This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 18 December 2014, At: 06:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Irrationality in Organizations: AConstructivist Model for ChangeToby J. Tetenbaum a & Thomas A. Mulkeen aa School of Education, Fordham University , New York, NewYork, 10023Published online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Toby J. Tetenbaum & Thomas A. Mulkeen (1989) Irrationality inOrganizations: A Constructivist Model for Change, The Educational Forum, 53:4, 337-353, DOI:10.1080/00131728909335622

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131728909335622

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Irrationality in Organizations:A Constructivist Model for Change

Toby J. TetenbaumThomas A. Mulkeen

In an unstable society in transition." American institutions of highereducation have found themselves floundering without direction andwithout a clearly defined mission. z Four decades of bipartisan consensusabout higher education seem to have come to an end.s Thus, a reportof the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching notes,"Higher Education in the United States is entering a period of questioningof its purposes and its quality."4 At the same time, institutions of higherlearning have been struggling with projected declines in enrollments anda changing clientele, increasing costs, older and tenured faculties, andobsolete programs.s While previously being capable of responding tothe demands of special interest groups through accretion, their leadersnow face retrenchment and need to make difficult decisions for whichthey are ill prepared.s The educational goals and leadership styles of thepast are no longer applicable and there is uncertainty as to the directioneducators should take. Not surprisingly, the present period in Americaneducation is viewed as one of "disarray, conflict and diminished senseof potential."7Although we are normally an optimistic country with abelief that national resolve can conquer any problem, perhaps for thefirst time in our history, there is a prevalent belief that the educationalsystem may not "make it." "There are limits to national optimism," notedSarason, "and according to some people, the schools have exceededthem."B

Toby] . Tetenbaum and ThomasA. Mulkeen are both associate professors, School ofEducation, Fordham University , New York, New York 10023.

The Educational Forum, Vol. 53, No.4, Summer 1989

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

Management Theories and Assumptions

In casting about for management theories to guide them through thismorass, educational leaders are increasingly finding theories to be inade­quate. Classical management theorists focused on the formal organiza­tional structure and on the problem of departmental division of labor(differentiation) and coordination (integration). 9 They viewedmanagement as a process of planning, organization, command, coor­dination, and control .tv Problem solving and decision making wereviewed as linear and rational processes that were focused on structuringthe organization to meet its goals. Change efforts were to be conductedthrough manipulation of roles and relationships.

In contrast, in the human relations approach to management thatdeveloped in reaction to the classic model, the focus shifted to the needsand skills of people in the organization.u The emphasis was on theinterdependence between the organization and the workers. Thus, eventhough problem solving and decision making were viewed as rationaland linear processes as in the classic models, they were focused here onmatching the needs of the organization with those of its workers. Changeefforts were to be conducted through manipulation of individuals'motivations, satisfactions, and morale.12

A third major approach to management focused on politics, power,conflict, and competition among and within groups and coalitions .tsHere the organization was viewed as a "battleground" with competinginterests fighting for scarce resources. Problem solving and decisionmaking were viewed as less rational and linear than in the other twoapproaches, focusing instead on on-going processes of negotiation,bargaining, coercion, and compromise to bring the special interest groupsinto alignment. Change efforts were to be conducted through manipu­lation of individual differences and interests using political skill andacumen.

Although they differ in degree, all three approaches above assume aworld that is rational, linear, non-ambiguous, and predictable. In thisworld view , all of the materials for problem solving and decision making,as well as for effecting change, are readily available. It is left to thosein charge to know how to manage them. Although these assumptionsmay have been valid at one time, they are clearly insupportable as weenter the twenty-first century. The world of tomorrow will be one ofimpermanence where nothing will be predictable and uncertainty willincrease; where "violent and accelerating change" will becommonplace .14

Constructivism . Organizational managers are increasingly cognizant

338

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

of the fact that the assumptive priority of rationality in existing modelsof organizational theory is untenable and that attention needs to be paidto the human inclination to give meaning to events, a process that createsirrationality within the organization. Once it is understood that peopleactively construct their own realities and have their own way of makingsense of the world by establishing personal conjectures about what theworld is like,IS then it becomes clear that what is important for amanager to understand about an event is not its reality-derived absolute,but rather how the individual views it, interprets it, and gives it meaning.Thus, the non-rational, non-reasonable and often absurd aspects thatconstitute the irrationality of organizations can be attributed largely tothe different interpretations and meanings people give to events.

