ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT: THE

ARGUMENT STILL STANDSClive Smith and Marion

Mackinnon

EMASA Conference

Bellville

March 2011

Introduction• Davidoff, S., Kaplan, A., & Lazarus, S.

1994. Organisation development: An argument for South African Schools. Kenton 21 conference - an organisation development intervention in a Cape flats high school

• The subject of De Jong, T. 1999. School organisation development (OD): Learning from a success story in South Africa. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the Western Cape. 2

• Schmuck & Runkel - University of Oregon

• Rhodes masters and honours courses - students in both courses took to OD like a duck to water

• Masters theses – eg Neshila, Perestrelo, Hausiku, Layno, Mitchell, Steenkamp

• UJ - this paper is an account of a current honours student’s ongoing OD intervention, that began with her OD assignment

3

Context

• The 1996 Task Team Report – Changing management to manage change - set out a vision for school transformation in SA

• The Report embraces contemporary leadership and management concepts . . .

4

• Change leadership and management (pp.16, 29)

• The learning organisation (p.31)• Participative leadership and

management (pp.16, 30, 33)• Team leadership (p.14)• Value-driven leadership (p.29)• Reflective practice (p.25)• Facilitation (p.32)• School based / self management

(pp.31,12, 29)• Organisation development (pp.16, 33)

5

“The most important difficulty with . . . the whole EMD (Education management development) process in South Africa has been that the discussion has not shifted beyond the symbolic and imaging level” (Sayed in Jansen & Sayed 2001:196)

6

“The picture which emerges . . . is one of disjunction between vision and actual change” (p.25).

Policy and other initiatives after 2003 (Prew 2006)

•Education management policy framework (EMPF)

•South African standard for principalship (SASP)

•ACE School leadership7

The missing ingredient is a process to translate the Task Team’s vision into reality

As advocated in the original 1996 report . . .

“Education management development as the key to . . . decentralisation and transformation requires . . . organisational development” (p.16)

8

Organisational development (OD) offers a planned process of individual, group and organisation change, development and transformation that focuses on change leadership

9

Kurt Lewin (1947ff)

– “Organisation development”

– Action research

– Learning organisation

– Group dynamics

– Adult learning

Core – participatory-democratic practices in groups and organisations with a view to sustained cycles of learning and change

10

Organization development (OD) is a planned and sustained effort at system self-study and improvement, focusing on change in norms, structures, and procedures, using behavioral science concepts and methods. Organization development engages system members themselves in the active assessment, diagnosis, and transformation of their own organization (Schmuck & Runkel, 1994:67)

11

“OD is based primarily on cultural change strategies. These strategies build upon assumptions about human motivation different from those underlying (traditional strategies – my addition). . . . Patterns of action and practice are supported by sociocultural norms and by commitments on the part of the individual to these norms. . . .

12

Change in a pattern of practice or action, according to this view, will occur only as the persons involved are brought to change their normative orientations to old patterns and develop commitments to new ones. And changes in normative orientations involve changes in attitudes, values, skills, and significant relationships, not just changes in knowledge, information, or intellectual rationales for action and practice” (Chin & Benne, 1976:23)

13

OD depends more on the power of the process than the skill of the facilitator

14

OD values

• Democratic – participative and egalitarian

• People oriented - people come first – human need satisfaction (McClelland)

• Optimistic - belief that things can be better

• Open - transparent

15

Distinguishing features and principles

• Participant initiated – readiness . . .

• Individual – desire - caring enough to be ready to do something, “is the building block for all constructive change” (Weisbord, 1987:299)

16

• “We change our behaviour when we are ready to do it . . . Nobody is skilled enough to push the river. . . . the best a consultant can do is create opportunities for people to do what they are ready to do anyway” (Weisbord 1987:233). When we are ready, “we move in our own way at our own pace, regardless of techniques used” (Weisbord 1987:262).

17

• Organisation – capacity to facilitate change

• System – flexibility – releasing rather than controlling

18

“Dare we consider that perhaps our educational system and those who work in it are not open to, or capable of, change? . . . Have we really created a new mindset for change or is the status quo being quietly retained because we have in fact an education system that is fundamentally conservative and organised in ways that thwart educational innovations? Is it realistic to go on introducing reforms in a situation that might not be geared to change?” (Hope 1998; cf also Task Team pp.28, 31)

19

• Participative . . .

