Structures and Processes of PlannedChange

Paul Baker, Deborah Curtis, Wayne Benenson

Collaboration is a social term that describes a special relationship betweentwo or more persons (or agencies) who share a common agenda forconcerted action. The term suggests that both sides of the social equation arefreely disposed to work together as co-laborers. In educational circles theterm has become popular because its proponents often provide optimisticaccounts of organizational strategies that have overcome numerousobstacles to planned change (Lieberman 1986).This trend may be promising,but it raises a persistent question in the field of education: Is collaborationjust one more buzz word for enterprising educators who are continuallyinventing new terms as a solution to intractable problems? We are mindfulof the propensity to attack school problems with jargon. We hope ouranalysis and description of collaborative relationships will provide usefulinsights on the change process in schools. We believe collaboration is apromising concept that can assist educational leaders in the challengingwork of building meaningful partnerships inside and outside the school.

There are two aspects to collaboration that require clarification. First, theterm can be understood as a crucial aspect of social structure. Second,collaboration can be examined as a social process. This duality of structureand process is integral to all social life. The social world is both noun andverb. People live in constructed orders that guide human action; but theyare also energized by all kinds of interactive processes that move throughtime. The implication of this duality for educational leaders is clear: theymust be mindful of the structures they inherit and create to facilitate effortsto improve schools as well as the actions of various parties who are carryingout the agenda for improvement.

Structures of Planned Change

A common image of social structure in public schools is the bureaucraticchain of command with state officials on top and local school teachers onthe bottom. Many scholars and critics have described on the evolution of

TheSchoolCommunity Journal,Vol. 1, No.2, Fall/Winter 1991.

11

THE SCHOOL COMMUNIlY JOURNAL

bureaucratic structures in public education (Tyack 1974; Wise 1977). By the19805 the crisis in American public education called for urgent action. Oneresponse by state legislators and school officials was to tighten up thebureaucratic structure with new mechanisms of accountability that wouldforce teachers and students to work harder. Fullan identifies these efforts as

"intensification" (pullan 1991).But a counter trend designated by Fullan andothers as "restructuring" also emerged in the 1980s. Increasing numbers ofeducational leaders from all sectors of the public school establishment-teachers, administrations, university faculty, government officials,industrialists, civic leaders-recognized the limitations of the bureaucraticsolution to the difficulties facing public education. Society in the latetwentieth century had become more fluid and open; Donald Schon describesthe 'condition as no longer a "stable state." Under these changingcircumstances, leaders in all institutional areas of society had to invent newsocial arrangements "capable of bringing about their own continuingtransformation" (Schon 1971, 30).

Seymour Sarason also recognized the dynamics of these societal changes.He saw the need for a new organizational strategy for the problems facingschools and other human service agencies (Sarason 1977; Sarason 1982).Little could be gained by greater bureaucratic regulation, but Sarason alsoargued that two favorite remedies continually proposed during the pastquarter century are bound to frustrate educators and kindred workers:greater professionalism of the workforce and additional resources. Sarasonrecognizes the need for professionalism among educators andacknowledges the need for money, but these solutions are not sufficient togenerate meaningful educational change (1979). Sarason's inventive spiritturned to a more fundamental issue of designing new social arrangementsoutside existing bureaucratic and professional channels. He proposedcreating exchange networks that nurture and sustain collaborativeenterprises.

In Sarason's view, the capacity to address major social problems such asthe educational crisis requires the development of networks among all kindsof participants (lay and professional) who share a mutual respo1)Sibility toexamine complicated issues and formulate agendas for planned change. Thekey term for Sarason is the "exchange" between participants who are notpreoccupied by prerogatives of bureaucratic authority or professionalprivileges. To the contrary, the exchange occurs in networks where allparties have authentic voice as contributing members of the partnership.According to Sarason,

The word exchange is shorthand for a sustained process inwhich people become part of each other's social andintellectual environment, not in the sense of maudlintogetherness but in the sense of enlarging the other'sknowledge as well as possibilities for action (1979, 150).

Networks are structured to allow for a new kind of exchange processbetween people from diverse stations in life who share a commoncommitment to the improvement of education.

12

Structures and Processes of Planned Change

While Sarason never used the term "restructuring," his books on networksprovide a meaningful framework for understanding the need for alteringconventional structures that shaped relationships according to the norms ofbureaucratic authority or professional prerogatives. The creation ofexchange networks goes beyond these stable-state systems by developingmore flexible social arrangements that foster collaborative opportunities forplanned change. An exchange network is the appropriate structure for theprocesses of collaboration.