The process of giving meaning to events is a function of the uniqueset of values, attitudes, motives, and experiences that the individualbrings to the situation. The degree to which these personal internal factorsoperate is itself a function of the degree of ambiguity and uncertaintyin the situation,16 Since education constitutes a human activity systemrather than a natural or designed system.t? the degree of ambiguity anduncertainty is high. This situation is exacerbated by the ambiguity anduncertainty of the larger social context surrounding education. Thus,while personal constructs always act to "distort" reality, at the currenttime, latitude for personal internal factors to act upon individuals'perceptions is exceptionally high.

Because no two individuals share their internal states completely incommon, no two interpretations can be expected to be exactly the same;yet individuals are able to interact to the extent that they can construeone another's construction process . Managers, therefore, need not sharea similarity in beliefs about events with their workers, but what they doneed is the ability to construe the construction of events by others."Anticipating a person's processes primarily depends on understandingthat person's view of events, not how the view relates to events."IS

Owing to the assumptions of rationality in the organizational theoriesdescribed earlier, the person as a meaning-giving entity has been largelyignored in studies of organizational phenomena.w To overlook thecapacity of humans to give meaning to events detracts from our under­standing of organizational behavior.20 Since behavior is guided bycognitive interpretations of experience, people can be expected to respondto events according to the meaning they make of or give to these events.Even behavior that may seem irrational or inconsistent to an observeris meaningful and coherent when understood through the person'sperspective or constructed reality . Therefore, a first step in any process,

339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

particularly one involving decision making, is the interpretations theindividual gives to the situation.st Educational managers need to knowhow individuals process and interpret events in their private thoughts .

Ego defensiveness: Protecting the self construct. If change is to occurin education, its leaders need to understand not only that individualsgenerate their own constructions of reality, but also that they act toprotect these constructs . A particularly vulnerable construct is that ofself - all people, leaders as well as subordinates, strive to avoid theanxiety that signals a threat to the self. The primary way in which theydo this is through the use of defense mechanisms. Those "habitual waysof managing adjustment problems involving anxiety . . . defending orprotecting an individual's sense of self-worth or self-esteem."22 Ironicallydefense mechanisms, like the constructs they protect, further obstructthe change process.

Since most faculty in higher education have job security by virtue oftenure, what is the source of threat with regard to change? One answerto this question is that change implies that there is something wrong withwhat is in place, but what is in place often was created by the very peoplewho are now being asked to change it. This threatens the faculty's feelingsof self worth, causing them to react in ways that will protect their egoand help them defend against pain.23Rather than ignoring older faculty,managers need to engage them in the process, ask their advice, help themto see that they have an investment in the future. In addition, educationalmanagers need to be mindful of the fact that in a steady-state economy,where retrenchment and decline are the norm, change will tend to meanloss to one or more people who can be expected to react to the proposedchange with anger, resentment, or hostility. Helping them to protect theirego and to see possibilities in the proposed change despite apparent lossesis a major task of managers.

The managers who are expected to envision and implement changeare people, too. They construct their own realities and defend their egosjust as their subordinates do. For example, Iacocca argues that the mostimportant thing a manager can do is to hire .the right person, yet he notesthat, to protect their egos, people who are unsure of themselves do notwant competent people around to show them up or to replace them.24Change, particularly in higher education where tenure assures theretention of individuals over a lifetime, relies heavily on new blood forrevitalization. When managers protect their egos by failing to hire thebest person for the job, they unwittingly sabotage their own changeefforts. Bennis reminds us that "institutions are more amenable to changewhen they preserve the esteem of all members."25 People need to feel

340

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

respected, needed, and valued. When their esteem is catered to, they willidentify with and handle the change better. When it is threatened, theywill resist and sabotage plans.

Change as a People Process

Change processes typically begin with goal setting and move alongto planning and implementation. Such processes assume that organiza­tions are rational systems. However, as we have argued here, educationis a human activity system (i.e., a people business) and, as such , people'sconstructions of events and their need to protect their constructions createirrationality in the system. This irrationality needs to be taken intoaccount in any model of change.

