EDUCATION
BRIDGE 4: DEVELOPING A PERSONAL CONTEXT-BASED MODEL OF CHANGE
observed how W. E. B. Du Bois revised his doctrine of the Talented Tenth later in his life as he moved from a speculative mode to his own life ex- perience with the power of socio-politics (Mulhern, 2000b). As a result of this intellectual journey toward better understanding of socio-political fac- tors, the author gained access to additional broadly useful critical thinking and leadership tools.
BRIDGE 4: DEVELOPING A PERSONAL
ongoing change (illustrated in the study of Havel, 1997; Iacocca & Novak, 1984).
With the change model in mind as an intellectual bridge, the author determined that her own contextual model for change would acknowledge her institution’s irregular pattern of subtle incremental changes. Not atypi- cal, these sporadic changes historically have occurred in response to narrow windows of opportunity opened by the stimulus of a new program chair- person or director, a grant proposal, or an NCA requirement. Given that pattern, evidence of student learning assessment progress and change would best be tracked atTsoukas and Chia’s (2002)microchange level, the source of incremental change. For the 2003 progress report, the author needed to identify clues to assessment progress (and non-progress) in the comments of the stakeholders and in existing documents of all kinds. Since changes typi- cally were responsive and incremental, purposeful leadership could assist the institution’s stakeholders in interpreting whether and how these small changes represented a holistic effort to increase student learning. Common acknowledgment of institutional progress in student learning, almost in spite of itself, could leverage the institution’s stakeholders toward identifying their implicit common vision and then establishing explicit shared goals.
Tsoukas and Chia’s Theory of Change
The author’s personal model of change focuses on the significance of mi- crochanges as presented inTsoukas and Chia (2002). Although the author used this theory to make sense of the assessment process changes discovered to be relevant to the 2003 project, this theory has significance for under- standing change in libraries as well.
This section explicates Tsoukas and Chia’s (2002) theory of change and change leadership, which helps with understanding complex change (Mulhern, 2002b).
Microchanges and Change
Tsoukas and Chia’s (2002) unique focus is on an organization’s micro- changes. Microchanges are real time, practical front-line human adjust- ments that diverge from routines and norms. According to their theory of change, change is continuous, natural, and neutral. Analysts later may try to track an organization through its accomplished changes and may label these changes as positive or negative depending on their cognitive lenses.Tsoukas and Chia (2002) criticize this traditional organizational research approach for failing to acknowledge the continuous motion, even commotion of JEAN MULHERN 72
change processes. Librarians can certainly identify with the image of com- motion in the library field today. Tsoukas and Chia say that traditional organization researchers ignore the thousands of lost microchanges, the dead ends and missed opportunities, as well as the non-linear and openly fluid nature of change processes. They call on researchers to conduct more sensitive studies of microchanges, the overlooked fuel of change. Without this information, the authors contend that change in organizations conti- nues to be reported as a predictable event, rather than as the non-linear, complex, and unpredictable process that it is (see alsoMulhern, 2002b). This is certainly a postmodern analytical method, looking for what did not change, what changes died out, as well as what changes did become insti- tutionalized (Carlson, 1997;Giroux, 1997).
Especially in the complex, loosely coupled organizations in higher edu- cation, including libraries, purposefully effecting major change goals is difficult. Instead, change is incremental. If a series of related microchanges gains common use in a library or among librarians and becomes institu- tionalized as a norm, only then has that organization changed. The only norms that emerge from change processes are those that naturally stabilize the organization within a given environment (Hall & Hord, 2001; Kezar, 2001; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Announcing change is easy; achieving an announced change is rare because of the power of established institutional norms. Postmodern theorists such as Giroux (1997) have explicated the highly conservative power of traditional norms in schooling. In colleges and universities, the strongest barriers to developing a learning assessment pro- gram (which implies change toward increased emphasis on the student) have been such traditional norms as faculty autonomy, instructional delivery by lecture, the faculty reward system, and the student grading system. Today, in a similar way, librarians can consider the strength of the norms for cat- aloging, bibliographic instruction, building design, and even library eti- quette in the face of pressures for change driven by technology and students (De Rosa, Dempsey, & Wilson, 2004).
Replacement norms that may emerge from a change process are not always anticipated or desired by those within an organization. In addition, because of external environmental changes over time, existing norms may become ineffective or counter-productive, stimulating improvisation and informal microchanges even without leadership (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). The 1995 NCA deadline for the development of student learning assessment plans in all its member institutions is a relevant example of one such external change that placed pressure to change on each college (NCA-CIHE, 1997). Certainly, in libraries, Google is exerting an external pressure that is driving change.
The Organization and Change
Rather than defining organization as a stable object as in classic organi- zational theory (Hanson, 1996),Tsoukas and Chia (2002) present it as an open, complex, and continuous social process that emerges because of change (p. 570). The authors define organizations as ‘‘situation-specific webs of social relations in which technology [or some other new factor] enters and modifies and, in turn, is modified’’ (p. 568). They see organization as a response to change. In its historical context, the academic library itself de- veloped in response to change.
According to theTsoukas and Chia (2002)theory of organizational change, change happens with or without facilitation. Change is ongoing and cannot be stopped. Leadership is the energy that shapes change toward a shared goal.
Leadership can leverage further change by harnessing the momentum of change. Tsoukas and Chia’s concept of leadership in an organization parallels the role of an attractor in increasing the chances of a chaotic state achieving stability in the physical sciences (Mulhern, 2002b;Wheatley & Kellner, 1996).
