*eir performance management and career de0elopment. In

contrast2 teac*ing assistants *a0e ?een tied more closely to la?orBs moderni%ation agenda2 wit*

t*e new systems designed to pro0ide career opportunities .

&elevance

4*is article descri?ed t*e use of organi%ational c*ange in t*e di0ision of la?or and in t*e

empowerment of wor place roles. It also s*owed t*e impact of organi%ational c*ange on

wor force structure in t*e ritis* pu?lic ser0ice o0er t*e last decade. /sing t*is article as a

spring?oard into education will *elp t*e researc*er to gain insig*t into t*e use of organi%ational


46/140

1!

c*ange in t*e pu?lic sector and offer ideas and opportunities regarding t*e application of t*ese

c*anges to t*e educational system.

onner2 M.2 Koc*2 4.2 )angmeyer2 D. C(!!1 . rgani%ational t*eory applied to sc*ool reform.

School !sychology /nternational) 0* C1 2 1$$&1G'.

Summary

4*is article descri?ed an e>perience wit* organi%ational c*ange2 specifically a sc*ool

reform initiati0e spanning fi0e years. 0er t*e $&year period2 numerous initiati0es and strategies

were implemented. 4*ese initiati0es were aligned wit* a sc*ool strategic plan t*at focused on t*e

de0elopment of an inclusi0e sc*ool and were consistent wit* t*e 0ision and t*e e>pressed goals

and o? ecti0es of t*e district strategic plan. 4*is description t*at follows is not intended to ?e

compre*ensi0e2 ?ut rat*er to con0ey critical e0ents2 ey among t*em a focus on a model for

special education ser0ice deli0ery

In t*e first year of t*e c*ange process2 t*e sc*ool initiated t*e inclusion of students wit*

disa?ilities on a small scale. 6*ildren pre0iously educated in speciali%ed educational settings

were included as participating mem?ers in t*e sc*oolBs Kindergarten classrooms. 4*e intent was

t*at t*is inno0ation would gradually grow as t*e c*ildren progressed t*roug* t*e system. In t*e

first year2 t*ere was an initiation of ser0ice model c*ange. Inclusion of students wit* signifacant

disa?ilities in dinergarten ?egan at t*e sc*ool. pen forums occurred to encourage staff

discussion of t*e c*anging ser0ice. 6onnections wit* t*e /ni0ersityBs Institte on 6ommunity

Integration esta?lis*ed as a way to use H?est practice resrources to inclusi0e education.

In t*e second year2 t*e sc*ool e>panded its capacity to pro0ide support for all c*ildren ?y

strengt*ening already e>isting resources wit*in t*e ?uilding. Sc*ool&wide staff de0elopment

focused upon student&centered decision ma ing. 4*ese student&centered decision&ma ing efforts

were aimed at supporting t*e inclusion of students wit* disa?ilities more effecti0ely. 4*e second


47/140


48/140

1(

reading2 discussing2 and applying contemporary c*ange literature from different perspecti0es2 as

e0idenced ?y t*e preceding descripti0e *istory. In t*e fift* year2 federal grants were funded to

furt*er suppport and study t*e sc*ool&wide inclusi0e practices t*at connected wit* t*e sc*oolBs

?roader inclusi0e refrom efforts. 4eac*er inter0iews and support staff sur0eys occurred in order

to e0aluate t*e ser0ice deli0ery model.

rgani%ational c*ange is comple>2 and onner et al. found t*eoretical insig*t from past

literature in organi%ation de0elopment and organi%ational psyc*ology to ?e timeless in 0alue.

4*e goal of s*aring t*eir story and lessons from reflecti0e practice was to awa en t*ose

interested in organi%ational c*ange in sc*ools to t*e interdisciplinary nowledge t*at needs to ?eincorporated.

Critical $nalysis

rgani%ational c*ange2 as manifested ?y sc*ool reform practices2 is comple>. 4o *elp

guide t*e actions of an indi0idual2 onner et al. found t*eoretical insig*t from past literature in

organi%ation de0elopment and organi%ational psyc*ology to ?e timeless in 0alue. y s*aring t*e

lessons learned2 t*e researc*er *opes to influence t*e nature of future researc* and practitioner

reflection in t*ese areas.