To repeat, higher education is a people business. The extent to whichthis is true is reflected in the fact that colleges and universities are judgedby the quality of their people and that two-thirds or more of any college'sbudget goes for academic, staff, and administrative salaries. aeTherefore, while we clearly do not suggest that educational leadersbecome trained psychotherapists in order to understand the psychody­namics of people in the organization, we would argue that they do needto develop extensive interpersonal skills. Further, we would stronglyrecommend that they employ a process of change that builds in time soas to gain some understanding of participants' perceptions of the situationand some knowledge of where participants' esteem needs may bethreatened. When people are important, educational leaders engagingin the process of change will follow this sequence of steps:

(1) Empathy. In managing change, the first step is the use of empathyto determine where people stand on the proposed change - how eachperson has"constructed" his or her view of the situation and whetherit reflects support for or resistance to change.27 To analyze people'sfeelings accurately, it is necessary for the manager to know eachindividual well. Only by standing in each faculty member's shoes canthe manager fully appreciate his or her perspective on the situation, anddetermine its ego enhancing or ego threatening elements. Having anempathic relationship with faculty allows the manager to assess whether,and how quickly, the change can be executed as planned.

(2) Rapport. Since the change process will involve intense andcontinuous communication among participants, it is imperative that arelationship of mutual respect and trust be established so that ideas maybe freely exchanged and differences aired. Feedback from facultyregarding feelings, reactions, concerns, or suggestions can be invaluable

341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

to the process, but it will only be forthcoming in a safe and supportiveenvironment. If faculty fear reprisal for perceived lack of loyalty in notsupporting the leader or a colleague, they will cease engaging in openand honest discussion . Change as a group process then becomes a sham.

(3) Communication. From the initial stages of change through its imple­mentation, continuous two-way communication should take place andit should occur as soon and as often as possible with as many people asare involved or interested. It is better to overcommunicate than under­communicate.ze In addition, it is necessary to develop good communi­cation skills, which reflect an awareness that differing styles of commun­ication are effective with particular types of people.w If the managerwants to be "heard," he or she needs to speak the language of the receiver.Also, educational managers need to learn the value of active hearing: "Agood manager needs to listen at least as much as he needs to talk."30

(4) Participative management. Participative management refers to themental and emotional involvement of a person in a group situation thatencourages the individual to contribute to group goals and to shareresponsibility for them.» Implied here is that the individual takesownership for and becomes ego involved in the decisions of the group .A guiding principal of participative management is that people whoselives are affected by a decision should be part of the process of arrivingat that decision. The recent report of the New York State Commissioner'sTask Force on the Teaching Profession, for example, recommendschanging the roles of teachers so that they may share responsibility foreducational success. Participants on this Task Force viewed joint decisionmaking as the key to their goals, believing that "decisions should be madecloser to their point of implementation," namely, by teachers who areclosest to and most involved with students' capabilities and needs.»

Historically, participative management was an inalienable right of uni­versity faculty through faculty councils or senates. However, decliningenrollment, scarce resources, and general retrenchment have leduniversities to increase top-down management with surprisingly littlefaculty reaction to the encroachment on their prerogatives. Oneexplanation for faculty passivity in this instance is that they "have nostomach for leading the way during contraction and little desire forselecting academic priorities among their own efforts."33

There are two major outcomes of the participative process: First,"involving grass-roots employees on participation teams with controlover their own outcome helps the organization to get and use more ideasto improve performance and increase future skills. "34 Second,maximization of workers' participation has consistently been found to

342

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

be associated with successful change.35 In contrast, resistance isincreased when workers feel that change is being imposed on them (evenif they agree with it). Where managers dictate change and coerce itsimplementation, workers are likely to respond with resentment,resistance, and/or sabotage. Participative management is a particularlyappealing concept for a society founded on democratic principles. Itsappeal, however, may serve to mask its complexity.ee Some words ofcaution are therefore necessary regarding the implementation of aparticipative management approach to change.

First, managers need to assess the extent to which a participativemanagement approach to change is consistent with the culture andhistory of the institution. Higher education, like any other institution,is characterized by a distinctive culture that encompasses the norms,values, rules, beliefs, and philosophy of the organization. In addition,each institution carries with it a unique history. Violation of theinstitution's history or culture can create untold problems for a manager.Therefore, before initiating a participative management approach tochange, managers need to analyze their setting: Has the institution hada history of working together to solve problems, or does it lean moretoward individualistic/entrepreneurial endeavors? Is the culture one inwhich group decision making is valued and supported, or does it leantoward the authoritarian or paternalistic? Does the institutional historyreveal on-going or even periodic self-assessment that is open and honest?Is the culture one in which the institution welcomes such self-assessment?Does the institution engage in long-range planning, or does it tend to becrisis driven? Without asking questions such as these, managers mayinadvertently violate tradition, thereby engendering resistance to theproposed change. Understanding the institution's history and culture iscritical to successful change.