We suggest that in the late twentieth centwy two parallel structures canbe found in the public school system: (1) the conventional bureaucraticapparatus, and (2) a more loosely structured network of collaborativeenterprises. It is important to realize that many of the same people are oftendeeply embedded in both structures. Further, both structures areencompassed in a complex system of dyadic relationships in which bothparties share social space that is initially defined by custom and law, but isalways open to negotiation with multiple exigencies about unresolved anduncertain issues. The full range of dyadic settings is enormous. In Figure 1we identify a core set of dyadic relationships at five levels of decision-making.

Figure 1CORE NElWORK OF DYADSCONSTITUTING

THE SCHOOL SYSTEM

13

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

The complex set of dyadic role settings in Figure 1 is familiar to anyeducator. We realize that it is a simplified model that could be amplified atmany points (Merton 1957). Most importantly, the school system is not seenas a static hierarchical arrangement. Rather, it is more dynamic withmultiple points of negotiated understanding between various key actors.The dyadic sets are negotiated situations that are open to change. Forexample, in recent years the debate about choice has given parents greaterprominence in the school system.

Negotiated Processes of Planned Change

Our interest in collaboration is related to the topic of planned change. Weexamine those crucial moments when members of various dyadic sets arecapable of articulating new directions for the school and carrying out anaction plan that fulfills the intentions of various interested parties. What isthe nature of the interaction between different people (e.g., teachers,administrators, board members}whichallows focused action to occur? Howcan one understand occasions of collaboration that seem to succeed whileother efforts fail? We answer these questions by exploring some of theprocesses found in educational settings that are intended to change schools.

All occasions of planned change require leadership and followership. Thefact that one finds leaders and followers in settings of planned change doesnot mean that the leadership role is always taken by persons with higherrank or greater expertise. Our definition of leadership does not rest on staticattributes of rank or position. Rather, it rests on the flow of action in allleadership situations: someone (whatever his or her status) initiates a courseof action intended to alter the status quo. The act of initiation may involveideological arguments, concrete problem solving, or a personal insistenceon the need "to do something." Settings may be formal or informal, elaborateor simple, lengthy or brief. In each instance the essential process requiressomeone to take the first step (as leader) and others to respond (as followers)(Sarason 1972). There are numerous instances when the "real leaders"disavow (often in the name of democracy) the title of "leader" (frickett 1991);yet others in the group often turn to this person for guidance in determining"the next steps" in the uncertain journey of change. We are aware ofnumerous occasions" in which teachers assume leadership roles andprincipals reciprocate "asfollowers. Our notion of leadership insists that theleader role is not inherent in personal qualities or position. Rather, it issituational to settings of planned change in which one or more persons areactivated to take the initiative and others respond as followers.

While we insist that leaders are not always those at the top of thehierarchy, it is still important to realize that there are general patterns in theinitiating-responding process. In dyadic settings of principal and teachers,the principal is more likely to initiate action than the teachers. Whensuperintendents and principals meet, the superintendent tends to set theagenda for the principals to follow.

14

Structures and Processes of Planned Change

In our studies of school improvement we have interviewed numerousteachers and administrators about the process of planned change in theirschools (see also Baker & Kachur 1988; Baker 1990; Baker 1991). Ourobservations have led to the following typology of leader-followerrelationships in which educators weigh the meaning of planned change fortheir personal commitments as well as collective aspirations. As pure typeswe suggest two polar styles of leadership: shared collaboration andunilateral mandates. Some leaders initiate plans for change by developinga collaborative setting for deliberations and action. Others mandate newplans through unilateral action. In the former case the leader invitesfollowers to share their ideas about present conditions and future prospectsfor improvement. Followers are given the chance to define problems as wellas formulate solutions. In contrast to the collaborative leader, the mandatedleader claims to have sufficient knowledge of the situation to initiate actionswith minimal consideration for the views of the followers. In school settingsone sometimes finds new administrators making major unilateral changesbefore they have any depth of knowledge about the local situation. In somecases it often seems the less the leader knows, the more emphatic he or shecan be. Even more amazing is that administrators often pride themselves asbeing "change agents."

Just as leaders represent two extreme styles in their initiation of plannedchange, so the followers respond in one of two ways to changes initiated bythe leader. Many are pleased to see the leader attack the stagnant forces oftradition and lethargy. For these followers, change often representsrejuvenation and a heightened sense of purpose about an educational career.At the other extreme followers find little in the leader's initiatives that speaksto them. These followers do not grasp the sense of opportunity. To thecontrary, they respond by minimizing their commitment through externalacts of compliance and internal doubts of its worthiness. The first type offollower sees new opportunities for personal and professional growth aswell as the attainment of collective goals that serve the school. The secondtype of follower sees the initiative for change as an obligation. While thereis often outward acquiescence, there is inward resistance and anunwillingness to make major commitments to change (see also Rosenholtz1987). The above typology offers two types of leader initiatives and twotypes of follower responses. These types can be cross-tabulated to create fournegotiated situations between leaders and followers who act and react toeach others' definition of change (see Figure 2).