All those likely to be affected by the outcome should participate from the beginning – “We are likely to modify our own behavior when we participate in problem analysis and solution and likely to carry out decisions we have helped make” (Lewin cited in Weisbord 1990:89). Over a century of experience shows conclusively that, “we can predict social consequences for any improvement project: the less involvement of those affected, the less likely will be an implementable solution” (Weisbord 1987:190).

20

• Participant driven – participants are the experts and decide what they want

• Facilitator a co-learner - not an expert with answers

• Reflective and reflexive – action research model

21

• Futuristic – shifts focus away from past and present troubles to future possibilities

• “Problem” focused – shifts focus away from who is to blame

• Empowering - learn to do it for yourself

• Process based – emergent and constructivist, not directive – no recipes

22

• Collective . . .

Change happens at group not only individual level . .

23

“Individual training, no matter how powerful, cannot by itself be a strategy for organizational change. . . . Despite this knowledge, there remains extraordinary faith in . . . the organizational change potential of individual training, uncoupled from efforts to alter structures, policies, procedures, and rewards. That strategy is wholly refuted by research of the last forty years . . . Each time people are sent to classes (or workshops – my addition) without vehicles for participating in policy, procedure, strategy, goal setting, and work design, they rightfully feel conned (Weisbord 1987:101)

24

• Cultural - works with beliefs and values not only behaviours and structures

• On site - works with intact groups, where they are

• Ongoing / sustained- become a “learning organisation”

25

Theories and concepts that inform the values and principles

Derived from anthropology, psychology, sociology, leadership, management and organisation sciences

• Systems, including complex systems

• Culture

26

• Participation and teaming – relational – group dynamics

• Readiness

• Critical thinking - reflection and reflexivity

• Adult learning – experiential learning

27

• Constructivist and social justice leadership theories . . .

• Turnaround and school improvement theory (change and transformation theories)

• Small and large scale change

• Inside-out and outside-in approaches28

Common OD interventions

Individual

• Experiential learning

• Training and development

• Growth interventions eg coaching

• Facilitation

• Job-role analysis

29

Small group - teambuilding

• Training and development

• Interpersonal communication

• Effective meetings

• Problem solving – planning, strategy

• Decision making

• Conflict management

30

• Survey-data-feedback (SDF) – diagnosis

• Process consultation eg meetings, decision making

• Conflict management

• Appreciative inquiry

31

Organisation and community

• Survey-data-feedback – diagnosis

• Appreciative inquiry

• Problem solving

• Future search

32

Barriers to OD• Power distance – ego, dependence, locus of

control, agency

• Uncertainty avoidance – confidence, fear of the unknown

• Time – backward looking – “we’ve always done it this way”

• Professionalism – inertia, work ethic

• Incongruence between intention and system

33

Research design

Participative action research using a survey data feedback and other OD designs

34

Process

There are normally two broad phases

• First phase – Start up and diagnosis• Start-up – participant initiated– Introduce OD to “gatekeepers”– Introduce OD to roleplayers: What it is and

how it works– Reach agreement to go ahead and on

process– Invite participants to co-facilitate

35

• Diagnosis - survey-data-feedback• Situation - Where does it itch?• Vision - If you could wave a wand what

would you like to have/see/do?• Action - What ideas for possible action do

you have?• Data analysis and feedback

• End of Phase 1: Participants decide whether to continue with Phase 2

36

• Second phase – Change interventions• Agenda building, prioritising from SDF• Develop action plans• Act• Review change – beginning of new cycle

• End of phase 2: Terminate intervention or continue – further diagnosis, interventions or coaching

37

38

The story so far• Phase 1

– Start up• Hons assignment• School context - complacent staff – cruising (Stoll

& Fink 1996)