Second, most managers are aware of the complexities inherent indecision making and change. They recognize that, in today's world,problems tend not to be simple and independent of one another. Rather,problems consist of complex systems that are interactive and changing,what Ackoff calls "messes."37What managers need to consider in usinga participative management approach to change, however, is that theresolution of "messes" is exacerbated by the group process. Added tothe complex nature of problems is the multiplicity of conflicting viewsor "professional pluralism" that groups of people bring to the problem­solving situation.ss Wood warns that potential for conflict produces"strain toward convergence," in which group members coalesce to avoidconflict-producing discussions through compromise and self-censorship.»

343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

Discussion in which participants can safely engage in conflict and probethese complex and competing views call for managers to be trained ingroup facilitation so that they may expertly encourage discussion andexploration of ideas and feelings. Everyone's ideas need to be consideredand the reasons fully explained why some of the ideas were not used.Otherwise, people's egos will be hurt, their enthusiasm will wane, andtheir future participation will be diminished.

Third, participative management refers to a philosophy rather thana specific process so that there is wide variation in approaches rangingfrom formal to informal, with and without a designated leader. Thecomplex nature of problems in education, combined with factors operat­ing within and outside of the university (e.g., declining enrollments,retrenchment, scarce resources, heavily tenured faculty, territorialwarfare among disciplines and departments, changing demographics,rapidly changing technology, and information overload) would suggestthe need for participative management in the university to be carried outwith formal procedures and a clearly designated leader.

Finally, managers need to understand that participative managementdoes not negate the necessity for leadership. In an era when teacherempowerment and shared decision making are at the forefront of educa­tional reform, leaders are mistakenly struggling to find ways to beunobtrusive, if not invisible. They erroneously assume that participativemanagement means that all aspects of a problem-from identificationto resolution-must come exclusively from the group. Nothing could befurther from the truth. While faculty should always be encouraged toinitiate change or raise problems for discussion, it is the leader's responsi­bility to determine an organization's mission, to set its goals, and to effecttheir implementation. Participative management is an adjunct to, nota substitute for, leadership. In fact , it is leadership that is the sine quanon of change.so Unfortunately, administrators tend to be individualstrained for academic careers; that is, they focused on research and teach­ing rather than on administration. Most learned management on the jobso that the extent of their skills, knowledge, and expertise, particularlywith regard to people, is largely a function of their specific experiences.Even those who received training in management were taught to managegrowth and, therefore, find themselves at a loss today when asked tomanage decline. Responding to needed change by accretion and acqui­escence is dramatically different from responding to financial and ideo­logical retrenchment, declining consensus and increasing pluralism, andlack of uniformity and purpose. Reform by accretion makes people feelgood since it is accompanied by optimism and expansion, while retrench-

344

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

ment tends to produce accusations and hand wringing.u It is smallwonder, therefore, that university managers are willing to relinquish theirleadership roles to a group process in which the responsibility and onusare diffused.

(5) Implementati on . Once decisions are made, the final step in theprocess is to assure that decisions are carried out and plans implemented.If managers have indicated to participants that they were part of aparticipatory decision-making process rather than serving in a purelyconsultative role , then the participants' decision must be binding.saNothing will destroy a manager's credibility and the process ofparticipative management more quickly than having participants see thattheir work has been for naught.

Rarely will an entire system unanimously endorse a proposed change.Certainly educational managers cannot afford to postpone implementa­tion of the plans or decisions produced by the group until that degreeof support is obtained. In actuality, all that is needed to begin implemen­tation is a critical mass of like-minded individuals who support theproposed change. This should not be difficult, particularly when the plansor decisions were arrived at by group process. In addition, almost everyschool of education has some faculty , though small in number, who couldbecome the core of change when appropriately nourished: "The trick isknowing who they are and how to influence them ."43

Many educational leaders feel impotent and without leverage inattempting to influence resistant faculty to engage in proposed change.They see few, if any, viable "weapons" to use with a heavily-tenuredfaculty . Such a perception den ies the variety of rewards and incentiveseducational leaders have at their disposal even in times of scarceresources . For example, most leaders have input into hirings, tenure,promotion, and the awarding of merit . They also have input into suchthings as travel and professional development monies as well as theallocation of faculty lines and the expansion of courses and/or programs.A sagacious leader can use each of these opportunities to shape behaviorin the direction of the desired change. Every time an individual is hiredor receives money to attend a conference or is awarded merit, an implicitmessage goes out to the faculty about desired behaviors. Educationalleaders who want change will see to it that the message is both explicitand consistent.