15

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Figure 2DEFINING THE MEANING OF PLANNEDCHANGE

FollowersRespond By:

Leaders Initiate By:

Sharing Collaboratively Mandating Unilaterally

ComplyingWith Request

Seeing NewOpportunity

In Cell A (Collaborative Opportunity) leaders initiate change by workingcollaboratively with followers. The followers enter into these situations byrecognizing new opportunities to do things that have not been done before.The change effort may be filled with uncertainty and frustration, but despitethese difficulties leaders and followers share a common sense of purposeand a mutual commitment to make the extra effort for improvement.

In Cell B (Mandated Opportunity) the leader takes the initiative with afirm commitment to a particular course of action. Followers have no doubtwhat the leader has in mind and they accept the agenda for change as a newopportunity for themselves and their school. Mandated opportunity is notan instant process; in some cases the process takes several years. Oftenfollowers begin with doubts and are hesitant about the leader's initiative.They may be confused about the educational merit of the new ideas and mayquestion the leader's motives. But various occasions of reflection andinternalization (e.g., participation in workshops and conferences, readingappropriate literature, and talking with colleagues) lead to a redefinition ofthe situation as an authentic opportunity.

In Cell C (Collaborative Compliance) the leader initiates the changeprocess by creating collaborative settings such as school improvementteams, task groups, or all day institutes with consultants who use variousconsensus-building techniques. The social arrangements encouragecollaboration, but many followers respond mechanically by going throughthe motions of participation. The situation is "contrived collaboration"(pullan 1991). Planning events are properly staged; followers assumeappropriate roles of collegiality, but there is no meaningful commitment tochange.

In the last negotiated relationship-Cell D (Mandated Compliance)-theleader gives instructions for change, and the followers play the compliantgame. Followers appear to comply with the request, but they are often busydevising defensive strategies (e.g., avoidance, segmented efforts, smoothingover with flattering comments) to sabotage the leader's plan. Followers may

16

Structures and Processes of Planned Change

appear obedient, thoughtful, and compliant, but they are exceedinglyskilled in the fine art of resisting. The degree of resistance ranges from mildto strong. Followers may be comfortable or uncomfortable with imposedmandates; in either case, they go through the motions of implementing thechange with little sense of shared purpose with the leader.

Figure 2 offers an elementary model of the negotiated processes ofplanned change. Brief comment will focus on four issues. First, the fournegotiated processes of Figure 2 are ideal types. In actual school settings onecan often find examples of all four processes in the same building.Sometimes the principal initiates action through collaboration and on otheroccasions she mandates orders. Teachers are constantly sorting out theiroptions between energized excitement about a new opportunity andanxious apprehension about the need to conceal resistance to a new request.Teachers sometimes change their response to the leader's initiative. Theymay start in Cell D (Mandated Compliance), but later shift to Cell B(Mandated Opportunity). Sometimes circumstances of contrivedcollaboration inspire authentic interest in working with others on someaspect of school improvement.

A second aspect of Figure 2 is its application to all the dyads of Figure 1(and other dyads in the real world of educational change not found in Figure1). Whenever teachers and students meet in the classroom, the negotiatingprocess begins and some variation of the four leadership-followershipprocesses will be found. Just as teachers and the principal cope with plannedchange, so do principals and the superintendent. Every superintendent whoreads the daily mail from the state office gives much thought to appropriateresponses that fall somewhere inside the parameters of Figure 2.

Third, types of leader-follower relationships presented in Figure 2 arenegotiated orders that rest on the definition of the situation by both parties.These negotiated relationships are not wholly dependent on objectivecriteria or conditions. To adopt a famous aphorism from W. I. Thomas, "Ifeducators define a situation as real, it is real in its consequences." The issueis not objective conditions-how rich or poor a district might be-rather theeducators' definition of opportunity or compliance when specific occasionsof change come to their attention. This negotiated definition of the situationis not objectively derived but rather determined subjectively by a person'sperceptions, aspirations, and willingness to take risks (see also Blase 1989;Hall & Spencer-Hall 1982).