• Approached gatekeeper – principal of elementary and prep school – supportive

• Facilitated “What is OD and how does it work?” workshop – included activities related to causes of anxiety and discussion of provocative organisation quotes – transfer of learning - unusually open communication followed – unfreesing (Lewin 1947) – readiness raising

39

• “During the workshop debrief many teachers admitted that they related to those feelings (anxiety etc) but thought that they were the only one’s who experienced them. This open discussion proved to be ground breaking in initiating a new culture of open communication that developed further as the intervention went on”

• Unanimous decision to proceed with a SDF design

• Snow card activity to identify and cluster issues

40

• Anonymous workshop feedback comments included– Refreshing, feels like we are on the same team– Promotes interaction– Thought provoking and fun to chat together– Very interesting and positive to exchange views– Enlightening and non-threatening– Very informative, nice to hear other’s views– Hearing the thoughts and opinions of others– Change is great for everyone– Discussing solutions to problems– Interaction, sharing ideas, working towards a

common goal– Being able to express how I feel– Learning about the views of others – realising I’m

not the only person with certain issues

41

– Survey data feedback• To maintain momentum, process followed up the

next day. Outcome of snow card activity revealed very strong feelings surrounding the introduction of new approaches to teaching. Teachers felt that they were not adequately equipped, trained or supported to implement these effectively. They prioritised this as the first area to diagnose more closely.

• An OD facilitation team of volunteers negotiated the data generation design that was implemented the following week – momentum maintained

42

• Data generation – emergent three phase– Anonymous questionnaire – out Monday; in

Tuesday

The outcome of the survey was that teachers are open to change in general, to teaching approaches and methods in particular, and have many suggestions for improvement but are quite overwhelmed by the demands placed on them

What they want most is a forum to express their ideas and to know they are being heard and that they are making a significant direct contribution, rather than through representatives 43

– Heterogeneous (cross grade for 1st time) focus groups – follow up of survey - Wednesday week

There was overwhelming agreement that it was an effective forum in which to express ideas. Common ground was established. Rich and comprehensive data were gathered and, for the first time, teachers openly expressed their frustrations. They challenged the way things were being done. They also offered valuable ideas for resolving problems. They acknowledged that collectively the staff had a wealth of teaching expertise which needed to be shared. 44

– Individual interviews – following week

There was consensus that focus groups are an excellent way to share ideas and brainstorm solutions “Staff meetings are too big for most people to feel safe to talk openly”

It was welcomed that teaching and learning was now being prioritised, as staff meetings generally focus on operational and policy matters

There was unanimous agreement that teachers want to meet regularly to share ideas across the grades and identify best teaching practices

45

• Data analysis and feedback – two weeks laterWANT AND HAVE

• We work well together as a team and have support within the grade• Innovations and new methodologies are encouraged• Good communication structure and open door policy (though not well used)

WANT BUT DON’T HAVE

• More support for new methodologies including time management• More resources and sharing of existing presentations, games, ideas• Opportunity for individuals to have more of a voice and influence on teaching matters

DON’T WANT BUT HAVE

•Feelings of inadequacy and being overwhelmed with new teaching methodologies• Some felt others are reluctant to change teaching styles in favour of new methodologies – mixed perceptions• Staff meetings not conducive to developing teaching and learning

DON’T WANT AND DON’T HAVE

46

• Structural change - based on feedback– The staff decided that focus groups were most

conducive to productive discussion – they divided into two cross-grade groups which meet at a scheduled time on Wednesdays, approximately every 2 to 3 weeks

– The staff agreed on the following broad guidelines for their focus groups

– Brainstorming ideas– Developing and actioning action plans– Sharing successes and challenges– Pooling resources– Personal and material eg equipment and

resources development 47

- Leadership roles within the focus groups, such as Agenda builder, Recorder, Time keeper, Process observer, Follow upper, etc were agreed upon. These roles are rotated and one staff member offered to draw up a grid to coordinate this.

- Staff agreed that all meetings would conclude with a specific way forward and the Follow-upper role is to ensure that these are actioned. The Reporter gives feedback at the general staff meeting.