Expectations for Change: Three Cases

The wave of educational reform that began in 1983 has continued

345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

without abatement to the present, assuring that all educators at all levelsclearly understand that change must occur. Yet many educational leaderswho have struggled to create change within their institutions over thepast several years are already frustrated by the reluctance of theircolleagues to join in the process. A major source of the frustration is anunrealistic expectation regarding the extent of change that should occurwithin a particular time frame.

As noted earlier, the traditional view of organizations suggests thatthey are rational systems that can be engineered by focusing on organi­zational structure emphasizing information processing and decisionmaking.w Although it is conceded in this view that behavior is notalways rational, it is maintained that the intentions, assumptions, andnorms of the organization are rational. Non-rational elements within thesystem are viewed as controllable either through the structure of theorganization itself or through the use of authority. However, it has beenargued here and elsewhere that systems consist of people, all of whombring their own perspectives to a situation. Each perspective is validaccording to his or her particular image of the world or Weltanschauung,but creates irrationality from a system's perspective.v

Irrationality is best handled through an approach to managementwhich, unlike the structural approach, assumes that people and the worldare not rational. Incrementalism is one such approach. It understandsthat changes come about through hundreds of little steps, each of whichis a small , reasonable response to pressures. Lindblom believes that such"patches" are all that can be comprehended at a time since humanintellectual capacity is limlted.se He argues that humans cannot see intothe future, cannot understand the level of complexity required to makedecisions today, and cannot imagine all the possibilities inherent in anysituation. Such an incremental approach has been challenged as "unsuitedfor periods of drastic change and fiercer competition" when rapid actionand flexible changes of direction are called for. 47 Given the history andculture of most institutions of higher education, particularly schools ofeducation, and given also the people issues related to constructivism andego defensiveness, nevertheless, we would argue that setting a goal ofrapid and grandiose change is doomed to failure. We agree with Bennisthat permanent change needs to be gradual.48

Below is a brief description, followed by a critique from the modelexplicated in this paper, of three attempts to create change in a graduateschool of education. This private school, located in a large northeasterncity, suffered a 39 percent decline in enrollment over a four-year period.While this was not unusual for similar institutions during this time, it

346

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

was neither anticipated by the 35-member faculty nor considered by mostof the faculty to constitute a problem. The faculty were notified aboutthe decline merely as general information related to a report on thesemester's registration.

Caseone:A grass roots approach. In the fall of the semester in whichthe decline was announced, two concerned faculty, one untenured,extended an open invitation to both faculty and administration to attendan informal discussion of the role of schools of education in the presentclimate. Approximately half of the faculty and no administratorsattended. The Forum, as the group was called, met twice a month toattempt to define a mission for schools of education and for their schoolin particular. No structure was imposed in a deliberate attempt to allowfaculty to engage freely in discussion without constraints. Whether ornot consensus was gained by the end of the year was less important thanhaving faculty talk with one another about who they were and what theywere all about. By the end of the academic year, the Forum was disbandedwith people satisfied at having a better sense of who they were as a facultybut frustrated with feeling that nothing had been accomplished.

Here, the empathy, rapport, and communication phases of the modelwere followed. It was the first time the faculty had met to talk aboutthemselves and their work as professionals. Being historically a pater­nalistic institution, traditional monthly meetings of faculty were calledby administrators to accomplish administrative tasks. They were notfaculty driven. Since neither the culture of the institution nor its historyprovided for faculty discussion aimed at faculty concerns, the twoinitiators of the Forum understood that considerable time needed to bespent developing trust and an agenda. Where they failed was in allocatingtoo much time for the early "stage-setting" phases . In a sense, they lostthe audience by failing to enter the participative management phase ata good time. The group needed to have a specific task or problem onwhich to focus so that they could move from their sense of one anotherand the trust that was building to a work arena where they couldstrengthen the bonding but also feel they were accomplishing somethingin the form of a concrete product. The proposed focus of discussion forthe Forum (i.e., the development of a mission) was, in fact, too grandiosea task for a faculty who were novices at participative management. Anincremental approach would suggest that a smaller task might have beenproposed, one that could have been accomplished readily providing analmost immediate success experience. In addition, there needed to bestronger leadership and structure. The looseness of task, leadership, andstructure, while appropriate to the early phases of change and/or to a

347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

faculty with a paternalistic culture, should have been gradually replacedand the faculty moved along to the participative management phase ofthe change process.

