managing educational change

8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change

1/22

http://ema.sagepub.com/Administration & Leadership

Educational Management

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0263211X030311002

2003 31: 9Educational Management Administration & LeadershipMike Wallace

Managing the Unmanageable? : Coping with Complex Educational Change

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society

can be found at:Educational Management Administration & Leadershipdditional services and information for

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2003Version of Record>>

at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.belmas.org.uk/http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.full.pdfhttp://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.full.pdfhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.belmas.org.uk/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://ema.sagepub.com/


2/22

Managing the Unmanageable?

Coping with Complex Educational Change

Mike Wallace

Managing the Unmanageable?

E ducational change is self-evidently not w hat it used to be, a nd there is no shortage of itaround. In wealthy countries especially, time was when educational change included a

focus on the intrinsic worth of being an educated person. But globalization and the

collapse of communism have increased pressure on politicians in governments everywhere

to intervene in state education through major reform programmes involving marketiza-

tion, multiple manda tes and even, in the U K, a n at tempt to modernize the culture of

teachers and academics. Now the thrust is to realize the instrumental goal of building a

skilled and acq uiescent w orkforce capable of competing in a global ma rketplace. Accord-

ingly, managers in educational organizations across many western countries have been

recast a s centra l government change agents. Their political ma sters have become increas-

ingly greedy to turn them into reliable servants in pursuit of this instrumental goal(G ronn, 2002). Mana gers are now caught as piggies in the middle betw een government

politicians, whose education reforms they are now responsible for implementing, and

other members of their organizations and communities.

These piggies are in the middle of an ever-diversifying ra nge of stakeholders, since the

administrative framework of many national educational systems is becoming more

layered. Some 95 percent of democratically governed countries have elected regional or

local governments (World B ank, 2000). Ma ny devolved go vernments contribute to sta te

education policies and the changes for practice that fl ow from them. E ducational change

is undoubtedly becoming more complex to ma nage, a nd w hether it is manageab le or not

does matter. For education represents a major investment in our societies future pros-perity, a means tow ards the instrumental end of generating w ealth, the ba sis of capitalism.

In a global economic marketplace, government politicians are increasingly worried that

toda ys educational fa ilure will herald tomorrows na tional economic disaster.

So the pressure is on to increase manageria l contro l over educationa l change on beha lf

of government politicians. H owever the a rgument w ill be developed that this ambition is

unrealizable because complex educational change, intrinsically, is relatively unmanage-

able. It is probably beyond human capacity for a ny mana ger to a chieve fully predictable,

directive control over the change process. Managing complex educational change effec-

tively is the humble, largely backstage business of coping with complexity over which

control is inherently limited. B ut there a re modest possibilities for maximizing control

within these limits and attempts to improve manageability should focus on them.

9Educational M anagement & A dministration0263-211X (200301) 31:1SAG E Publications (London, Thousand Oa ks and New D elhi)

C opyrigh t 2003 B E LM AS Vol 31(1) 929; 029865

http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/


3/22

Unmanageability in Action: A Dispute over Computers

Just how unmanagea ble complex educational change can be is illustrated by t he follow-

ing example from my recent research (Wallace and Pocklington, 2002) focusing on large-

scale initia tives to reorga nize local provision of sta te schools in E ngland . These initiat ives

were designed to ta ke out surplus capa city resulting from a long-term decline in the localschool-age population. I n respect of schools, the sta te educa tion system consists of three

main a dministrative levelscentral government, local education authorities (LE As) a nd

schools under LEA jurisdiction. Reorganization was an LEA initiative, undertaken in

response to central government pressure, and implemented by closing and merging

schools or changing the a ge range of students for which they cat ered. Centra l government

legislation ha d been ena cted to d evolve school budgets from L E A level to schools, so little

money for running schools was retained in the LE A.

A central plank of LEA officials reorganization strategy in one LEA was to replace

their three-tier fi rstmiddlehigh school system with a two-tier primarysecondary system.

Spare capa city in the fi rst schools and high schools would be fi lled a s they expanded to

become prima ry and seconda ry schools respectively. All middle schools would close, their

student capacity being removed from the school system in the LEA. Reorganization of

these schools was scheduled to take place over two years (Figure 1).

