ORGANISATION
DEVELOPMENT: THE
ARGUMENT STILL STANDS
Clive 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Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the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
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 leadership
7
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 approaches
28
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
43
representatives
– 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
44
be shared.
– 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
WANT
AND HAVE
WANT BUT DON’T HAVE
later
• 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)
• 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
DON’T WANT AND DON’T 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
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 cooperative 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-forgranted 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