&elevance

4*is article clearly outlined *ow to conduct organi%ational c*ange wit*in a sc*ool o0er a

period of fi0e years. 4*e c*anges and initiati0es were aligned wit* t*e sc*oolBs strategic plan and

focused on t*e de0elopment of an incisi0e sc*ool t*at was consistent wit* t*e 0ision and t*e

goals and o? ecti0es of t*e districtBs strategic plan. 4*is article may *elp administrators to

prepare a strategic plan for organi%ational c*anges ?y following t*e guidelines in t*is article.


49/140

13

oyce2 M. 9. C(!!3 . rgani%ational learning is essential to ac*ie0ing and sustaining a c*ange in*ig*er education. /nnovative Higher (ducation) 01 C( 2 ''"&'3#.

Summary

Knowledge a?out organi%ational c*ange in *ig*er education emerges in t*e intersection

of sociology and organi%ation t*eory. 5esearc* *as suggested t*at continued organi%ational

learning is essential to sustaining institutional c*ange. 6olleges and uni0ersities are distincti0e

organi%ations. Weic C'"G#2 '"7( is an organi%ational t*eorist w*ose description of educational

organi%ations as loosely coupled systems was t*e starting point for ualtiy researc* and

discussion a?out colleges and uni0ersities. 4*eories of open systems CMiller2 '"G7J Scott2 '"7'

pro0ided t*e ?ac ground for Weic Bs C'"7( o?ser0ations of colleges and uni0ersities as social

systems.

Weic C'"7( suggested t*at organi%ational c*ange s*ould ?e centrali%ed w*en su?unitsB

ad ustments can *a0e discontinuous long&term effects at considera?le e>pense2 and decentrali%ed

w*en ad ustments *a0e continuous a??re0iated ine>pensi0e effects. er uist C'""( asserted t*at

organi%ational c*ange is necessary in eac* of t*e t*ree domains of institutions: structure2 process2

and attitude. rgani%ational t*eory pro0ides a lens for t*eory and researc* in organi%ational

t*eory2 strategy2 organi%ation c*ange2 and organi%ational learning. Indi0iduals and groups

pro0ide e>planations for e0ents from t*eir perspecti0es2 and t*ey construct images of t*e

organi%ation rat*er t*an s*are a unifying perception of organi%ational reality. In uiry and

dialogue ena?le t*e mem?ers of t*e organi%ation to e>amine assumptions and strategies and to

plan2 implement2 and sustain organi%ational c*ange. 8uff and 8uff C(!!! de0eloped a four&

stage model of strategic organi%ational c*ange: C stage ' H?usiness as usual2 wit* incremental

adaptation wit*in an accepted framewor J Cstage ( t*e process of deciding to consider second&

order c*angeJ Cstage 3 t*e stage of en0isioning second&order c*ange alternati0esJ and Cstage 1


50/140

11

t*e *oneymoon for a new strategic framewor .

rgani%ational c*ange occurs e0ery day. 8ow2 t*en2 is institutional c*ange

sustainedF Dialogue *as ?een ?eneficial in promoting t*e collecti0e interpretation of meaning in

an organi%ation C er uist2 '""(J Di>on2 '""1 . Senge C'""! articulated t*e significance of

dialogue in facilitating organi%ational c*ange and learning. Action in uiry is an organi%ational

practice t*at generates sustained organi%ational c*ange and learning C-arratt2 '"7GJ 5e0ans2

'"GG2 '"7( . 4*e action learning literature spans *ig*er education and ?usiness organi%ations.

4*e literature re0iewed *ere made an e>plicit connection ?etween organi%ational learning

and organi%ational c*ange. It suggested t*at continued learning is necessary to sustain c*ange.

4*ese ideas *a0e pro0o ed a focus on organi%ational learning t*at used to organi%ational

learning t*at is social2 cogniti0e2 and structural. 5esearc*ers loo for organi%ational learning

mec*anisms t*at can ?e em?edded in a learning culturet*at seem perip*

15451256 learning organizations and general systems theory in education

Documents