In pa rt 1 of reorganization, the oldest students in the first schools sta yed on a nd fi lled

surplus capacity there. A year later, in part 2, they stayed on again, so that their schools

now catered for the full primary age range. All students in the three year-groups remain-

ing in the middle schools transferred to w hat had been a high school, now catering for the

full secondary age range. Note that middle schools had lost the youngest year-groupa

qua rter of their studentsfor their fi nal yea r of existence during part 1 of reorganization.

This year-group was housed in the expanding fi rst schools.

G eneralist class teachers taught fi rst school student s. E ach classroom wa s furnished

with one o r occasionally two computers, which only a few students could use at any time.

Teachers in the middle schools were semi-specialists, taking whole or half classes of

students for particular areas of the curriculum. Every middle school featured a computer

suite where a semi-specialist teacher taught half classes. The suite contained enough

10 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)

age of students

arrange-ment 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18

Pre- 3-9 first school 9-13 middle school 13-18 high school

Part 3-10 first school 10-13 13-18 high school 1 middle school

Part 3-11primary school 11-18 secondary school 2

Figure 1.Two-part arra ngement for reorga nizing the firstmiddlehigh school system in one LE A

http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/


4/22

networked computers for each student. Fundraising among parents of students in both

types of school had enabled ma ny of these computers to b e purchased.

The dispute over computers arose during part 1 of reorganization, when the oldest

students in the fi rst schools stayed o n. Their headteachers anticipated that a q uarter of the

middle school computers would be passed on to them from the middle schools. All the

stakeholders involved had agreed on the principle that resources should follow thestudents. So furniture and equipment no longer in use in middle schools would therefo re

be redistributed to the fi rst schools where they w ere now needed.

B ut middle school head tea chers argued t hat all their computers were still required for

half classes to use their suite, albeit for only three-quarters of the week. They referred

to the principle also agreed by all stakeholders that students educational entitlement

should not be compromised because of reorganization. Most of the computers legally

belonged to t he middle schools anyw ay since they had b een purchased through fundra is-

ing, not t he devolved o perating budget . The middle school head tea chers initially refused

to ha nd over a ny computers, then sent a few of their oldest machines across to the fi rst

schools.Conflict ensued. The first school headteachers felt they had been unfairly fobbed off

with the lowest quality equipment. Several wrote to the chief education officer (CEO),

complaining that the educationa l entitlement of their oldest students wa s being compro-

mised because they were being denied access to up-to-date computers. The first school

operating budgets were insufficiently generous to allow extra computers to be purchased

from this source. Their headteachers expected LE A offi cials to a rbitrate on their behalf.

But central government reforms to reduce LEA authority over schools had left officials

without authority to order middle school headteachers to hand over their computers.

Budgetary devolution had left little money in the LEA for purchasing more machines,

which would be required fo r only one yea r before t he middle schools closed. Then all thecomputers in the middle schools would be redistributed to the primary and secondary

schools created. I n the mea n time, stalemate.

Before reporting what ensued, I will first consider what rendered this aspect of

reorganization so unmanageab le. I suggest tha t it w as fa r from a freak occurrence, indica-

tive of the mana gement heada ches brought by complex educational change. Second, I will

consider why so many popular prescriptions for improving the mana gement of educationa l

change have limited potential to guide practice. Third, I will suggest that understanding

the extent a nd limits of huma n a gencythe a bility t o choose between alternative courses

of a ctionprovides a strong founda tion fo r realistic prescriptions. This understanding can

help us grasp why complex educat ional change is rather unmana geable a nd how we ca ncope with it, within limits. Fourth, by conceiving the computer dispute as an instance of

the w ider phenomenon of complex educational change t hat reorganization represents, I

will extrapolate from it to add ress the fundamenta l question: what makes such change so

complex to ma nage? If we ca n understand the chara cteristics of this complexity a nd their

mana gement implications, we w ill have a platform fo r considering the practical q uestion

that follows: how can w e cope effectively w ith complex educat ional change? Fifth, I will

discuss some tentative practical themes for managing complex educational change

emerging from t he reorganization study. I will link them to t he story of how the computer

dispute turned out. I n conclusion, I w ill put forwa rd a n a genda for future research, theory,

policy and practical guidance.

WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 11



5/22

Sources of Ambiguity that Constrain Manageability

A lengthy tradition of research and theorizing underlies the claim that ambiguity is

endemic to organizational life (Hoyle, 1986). People in organizations have to work hard

at making sense (Weick, 2001) of wha t t hey live as a disjointed and o ften confusing experi-

ence, marked by uncertainty, unpredicta bility and dilemmas tha t w ill not go aw ay. Ma rchand Olsen (1976) defined internal organizational ambiguity in terms of experienced

opaqueness connected with internal decision-making. Complex educational change

includes but also reaches beyond individual orga nizations, and it spans different levels of

the education system. So one certainty about such change is that the endemic organiz-

at ional ambiguity experienced by those who ha ve to ma nage it will be increased. C hange

implies new experiences and new learning. It challenges habitual practices and beliefs of

people in and around the organizations affected. It raises the potential for unintended

consequences of managers actions among stakeholders in different organizations across

different system levels. It increases the unpredictability of achieving intended outcomes

until they have ha ppened.Three generic sources of ambiguity connected with the complexity of reorganization

constrained its manageability, as illustrated by the computer dispute. The first source is

individuals variable but always limited control over other stakeholders and their

responses. No one can exert absolute control over anyone else. Authority connected with

reorganization wa s distributed w ithin and between L E A and school system levels. LE A

officials could no more insist that middle school headteachers hand over their computers

tha n fi rst school head tea chers could insist on offi cials responding to their complaints. Since

reorganization was initiated at LEA level for implementation in schools, officials were

heavily dependent on stakeholders based at school level. The cooperation of all head-

tea chers, and t he acq uiescence, if not endorsement, of their school sta ff colleagues, schoolgovernors and parents were essential for implementation.

The second source is individuals equally varia ble but a lwa ys limited awarenessof what

is happening. No one knew what was happening in every organization caught up in

reorganization. Senior LEA officials had an overview of their initiative across over a

hundred schools, but were far less aware of school-level experiences than those on the

ground. The fi rst t hey knew a bout t he computer dispute wa s when the fi rst school head-

teachers letter of complaint landed on the C E O s desk.

But there was more than the first school headteachers side to the story. Neither first

school nor middle school headteachers were fully aware of each others problem over

delivering students entitlement during part 1 of reorganization. First school headtea cherswere preoccupied with the urgent need to procure suffi cient resources for their new group

of student s. They perceived tha t the middle school head tea chers were insensitive in fa iling

to a cknowledge the priority in fi rst schools of getting the new classes off to a good sta rt.

Middle school headteachers were preoccupied with helping their colleagues to find jobs

in other schools when the middle school closed. They perceived tha t the fi rst school head-

teachers were insensitive in putting pressure on them over a few computers. The matter

appea red trivial compared w ith the urgent need to secure jobs for their staff . Neither fi rst

nor middle school headteachers could see why their counterparts could not resolve the

dispute, by handing over the computers, making do temporarily with old ones or buying

more machines.

The third source of a mbiguity is the prevalence of contradi ctory beli efs and valuesheld




6/22

by individual stakeholders and distributed among different groups. Actions according to

contradictory beliefs and va lues often coexist harmoniously by being kept separa te. B ut

the change process may bring actions according to incompatible beliefs and values

together in the same situation, generating conflict.

If reorga nizat ion had not entailed the part 1 arrangement, belief amo ng fi rst school sta ff

that computers should be allocated to classes taught by generalist teachers would havecontinued to coexist happily with the belief among middle school sta ff tha t they should be

orga nized in suites, with ha lf classes taught by a semi-specialist. B oth fi rst and midd le

school hea dtea chers believed in the principles that resources should follow the students

and students educat ional entitlement should not be compromised b ecause of reorganiz-

ation. But members of each group applied the same principles to alternative ways of

orga nizing computers for the ir student s educat ion (Table 1). B eliefs and va lues clashed

in the novel situation brought by the part 1 arrangement. Their incompatibility was

brought to the surface when first school headteachers tried to apply these principles to

their way of organizing provision of computers for students education, assuming that

computers in the middle schools could and should be ma de availab le. Middle school head -teachers applied the same principles to their way of organizing computer education,

assuming that all the computers in their suite w ere still required.

