CHAPTER 8 Organizational Change Organizational Behavior in Education

CHAPTER 8: Organizational Change Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform 11 th Edition Robert G. Owens Thomas C. Valesky

Organizational Change • The fundamental issue in planning and managing change in a school is the need to bring about the important changes in the organizational culture of the school. • Critics of U. S. schooling have a propensity to depict schools as static bureaucracies, stodgy, lumbering about, and unable to adapt to emerging demands for high performance. • Thus schools must integrate stability and change. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 2

Historical Context for Change • Education in the United States is decentralized to the states since the U. S. Constitution makes no mention of education. • Morrill Act of 1862 established land grant colleges in the belief that education is a public good. • Move from Boston Latin School concept to more practical curriculum for the middle class movement. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 3

Historical Impact on Today’s Change Efforts • Educational goals continue to change and develop as social, cultural, and economic realities develop. • Basic characteristics of change: • Is planned and directed Involves the whole organization Increases the capacity of the organization Is sustainable over time In the United States, the terms school reform, comprehensive school reform, and whole school reform are used interchangeably and embody the four concepts just described. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 4

School Reform and Change • Seymour B. Sarason (1990) wrote The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Before It’s Too late? – To change schools, we must change the power relationships in schools. • Mandated change from state legislatures, Congress and the executive branch of government can change these power relationships. • Outside pressures for education reform also comes from business, political organizations, and powerful foundations. • With the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), model legislation for these types of state level reforms is being spread throughout the United States. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 5

Aims of Educational Reform • Sarason listed five aims that would constitute major change in the inner core of assumptions that are difficult to bring about: – To reduce the achievement gap among social classes and racial groups. – To get students to enjoy school. – To enable students to acquire knowledge and skills in ways that relate learning and give purpose to each student. – To engender interest in human accomplishments, past and present, and to enlarge their own identities: personal, social, and as citizens. – To acquaint students with the domain of career options and how schooling relates to the fast changing world of work. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 6

The Tradition of Change in American Education • Paul Mort and Donald Ross (1957) indicated change in education proceeded very slowly. – He noted that schools were generally 25 years behind the best practices of the time. – Example: Kindergartens. • Mort’s work led to viewing higher pupil expenditures as reliable indicators of change and superior school output. • Other researchers noted, however, that there is most likely a curvilinear relationship where after an optimum funding point increases in school output slow. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 7

Three Strategies of Planned Change • Robert Chin’s (1985) taxonomy of change strategies is used in this book. – I. Empirical rational strategies. – II. Power coercive strategies. – III. Normative reeducative strategies. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 8

I. Empirical-Rational Strategies for Change • This approach to change is based on planned, managed dissemination intended to spread new ideas and practices swiftly. • This is often supported through state and federal grants or through companies that are willing to fund the production of knowledge for profit potential. • This is known broadly as KPU (Knowledge, Production, and Utilization). Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 9

Research, Development, and Diffusion (R, D, and D) • Development Phase: Research and development, or R & D, includes translating research into products that are practical. • Diffusion Phase: RD& D includes marketing the new products and making them attractive at a reasonable cost. • Adoption Phase: RDDA, which usually includes Dick Clark and Egon Guba’s three stage process: a trial, installation of the program, the institutionalization of the program as part of the system. • See Figure 8. 1 for a depiction of RDDA. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 10

The Agricultural Model • Using the US Department of Agriculture as a model to more quickly disseminate KPU educational innovations, the following occurred from late 1950 s to 1980. – National Defense Education Act (1958) supported innovative curriculum packages. – Title IV of ESEA (1965) created 20 regional educational laboratories and 10 Educational Research and Development Centers. – ERIC was created to help disseminate information. – National Institute of Education was created (1972). – The Department of Education was made a cabinet level department (1979). Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 11

Assumptions and Implications of KPU Approaches to Change • New products will be perceived by potential adopters as desirable. • Adopters will do what is desirable because it is in their own interest. • KPU and RDDA focus on innovations, yet the term has been debased through misuse in which innovations have been tried then abandoned. • The strategy for change in schools using KPU and RDDA assumes that good ideas are developed outside the school and later installed in the school. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 12

II. Power-Coercive Strategies for Change • One Power Coercive strategy uses the behavioral psychology concept of the carrot and stick approach: – Both rewards (financial) and sanctions (political, financial, moral) are used to obtain compliance from adopters. – Recent examples are NCLB, RTTT, and value added models • Robert Chin and Kenneth Benne (1969) described the restructuring of power elites to bring about change. – Example: minority group efforts to gain representation in decision making. – Example: coalitions of disabled who lobbied for series of laws and judicial decisions in their favor. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 13

III. Normative-Reeducative or Organizational Self-Renewal Strategies • Empirical rational and Power coercive strategies share two assumptions: (a) good ideas are developed outside the organization; (b) the organization is the target of external forces for change. Normative reeducative differs. • In 1975, the NIE indicated that billions of dollars have been spent on education with little difference in improved school outputs. • In response, the Rand Corporation studied 293 federally sponsored programs: – Found that the successes of empirical rational and power coercive strategies for change are related to school and school district effectiveness and their capacities for change. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 14

Rand Study found that successful schools: • Rejected rigidly packaged innovations that did not permit local adaptations. • Developed their own local materials. • Engaged in continuous planning and replanning, rather than one shot planning. • Had ongoing training and technical assistance, not one shot training. • Had strong support from key administrators in the school and district. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 15