Case two: A hard systems approach. A second opportunity to explorechange was provided by the dean who selected a "Blue Ribbon Panel,"consisting of six of his "best" faculty members, two of whom were tenuredand four untenured. The six people represented the school's threeDivisions. Their charge was to "examine current programs and makerecommendations regarding those that could be eliminated." Given thetask, the primary issue for the Panel became that of weighing alternativeapproaches to program assessment. Some members argued that theviability of retaining or eliminating programs should be made on a cut­and-dry, cost effectiveness basis. Others argued that decisions shouldbe geared to the school's mission. Meeting weekly, the panel membersalternately worked with numbers while debating educational philosophy,institutional constraints, external needs of the marketplace, facultystrengths and weaknesses, etc. At the end of the year, the elected leaderof the panel presented to the dean a set of recommendations with whichno one on the panel was satisfied.

In this case, possibly the most critical aspect, one that sealed its fateearly on, was the fact that it totally by-passed the empathy phase byshowing extraordinary insensitivity to faculty feelings. To begin with,the selection process and the name assigned to the ad hoc groupimmediately led to ill will among the non-selected faculty members whowere made to feel unworthy . The negative feelings thus engendered bythe elitist approach to the formation of the committee were felt by panelmembers and served to hamper the rapport and communication phasesof the process. Problems in the early phases were exacerbated by a lackof sensitivity to the vulnerable position of the four untenured faculty onthe panel who were being asked to make decisions regarding programs"owned" by tenured faculty. In sum, the change process by-passed theinitial three phases of the change process, jettisoning the panel membersinto the participative management phase, without a history of facultyproblem solving, in a sea of ill will.

A second critical factor stemmed from the fact that the history andculture of the institution viewed problem solving through a hard systemsapproach. The premise in hard systems is that a real life problem situationcan be solved by formulating the problem, rationally weighing alterna­tives, and arriving at a known end. Thus, it is necessary to state at theoutset what end is desired, with systems thinking providing the meansfor achieving this end efficiently. The desired end in the situation

348

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

described here was defined by the dean, who asked for a reduction inthe number of programs. What created difficulties for the panel was thefact that, while the solution had been provided, the problem which thatsolution addressed had never been defined. This lack of clarity intrudedinto the process , muddying the direct and rational link between problemand solution required for effective use of hard systems analysis.

Finally, the process ended when the recommendations were sent tothe dean. The crisis that initiated the process (namely, the enrollmentdecline) abated and, therefore, no need was seen for an implementationphase.

Case three : A soft systems approach. The third approach to changewas initiated by a faculty member who was intrigued by the possibilitieshe saw in a new change model described by Peter Checkland.w In brief,the model is a methodology for doing action research on "human activitysystems," in which the problems are often fuzzy and not well-defined.Rather than "solving the problem," it provides a means for "structuringa debate." The process involves designing a model of a system thataddresses the perceived problem in the existing system's structures andprocesses, comparing it with the existing system, and debating thediscrepancies in terms of whether change in the direction of the con­ceptual model is systemically desirable and culturally feasible. The facultymember handpicked six colleagues whom he perceived to be "analyticthinkers, " and offered to teach them the model in return for their commit­ment to apply it to the problems of change in the school. The group metweekly through much of the spring semester and was in the middle ofthe analysis when the semester ended. The group never convened again,and there was no product or outcome.

In this third approach to change, there was no attempt to engage inthe empathy phase. As will be shown, this had implications for whateventually transpired. The rapport phase was handled well in that allmembers were equally invested in a shared learning experience. Thecommunication phase was also handled well since the model itselfstructures the discourse. The participative management phase began well.There was a clearly designated leader, a structure provided byCheckland's model, and a goal, namely, to learn the model and applyit to change in the school. If all was going well, why did the process endwhen the semester ended and not continue over the summer or resumethe following fall?