48

- Focus groups give feedback on their work at staff meetings, where school-wide decisions are made

- Staff agreed that a staffroom file would be kept for meeting records, as well as material for sharing

49

• Actions already taken through focus groups – based mostly on the SDF– Teaching activities less paper-based and

more experiential and collaborative– Strategies to promote and enhance the

teaching of reading and managing the challenge of listening to individual reading daily

– Work schemes which are available for all to view and ensure better progression across the grades

50

– A less time consuming format for designing weekly preparation and linking assessment standards

– Parental involvement in pupil reading – still being designed

– Presentations by teachers who have developed areas of expertise such as co-operative Learning , Collaborate Learning Encounter (CLE) and using the data projector

– Sharing of resources– A workshop was also held on running

effective meetings to maximise the benefits of leadership roles within meetings 51

Learning• Facilitator / gatekeeper

I adopted an attitude of working with the group as a co-learner (Lewin 1947). I also acknowledge the achievements made both on an individual and group basis. I have become open to accepting ideas that have emerged from group consensus by acknowledging that teachers are best placed to make decisions that affect them.

52

I actively supported the process and the shared vision. I attended every focus group session and presentation and, where possible, approved the purchase of materials that could further enhance the strategies teachers wanted to implement.

53

• The human factor - people first

This paradigm now informs all decisions, policies and interventions. Because OD is grounded in human need theory, I am becoming continually mindful of these needs and how they can be satisfied. I have been guided by McClelland’s human need satisfaction theory.

54

In our school context, these needs can be characterized by the wish to work collectively and take responsibility for innovations and solutions. OD recognises that people are best placed to solve their own problems. This has been demonstrated in the way that teachers have put systems in place to address the areas they identified as needing change and have put practical strategies in place. This forum – the focus groups - for sharing expertise has satisfied the need for achievement and recognition and enhanced their teaching experience.

55

The fact that teachers were able to influence others and see their suggestions being used in classrooms has become a strong motivating factor. There has also been an increased sense of collaboration and belonging as a culture of mutual support for one another has emerged, and confirms Weisbord (1987) where he states that “people benefit most from talking with one another and deciding what to do”.

56

I have observed how teachers have flourished when they know their insight is valued and when they are entrusted with areas of responsibility, and have become profoundly aware of how much teachers want to be able to express their views openly and have influence in decisions that affect them and the running of the school

I have found that by addressing those human needs, the task of teaching can stretch individual’s potential and raise the level of job satisfaction making it rich and rewarding

57

More importantly we know now that without meeting the needs of these teachers all interventions to bring about change will be stifled

This process has achieved staff buy-in and empowered the teachers as “they have committed to the plans they helped create” (Weisbord 1987)

58

• New ways of doing things

Teachers had verbalised concerns in their groups but did not know how to implement change. Because the OD approach is a strategy of planned change it created the opportunity to address the gap in a structured way. It was the teachers who suggested focus groups, as they had experienced it during the data gathering stage and all commented on how productive they were.

59

A system is now in place for the continuous improvement of teaching as well as more alignment with goals and principles

We have learnt to draw from the wealth of expertise of one another to bring about school improvement. We have adopted an attitude of being life-long learners.

60

Collaboration has also united the staff through the culture of support and interdependence between grades

What also emerged was that there were teachers who had been feeling deficient but thought they were alone in their inadequacies. The forums have brought out openness for discussion and specific action plans which have been followed up and implemented.

61

Focus groups have become part of the culture of the school. Structures are in place to ensure the continuity of the change process we have embarked upon. It’s now “the way we do things around here”.

Our school has entered into a phase of becoming a learning organisation with structures to enable ongoing development. These shifts in focus have initiated transformational change resulting in a more empowered staff as well as school improvement. 62

Conclusion• “Theory in practice,” “practice theory,”

Lewin’s approach to problem solving and change, was one of doing by learning. It was action based upon research. What was unique was that this research was conducted by the participants upon themselves, their own work practices, experiences and perceptions. He urged people to reflect critically on taken-for-granted assumptions, use common sense and find out what works by trying it. He offered a theory for turning research into action. “Lewin wed scientific thinking to democratic values and gave birth to participative management” (Weisbord 1987:72) and democratic social change. This is OD. 63