Fourth, the model of planned change in Figure 2 may suggest a preferencefor collaborative opportunity (Cell A). We see greater likelihood forsuccessful planned change when both leader and followers enjoy a mutualdefinition of new opportunities for improvement. Our bias for collaborativeopportunity does not denigrate numerous situations in the other threenegotiated processes. Sometimes teachers are wise to hesitate about amandated opportunity that is proposed by the leader. Many cases ofresistance found in various situations of compliance are highly appropriatefor followers. Some educational innovations are unsound; other innovationshave been tried before and veteran teachers often know some of the

17

THE SCHOOL COMMUNIlY JOURNAL

difficulties that enthusiastic supporters gloss over. In short, principals andteachers sometimes may be doing the right thing when they resist foolishideas promoted by their leaders (pullan 1991). We also appreciate the factthat when teachers feel it is justified, they offer forthright resistance toinnovation (Corbett, et al. 1987).

Conclusion

We have presented elementary models of structure and process in thecomplex endeavors of planned educational change. Our model of structureemphasizes the importance of numerous dyadic clusters between variousparticipants. We argue that many of the crucial negotiating processes ofplarined change occur in these dyadic settings. Of course the negotiatedorder of planned change is not limited to dyads. Partnerships of two parties(e.g., teachers and the principal) are often expanded to three (e.g., parents)and then four (e.g., a local business).

We appreciate the tendency for simple partnerships to becomeexceedingly complex. There are many actors who claim to have major rolesto play on the stage of educational change. We share Michael Fullan'semphatic assertion that the ultimate issue is the willingness of teachers toaccept an invitation to change ~e way they think and act as educators.Schools are ultimately about the learning experiences of students. Untilteachers become part of the planning and implementation of change, thereis little likelihood that innovations will benefit the learning opportunities ofstudents. The best hope for successful planned change occurs when teachersare participants in exchange networks that foster collaborativeopportunities to work with other school leaders (Bolam 1977).

Successful change requires appropriate alignment of structures andprocesses. The school systems of the late 20th century must invent new socialstructures that offer teachers and others the needed opportunities to be fullyengaged in the arduous task of school improvement.

References:

Baker, Paul J. 1990.Restructuring schools: Themes of change in an age of reform. Paperpresented at the Annual Convention for the University Council for EducationalAdministration, Pittsburgh. PA

Baker, Paul J. 1991. Metaphors of mindful engagement and a vision of better schools.EducationlllLeodership48 (7):32~.

Baker, Paul J., and D. Kachur. 1988. Themid-nUnieducationlllservicecenterand localstaffdevelopment.Normal, IL:Collegeof Education, DlinoisState University.

Blase,Joseph J. 1989.The micropolitics of the school:The everyday political orientation ofteachers toward open school principals. EducationlllAdministration Quarterly 25 (4):277-4C17.

Bo1aJn,Ray. 1977.Innovation and the problem-solving school In Reorganizingeducation:Management and participationfor cJumge.Edited by E. J. King. Beverly Hills: SAGEPublications.

Corbett, H. D., et al1987. Resistance to planned change and the sacred in school cultures.EducationlllAdministrationQuarterly3 (4):36-59.

18

Structures and Processes of Planned Change

FuIan. Michael G. 1991.ThenewmeaningofeducationalcJumge.New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Hall, P. M., and D. A. Spencer-Hall. 1932 The social conditions of the negotiated order. Urbanlife. Edited by P. K Manning. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

Lieberman, Ann. 1986. Collaborative research: Working with. not working on. EducationalLeadership 43 (5): 28-32.

Merton,. Robert K 1957. The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. The British Journal ofSociology 8: 106-120.

Rosenholtz, Susan J. 1987. Education reform strategies: Will they increase teachercommitment? AmericanJournalofEducation5 (4):~2

Sarason,.S. 1972.Thecreationofsettingsand thefuture societies.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Sarason,. S. 1977. Human servicesand resourcenetworks. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Sarason,.S.1982.Thecultureof theschoolandtheproblemof change.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Sarason,.S.and E.Lorentz. 1979.Thechallengeof theresourceexchangenetwork.San Francisco:

J~y-Bass.Schon, Donald. 1971. Beyond the stablestate. New York: Random House.Trickett, Edison J. 1991.Living an idea.Cambridge, MA:BrooklineBooks.Tyack, David B. 1974. Theone best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wise, Arthur. 1979. Legislatedlearning. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Paul Baker is professor of educational administration and foundations at Dlinois StateUniversity.

Deborah Curtis is assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at Dlinois StateUniversity.

Wayne Benenson is assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at Dlinois StateUniversity.

This article is taken from the authors' monograph, Collaborative Opportunities to BuildBetter Schools, to be published by the Dlinois Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, College of Education,. Dlinois State University, Normal, Dlinois 61761-6901.

19