The research tha t highlighted this conflict, my reading of t he mana gement and change

literatures and my professiona l experience suggest tha t the more complex the change, the

great er the a mbiguity experienced by t hose caught up in it. Yet very complex changes do

get implemented. Even in extreme cases ambiguity has its limits. These limits are struc-

tural, determined by wha t is not do-ab le (the first school headt eachers would never have

dreamt of ra iding the middle schools to grab the computers), and almost unthinkable in

a context o f globa l capitalism (they automa tically a ssumed tha t a dditional public sector

funds were not available for purchasing more computers).Ambiguity sets limits on t he ma nagea bility of complex educational change, but does

not render it wholly unmanageable. Managers may cope more or less effectively with

ambiguity, but can never eliminate it. Indeed, a n unintended consequence of U K central


Tabl e 1. Application of the same principles to a lternative arrangements for computer use inteaching

Reorganization H eadteachers assumptions principles

First school M iddle school classroom-based suite-based ind ividua ls a nd sma ll groups ha lf cla sses of students genera list class teacher semi-specia list teacher

resources should computers previously used by 910 computers previously used by 910follow the students year olds in middle schools now year olds in middle schools still

required all week in classrooms for required in suite used by remaining910 year o lds in fi r st schools students for 3/4 o f the week

students educational 910 year olds in fi rst schools should remaining students should still haveentitlement should have access to computers, as they same access to computers as theynot be compromised would have had if still being taught had prior to part 1 of

in middle schools reorganiza tion

http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/


7/22

government education policies designed to eliminate ambiguitythrough rational

planning, target setting, performance management, an imposed curriculum, inspection

and the likehas been to increase ambiguity through the change process required for

implementa tion. Yet a mbiguity a nd the limits of ma nagea bility scarcely fea ture in most

practically orientated research, theory and prescription for those with responsibility for

mana ging educational change.

Why Popular Prescriptions for Managing Educational ChangeUnderplay Ambiguity

There are at least three reasons behind this conspicuous absence. First, the very notion

of managing change connotes beguilingly the assumption that managers, as change

agents, can and should achieve tight control over the change process. If they have a

control problem, do not know what is happening or cannot resolve their managerial

dilemmas, they must be doing something wrong which they could put right if they only

knew how. Plenty o f aca demics, consultants and t rainers are w illing to tell them. B ut theenduring phenomena of management gurus, improvement consultancies and airport

bookstall handbooks testify to the fact that managerial control problems are perennial.

So managers perennially seek new solutions promising them greater control and the

certainty it implies. Id eas like a mbiguity t hat explain w hy tha t q uest is futile are unlikely

to sell so w ell.

Second, which ideas get to be popular prescriptions for practice will depend on what

popular prescription consumers (education managers) want, and who says (government

politicians) what the consumers want. Huczynskis (1993) analogy of a filter funnel helps

to explain why a mbiguity and ma ny other potential ideas for mana ging educational change

in the sta te sector fail to a tta in popularity sta tus. To reach tra ining programmes or hand-boo ks, management idea s must survive a series of fi lters (Figure 2):

managers needsidea s must ma tch government politicians perception of educa tion

managers needs (e.g. to ensure smooth implementation of government politicians

education reforms);

idea benefitsideas must possess ingredients consistent with education managers

perception of their immediat e need to control the cha nge process so as to implement

imposed reforms (e.g. advice on how to generat e staff ownership of t hem);

timelinessideas must address widely perceived practical problems in this context

(e.g. how to maximize shared capacity in educational organizations to implementreforms);

promotionidea s must be actively dissemina ted (e.g. t hrough government -commis-

sioned research projects and government-sponsored training programmes, consul-

tancies and websites);

presentationideas must be engagingly presentable (e.g. reducible to one side of

paper or a web-page, implying the quick fix of straightforward application to

managers diverse organizational contexts).

