Organizational change for HE


I am fascinated by change and change theory ever since I started teaching on a Master’s in Training & Development. I have been reading Val Roche’s (2003) chapter on ‘Being and Agent of Change’ and Linda Holbeche’s (2006) chapter on ‘Change Theory’. Roche proposes a systems thinking approach to educational development a la Senge (1990). This is a massive and complex approach which Roche simplifies into a practical application based on a reflective framework. This framework has a number of different inquiries using a whole range of the ‘tools of the trade’ such as ecological mapping, stakeholder analysis, repertory grid analysis, rich pictures, force-field analysis etc. So lots of practical advice and a comprehensive tool to get you started. So what does it mean for me beyond being able to use the tool in my practice?

Links to my practice

One idea I particularly like from systems thinking is ‘reciprocity’. That effects of change spread out. I think this is a cornerstone of educational development work that is often misunderstood outside of our units. As an example, our PGCert course provides us with ample evidence of this. We get referrals from colleagues of those who have been on the course and want to learn more from seeing the positive changes participants make. We get offers to run workshops based on the delivery of the course. These are just a few examples of how working with small numbers of staff directly (usually about 50 – 60 at any one time) can lead to wider indirect benefits to the system as a whole. The challenge we have is in explaining that trickle effect to the bean counters who just see the headline figure of staff on the course.

What else stands out is a recommendation for educational developers to move away from being learning experts to being agents of change. I think this is a big shift for some. Especially so when you think of the nature of academia being one where it is your subject expertise which is what you are paid for. We were asked on the induction day for the PGCert this year whether we were experts in learning theory. We said no, which is actually quite a difficult and exposing thing to say to a room full of academics. A response which our boss was not overly happy with but which reflects for us this role change to being agents of change. Our role on the PGCert is not to espouse our expert knowledge but rather to facilitate change in the knowledge, skills and attitude of our staff.

Change Theory

Moving on to the nature of change and trying to understand what it all means. Roche’s approach is one of planned change. It also fits into what Beer & Nohria (2000) describe as a Theory O approach to change rather than theory E, (change being about organisational capacity rather than economic factors). Which is of course entirely consistent with our own conceptions of our role in educational development. However, Beer & Nohria (2000) recommend that you need to merge both approaches to be successful and therefore this raises in my mind the need for greater links to the economic factors of our work and closer ties with both HRD & HRM.

There is one more thought that appeals to me from Holbeche’s chapter and that is the limitations of the planned approach. A lot of modern literature on change is looking at ’emergent’ models of change. These models talk of ‘purposive drift’ – the idea that you can have a broad purpose to the direction you want to travel in but need to be responsive to opportunities that arise that allow you to travel in that direction. As a scientific minded person, I like the analogy to physics; planned change is like Newtonian mechanics, whereas Emergent change theory is like quantum mechanics. This emergent approach requires creativity, learning, experimenting and empowerment (Holbeche 2006:160) in us and our staff. I think this is a direction I can take. Plans don’t always work and I think I would fall on the emergent side rather than the planned side of change but I don’t think our universities are ready for that! [For example our role-based structures (as in Handy 1999) don’t support this emergent approach.]


Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). “Cracking the Code of Change.” Harvard Business Review, 133-141

Handy C (1999) Understanding Organizations, London:Penguin Business Management

Holbeche, L. (2006) Understanding Change, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann

Roche, V. (2003) Being and Agent of Change in Kahn, P. & Baume, D. (2003) Staff & Educational Development, Abingdon: Routledge


A Switch in Roles – from Teacher to Student

I have been asked to write a short story illustrating some aspect of my role in educational development. The obvious thought for me was how difficult it can be to switch roles from being the teacher / lecturer to being the student. Anyone who has worked on a PGCert in HE will have come across the reluctant lecturer, who is probably in our session on a compulsory basis, who seems to absolve themselves of adult sensibilities and seems to want to behave like the worst of students (and that is probably being unfair to students!) Here goes:

“Is it the equipment or the user?” The voice, dripping with sarcasm and unspoken contempt, piped up from the floor. Just loud enough to be heard by all but quiet enough not to be directly addressed by the lecturer. The animosity from the student is becoming palpable. No-one responds. The response comes later; in private; in one to one meetings. Some students are dissatisfied with such comments from a peer. The lecturers discuss how to tackle the negative and unprofessional behaviour. “Why would staff exhibit such behaviour?” they ask. “How would they feel if their students did the same to them?” The answers are obvious but the resolution is less so.

Hopefully, we don’t find this situation happening too often but it prompts be to reflect on my own responses when placed in the role of student / learner on a formal course. It also illustrates the broader challenge in my role and I’m sure your roles as well of developing people who don’t want to be developed! If we are to meet organisational goals there will always be an element of compulsory development and it is the challenge of addressing the ‘unwilling’ that is both fascinating and frustrating!

Starting a course

My thoughts on starting a new online course.

1. Getting to grips with a new VLE (in this case Moodle) is frustrating. I can’t seem to post to most of the forums and I don’t know why – is it me or is it something to do with how it is set up?

2. I am keen to get ahead of the curve in order to stay on top of everything in terms of the workload. Got intentions maybe but how realistic is it. How many of our students start with the same intentions and then life gets in the way!

3. Writing – I have no problem with reflective writing but I am really rubbish at writing stories (one of the tasks we have been asked to do). And yes I know practice helps but my previous attempts have never been successful. Should we keep trying at things we are not good at or accept our weaknesses and work to our strengths? For me the answer depends on the weakness. I can’t imagine ever needing to be a good story writer so feel less inclined to worry about my skills in this area. However, if it was a skill more pertinent to my work or life then I would be inclined to work on it. I guess this chimes with two of Malcolm Knowles’ assumptions of adult learners – ”

3. Readiness to learn. As a person matures his readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental tasks of his social roles.

4. Orientation to learning. As a person matures his time perspective changes from one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly his orientation toward learning shifts from one of subject-centeredness to one of problem centredness.” Knowles 1984:12

(Knowles, M. et al (1984) Andragogy in Action. Applying modern principles of adult education, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.)

4. I am also considering myself as a learner in formal settings. I enjoy reflecting and learning from my experiences and life in general. As someone who teaches, I always find it difficult to transition to the role of student / participant. My comments  are always along the lines of, “I wouldn’t have done it this way”, although I do of course appreciate that there are many valid and useful ways of teaching the same thing. However, it is difficult to escape the being in that ‘meta’ role of not just learning the material presented but also evaluating the teaching that is occurring. Occupational hazard I guess and at least it shows the ingrained habit in my own practice to evaluate everything I do and to reflect on it.