An attractor works like a magnet, drawing together relevant factors. Organ- izational chaos theorists find intriguing the idea that effective leadership ncreases the chances of an organization coming together for periods of useful, relative stability between its natural periods of instability (Fullan, 1999;
Mulhern, 2002b). The author thought that the 2003 progress report process could be an attractor capable of drawing diverse campus stakeholders to- gether to strengthen horizontal socio-political relationships (Helgesen, 1995).
Some researchers have found a role for leadership in destabilizing an organization in order to release creative or reorganizing processes. This interesting view of leadership comes from a secondary concept derived from chaos theory, that change emerges only from periods of instability (Fullan, 1999; Merry, 1995; Wheatley & Kellner, 1996). Likewise, Hanson (1996) describes conflict (instability) as often very constructive and ‘‘inevitable’’
(p. 71) under the assumptions of social system or open system theories.
Sources of conflict within an academic organization range broadly from collegial debate and competitive silo-based initiatives to allocation of scarce resources and ideas from new key administrators or faculty. An institutional accrediting agency, through its requirement for institutions to assess student learning, offers assessment as a means to destabilize the institution by de- creasing complacency and encouraging purposeful and cyclical responses to self-identified weaknesses (NCA-HLC, 2004).
Classical organizational theory celebrates stability, suppresses conflict, and assumes that change, if it is to occur, can be planned and controlled by the leaders (Hanson, 1996). In contrast, open systems theory finds that JEAN MULHERN 74
constructive change grows out of conflict (Hanson). In turn, Tsoukas and Chia (2002) contend that while leaders can influence and shape the socio- political or human processes of organization and change, they cannot know or control the radiating consequences of change over time (Hanson). They do support purposeful, rational planning for short-term organizational ob- jectives (the teleological/rational model of change,Kezar, 2001). In contrast, they contend that long-range planning to control change is unlikely to be successful. They conclude that leaders lead when they work to create social environments hospitable to selected types of improvisation and to micro- changes in selected areas (nudging) (see alsoMulhern, 1999b). Compared to edicts, incremental nudging of the type and direction of change is more likely to be successful in complex organizations such as academic institu- tions, libraries, or consortia (see also Fullan quoted by Hanson, 1996, p. 307;Fullan, 1999;Kezar, 2001).
Model of Change for the Progress Report
As Kezar (2001) has indicated, leading change requires developing a per- sonal context-based model of change (also Hanson, 1996, p. 307). At the time of the 1998 self-study project, the author had formed no local model for change nor had she considered change processes. She based the localized model for the 2003 progress report on Tsoukas and Chia’s (2002) theory emphasizing the importance of microchanges. Based on that model, she verified how microchanges in assessment contributed incrementally to pos- itive institutional change that might stimulate further improvisation and microchanges. She also included evidence of failed microchanges since these revealed areas of risk taking and an assessment interest or need.
The author’s change model for the progress report included a vision of its potential to influence the direction of organizational change. Of Hanson’s (1996)change agent functions of catalyst, solution giver, process helper, or resource linker, she considered herself a process helper (p. 307). The report itself had the potential to become a catalyst to improve the student learning assessment process. One way to increase the likelihood of achieving longer- term assessment goals was to expand the assessment process web of inclu- sion (Helgesen, 1995), beginning with the progress report process itself.
Strategies to increase stakeholder inclusion would increase the likelihood of broader ownership of the process. Potentially, the learning assessment process could become institutionalized over time.
The author’s coursework suggested that educational leaders need to ac- knowledge organizational change directly, reflectively, and intentionally.
Such an approach assures that the change leader has considered the dy- namics and ethics of the change process and assumes responsibility for leadership strategies that will have the greatest positive influence on an envisioned direction for change.
Flake and Williams (1999)offer insights on the responsibilities of a leader similar to those just described. They move beyondKezar (2001)with change leadership guidelines that fight the drag of inertia and compel change. They recommend two steps to intentionally destabilize the status quo. With these two steps, take the lead and stretch, they anticipate the practical application of Tsoukas and Chia’s (2002) theory of change that depends on proactive human improvisation. Other writers focus on the role of personal values as a leadership driver, motivating a leader to take a stand, take the lead, stretch, and even withdraw (see especiallyGiroux, 1997;Carlson, 1997). Leading at any level requires an active exploration of the environment with the intent of facilitating ethical problem-solving changes, regardless of existing norms.
To evaluate leadership with integrity in practice, the author read Lee Iacocca’s autobiography (with Novak, 1984) and shadowed Tom Sanville, head of the library consortium OhioLINK, for insights about leading with stretch and risk (Mulhern, 1999b). Other proactive leaders studied in the program included Jesus (Jones, 1995), VaclavHavel (1997), andHelgesen’s (1995) inclusive leaders.
Based on learning about leadership and change as a student and through continued reading, the author gave greater attention to change processes in the 2003 progress report compared to the 1998 self-study. She considered how conflict affected the participants and their motivation to selectively embrace change processes.
In summary, to construct this intellectual bridge related to developing a personal model of change, one must integrate learning from a focused study of organizational change, leadership, and ethics. Crossing this bridge en- abled the learner to accept the concept of complex change processes being shaped but not necessarily controlled by leadership in our institutions and in our libraries.