Part of the reason for the failure of the third approach to change liesin the fact that in by-passing the empathy phase, the leader did not knowthe members of the group well. His selection of analytic thinkers was

349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

based on what he knew of them and their work. What he neglected todo was to talk with each individual about their reasons for joining thegroup, their perceptions of the school and its needs , and their perceptionthat the outcome of this group could impact on the school. Whatoccurred, in fact, was that he offered to teach a new model to peopleexcited about learning. In that sense his perceptions of the people heselected were accurate. What he failed to perceive, and what he mighthave learned had he engaged in the empathy process, was that none ofthe participants believed that what they were doing would impact onthe school. Based on the school's history, they were pessimistic aboutthe implementation of faculty recommendations and joined the grouppurely as heuristic exercise. Disheartened by what he perceived to bedefeatism and interested in a new endeavor, the initiator moved on toanother activity.

Higher education is a people business and change in higher educationis a people process. Understanding this, educational managers need toexercise extraordinary interpersonal skill grounded in a comprehensiveunderstanding of the role of constructivism and ego defensiveness. Thesteps in a change process that focuses its attention on people includeempathy, rapport, communication, participative management, andimplementation. In the participative management phase, it is necessaryto take into account the institution's history and culture, and to providestructure and leadership . Implementation is considered a critical factorin providing credibility for the participative management phase of theprocess. Leaders are encouraged to rely on a critical mass of supportersto get implementation underway and to use the rewards and incentivesat their disposal to buy other faculty into the change . Given the irrationalnature of change in human systems, leaders need to accept gradual,incremental change.

Whereas the agrarian era looked to the past and the industrial era tothe present, the information age looks to the future. Unfortunately, mostinstitutions of higher education, and particularly schools of education,remain rooted in the industrial era with their leaders managing crises ona day-to-day basis. A primary reason for their reluctance to move intothe information age is the fact that uncertainty, ambiguity, and disequi­librium attend a future orientation. These characteristics tend to produceanxiety and stress in many people. But academic leaders and facultiesneed to learn to tolerate ambiguity, value uncertainty, and prize disequi­librium for their energizing properties. They need to master changeprocesses by training themselves to be flexible, innovative, and risktaking. The fact is that change is the order of the day, and those who

350

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

do not learn to manage it and turn it to their advantage will be left behindby those who do.

References

1. Richard, J. Barnet, The Lean Years: Politics in the Age of Scarcity (New York :Simon & Schuster, 1980); John Naisbitt , Megatrends: Ten New DirectionsTransforming Our Lives (New York: Warner Books , 1982) .

2. Richard M. Cyert, "Managing Universities in the 1980s, " in Leadership in the 80s:Essays on Higher Education, eds. Chris Argyris and Richard Cyert (Cambridge,Massachusetts: Institute for Educational Management, 1980); Frank Newman,Higher Education and the American Resurgence (Princeton, N.J .: CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1985).

3. Chester Finn, [r.. 'The Drive for Educational Excellence: Moving toward a PublicConsensus, " Change 15 (April 1983): 14-22.

4. Newman, Higher Education and the American Resurgence, p. xiii.5. Richard P. Chait and Andrew Ford , Beyond Traditional Tenure (San Francisco:

Iossey-Bass, 1982); The Conditions of Education (Washington, D .C. : NationalCenter for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1984); Cyert ,"Managing Universities in the 1980s. "

6. Cyert , "Managing Universities in the 1980s."7. David Tyack and Elizabeth Hansot, Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership

in America (New York: Basic Books, 1982), p . 4.8. Seymour Sarason, Schooling in America: Scapegoat and Salvation (New York:

The Free Press , 1983), P. 389. See, e.g .. Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management (London: Pitman,

1949); Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch, Organization and Environment (Boston:Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1967); Frederick W. Taylor,Scientific Management (New York : Harper, 1947); Lyndall F. Urwick, in Paperson the Scien ce of Administration , eds . L. Gulick and L.F. Urwick (New York:Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University, 1937) .

10. Fayol , General and Industrial Management.11. See, e.g., Mary P. Follet, Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers ofMary

Parker Follet, eds . Henry C. Metcalf and Lyndall F. Urwick (New York: Harper,1941); Abraham H. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," PsychologicalReview 50 (July 1943): 370-396; Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an IndustrialCivilization (New York: Macmillan, 1933).

12. See, Chris Argyris, Personality and Organizations (New York: Harper, 1957);Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: JohnWiley and Sons , 1964); Frederick B. Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man(Cleveland: World, 1966); Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (NewYork: McGraw-Hili, 1960).

13. See, J. Victor Baldridge, Power and Conflict in the University (New York: JohnWiley and Sons , 1971); William A. Gamson, Power and Discontent (Homewood,Illinois: Dorsey, 1968) .

14. Thomas Peters, Thriving on Chaos (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987), p . 11.15. George Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Constructs (New York: W. W. Norton,

1955) .