Normative-Reeducative Strategies (continued) • Defined as a strategy that believes the norms of the organization's interaction influence system (attitudes, beliefs, and values in other words, culture) can be deliberately shifted to more productive norms by collaborative action of the people. • As Chris Argyris (1964) noted, a healthy organization performs three core activities over time: – Achieves its goals. – Maintains – Adapts itself internally. to its environment. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 16

Organizational Health • Indicators Miles: of organizational health from Matthew – Goal focus. – Communication adequacy. – Optimal power equalization. – Human resources utilization. – Cohesiveness. – Morale. – Innovativeness. – Autonomy. – Adaptation. – Problem solving adequacy. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 17

Voices from the Field • Changing the Mission and Culture to Become a School of Choice. – Brian Mangan, Former Principal – Mariner High School, Cape Coral, Florida • Utilized skills of teachers to create a vibrant STEM program. • Positive organizational change led to an influx of students wanting to attend the school. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 18

Organizational Self-Renewal • Organizational Self Renewal postulates that effective change cannot be imposed on a school. It seeks to develop internal capacity to: – Sense and identify emerging problems. – Establish goals, objectives, and priorities. – Generate valid alternative solutions. – Implement the selected alternatives. • The optimal unit for change is the single school with its pupils, teachers, and principal as primary participants. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 19

Organizational Self-Renewal (continued) • Fullan (2010) defined nine elements for self renewing schools: –A small number of ambitious goals – A guiding coalition at the top – High standards and expectations – Collective capacity building with a focus on instruction – Individual capacity building linked to instruction – Mobilizing the data as a strategy for improvement – Intervention in a nonpunitive manner – Being vigilant about “distractors” – Being transparent, relentless, and increasingly challenging. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 20

The Learning Organization • A Learning Organization adapts to unfolding changes in the environment. This process is often called organizational development (OD). • OD is an approach to increasing the self renewal capability of school districts and schools. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 21

The Learning Organization (continued) • Basic Assumptions: – To effect change that has long term staying power, one must change the whole system and not merely certain of its part – Because of the dynamic interrelatedness and interdependence of the component subsystems, any significant change in one subsystem produces co – Events very rarely occur in isolation or from single causes. – The organizational system is defined by existing patterns of human behavior. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 22

The Sociotechnical View • What OD strives to do is to seek a new and more functional basis for: – Task analysis. – Structural – Selection arrangements. and use of technology. – Selection and professional development of people and groups. • (See Chapter 4, specifically Social Technical Systems Theory). Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 23

Force-Field Analysis • This is a technique to analyze the sociotechnical aspects of the organization. • Kurt Lewin indicated that an organization can analyze its ability to change by the following: – The Key to change is to analyze the forces for and the forces against change. – If they are in balance, then we have equilibrium—no change (Figure 8. 2). – When one or the other is removed or weakened, then equilibrium is upset and change occurs (figure 8. 3). Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 24

Force-Field Analysis (continued) • Force field analysis led Kurt Lewin to develop a popular three step change process. In order to effect change something must happen to first unfreeze the organization, then the organization can move toward change, and finally re-freezing the system brings it back to equilibrium. Unfreeze Moving toward change Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Re-freeze 8 25

Force-Field Analysis (continued) • It is not productive for an administrator to use coercion in trying to make the driving forces dominant. This only produces a strong reaction against change. • In school situations it is likely to be more effective to help bring the restraining forces into the open as legitimate in the process of change. • Leaders should create a culture in which feelings can be expressed instead of secretly harbored. By promoting opening communication and valuing the right to question and challenge, the level of resistance to change will decrease. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 26

Force-Field Analysis (continued) • To implement force field analysis, decision –making teams should brainstorm with stakeholders the driving and restraining forces. Then to develop a change strategy, identify how to: – Increase – Decrease the driving forces. the restraining forces. – Determine if a restraining force can be converted into a driving force. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 27

Force-Field Analysis (continued) • The best change occurs when people not only learn about the innovation, but also when they learn by doing. • In this way, people are truly reeducated. • There are no quick and easy solutions to change. • And remember Hersey and Blanchard’s admonition, “Changes in knowledge are the easiest to make, followed by changes in attitudes. ” • Fullan added: “The power of collective capacity is that it enables ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things”. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 28

The Effective of Organizational Development • Superficial claims of success lead to poor school climate. • Fullan (2010) identified “resolute leadership” which agrees with the change and provides long term support. • Change begins with core beliefs: – Fullan said success begins with a “moral purpose” that includes: ○ High expectations ○ Closing the achievement gap ○A focus on limited number of specific, achievable standards of literacy and numeracy. ○ Combined with a belief that all children can learn Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 29

The Effective of Organizational Development (continued) • Development on teachers’ individual capacity is important, though the key to success is collective capacity. • Fullan (2010) stated collective capacity is the breakthrough concept to make all systems go. • Learning is a joint effort of lots of people working together on a given day and cumulatively over time. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 30

Two Emerging Questions 1. Can school do it alone? • Full 2. service or community schools Is school reform enough? • The need to reinvent schools. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 31

Final Thoughts • Fullan, Miles and Taylor said schools have special properties: 1. Their goals are diffuse. 2. Their technical capability is low. 3. They are loosely coupled systems. 4. Boundary management is difficult. 5. Schools are “domesticated” organizations. 6. Schools are part of a constrained, decentralized system. 7. Students are compelled to attend. Robert G. Owens and Thomas C. Valesky. Organizational Behavior in Education: Leadership and School Reform, 11 e. © 2015, 2011, 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 32