351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

16. See, Renato Tagiuri and Luigi Petrullo, Person Perception and InterpersonalBehavior (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1958 ); Peter B. Warrand Christopher Knapper, The Perception of People and Events (New York: JohnWiley and Sons, 1968).

17. Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practices (New York: Wiley, 1981).18. Eric Walton, "The Relevance of Personal Construct Theory to Management," in

Anticipating Personal Construct Psychology, eds. F. Epting and A.W. Landfield(Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1985), p . 102.

19 . For exceptions, see, Lee G. Bolman and Terence E. Deal, Modern Approaches toUnderstanding and Managing Organizations (San Francisco: [ossey-Bass. 1985);David Silverman, The Theory of Organizations (London.Heinemann, 1972); KarlE. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. (Reading, Massachusetts:Addison-Wesley, 1979).

20. Louis R. Pondy and Ian I. Mitroff, "Beyond Open Systems Models ofOrganization," in Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. B.M . Staw, vol. 1(Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1979).

21. Karl E. Weick and Reuben McDaniels, "How Professional Organizations Work:Implications for School Organization and Management." (Paper presented at theSouthwestern Bell Conference, Brackenridge Forum, Trinity University, SanAntonio, Texas).

22. Leonard D. Goodstein and Richard I. Lanyon, Adjustment, Behavior andPersonality, 2nd ed. (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1979), p . 470.

23. Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, Theory in Practice: Increasing ProfessionalEffectiveness (San Francisco: Iossey-Bass, 1974).

24. Lee Iacocca. Iacocca: An Autobiography (New York: Bantam Books, 1984).25. Warren Bennis, "Who Sank the Yellow Submarine," Psychology Today 6 (July

1972): 112-118.26. George Keller, Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in American

Higher Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983).27. Donald L. Kirkpatrick, How to Manage Change Effectively (San Francisco: [ossey­

Bass, 1985).28. Donald L. Kirkpatrick, No-Nonsense Communication , 3rd ed . (Elm Grove,

Wisconsin: Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick, 1983); How to Manage Change Effectively.29. Isabel B. Myers, Gifts Differing (Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists

Press, 1980).30. Iacocca, lacocca, p. 54.31. Keith Davis, Human Behavior at Work: Human Relations and Organizational

Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), p . 136.32. Report of the Commissioner's Task Force on the Teaching Profession (New York:

New York State Commissioner of Education, 1988), p . 10 .33 . Keller, Academic Strategy, p. 59.34. Rosabeth M. Kanter, The Change Masters (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983),

p .241.35. Lester Coch and John R. P . French, "Overcoming Resistance to Change, " Human

Relations 1 (No .4, 1948): 512-532.36. For a discussion of participatory decision making and its problems, see, Carolyn

Wood, "Participatory Decision Making: Why Doesn't It Seem to Work?"Educational Forum 49 (Fall 1984) : 55-64 .

352

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IRRATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

37. Russell L. Ackoff, 'The Future of Operational Research is Past ," Journal ofOperational Research Society 30 (September 1974): 93-104.

38. Donald A. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner (New York: Basic Books, 1983).39. Wood, "Participatory Decision Making."40. Gene 1.Maeroff, "Leadership: An Attempt to Look at the Future," in Leadership

in the 80s: Essays on Higher Education , eds. Chris Argyris and Richard M. Cyert(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute on Educational Management, 1980).

41. Tyack and Hansot, Managers of Virtue .42. Wood, "Participatory Decision Making."43. Harry Judge, American Graduate Schools of Education (New York: Ford

Foundation, 1982).44. See, Alvin W. Gouldner, "O rganizational Analysis," in Sociology Today, eds.

Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (New York: BasicBooks, 1975), pp. 105-163; James G. March and Herbert Simon, Organizations(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958); Charles B. Perrow, OrganizationalAnalysis: A Sociological View (Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1970); J.Woodward, ed., Industrial Organizations: Behavior and Control (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1970).

45. Bolman and Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and ManagingOrganizations; Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practices.

46. Charles Lindblom, 'T he Science of Muddling Through," Public AdministrationReview 19 (October 1959): 79-88; Charles Lindblom, "Still Muddling, Not YetThrough," Public Administration Review 39 (November-December 1979): 517-526.

47. Keller, Academic Strategy, p. 114.48. Bennis, "Who Sank the Yellow Submarine ."49. Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practices.

353

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:19

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14