Since education mana gers and government politicians operate these filters, mana gement

ideas tha t ill suit their interests are unlikely to become a vailab le for popular consumption.Such unpopular ideas include those that are:




8/22

unacceptable to government politicians, who w ill perceive them not to meet

managers needsit is the former who pay for much training and dissemination on

taxpayers behalf (e.g. ideas about ambiguity implying endemic limits to managerial

control);

complex, as managers will not perceive them to give the immediate idea benefits(e.g.

ideas focusing on how to live with the ambiguity of unresolvable dilemmas);

inimical to the capitalist economic thrust of education reformsvery untimely(e.g.how to offer minimal compliance with enterprise education initiatives);


All ideas for managing

educational change

Managers needs

Idea benefits

Timeliness

Promotion

Presentation

Popular prescriptions formanaging educational change

Figure 2. Filtering out popular prescriptions for mana ging educational change



9/22

restricted to academic texts, since without further promotionthey will not reach

consumers (e.g. this a rticle);

tentative and ungeneralized, because they will not be presentableas guaranteeing

universa l success (e.g. hunches whose application to specific contexts ma nagers a lone

can judge, offering a slow fi x at b est).

Third, the production of management ideas depends on what kinds of knowledge

aca demic producers are t rying to generate and why. (See R ibbins and G unter, 2002;

G unter and R ibbins, 2002; for a sophisticated ma p of t he fi eld of educat ional leadership

covering knowledge doma ins, area s of practice and positions adopted by a cademic know-

ledge producers. This large field partially overlaps with my smaller patch encompassing

educational change.) The answers you get in any fi eld of enq uiry depend on t he q uestions

you ask through different sorts of intellectual project (Wallace and Poulson, 2003), a

scheme of enquiry to genera te the kinds of knowledge that will achieve specified purposes.

E xtending B olams (1999) typo logy, five intellectual projects may b e distinguished (Tab le

2).The field of educational change is dominated by two closely associated intellectual

projects generating most popular prescriptions for practice. They attract funding as they

directly support government politicians and ma nagers working at their behest. One is the

knowledge-for-actionintellectua l project: developing theoretical and research knowledge

with practical application from a positive standpoint towards current practice and policy,

to inform improvement effo rts inside the prevailing ideology (or set of a ssumptions abo ut

good practice). The second, typically informed directly by the first, is the intellectual

project of instrumentalism: imparting practice knowledge and skills through training and

consulta ncy, directly to improve practice inside the prevailing ideology.

Ideas derived from the other intellectual projects may also inform practice, but areriskier for government politicians attempt to determine educational managers needs.

The reflexive action intellectual project entails developing and sharing practitioners

knowledge from a constructively self-critical standpoint towards their own work, so as to


Tabl e 2. Five intellectual projects pursued in the field of educat ional change

I ntel lectual project rationale value stance typical question

knowledge-for- understand through disinterested w hat ha ppens a nd why?understanding theory and research

knowledge-for- evaluate through critical what is wrong with whatcritical evaluation theory and research happens?

knowledge-for-action inform policy-makers positive tow ards how effective are actions tothrough research and policy and improve practice?evaluation improving practice

instrumentalism improve practice posit ive towards how may this programmethrough training and policy and improving improve practice?consultancy practice

reflexive action improve own practice critical of practice, how effective is mythrough evaluation positive abo ut practice, how may I

and action improving improve it?



10/22

improve their practice. It may operate within the prevailing ideology, and so be deemed

fundable by government politicians. But, more threateningly for them, reflexive action

may inform attempts to challenge policy and practice a ccording to a n a lternative ideology,

as in emancipatory f orms of a ction research.

The intellectual project of developing knowledge-for-understandingis a loose cannon.

Its a dherents adopt a relat ively disinterested standpoint tow ards the social world, in orderto understa ndrather than improvepolicy and practice and their underlying ideologies.

The tradition of organization theory a nd research has generated ideas on a mbiguity a nd

its sourcesorganizat ional micropolitics (H oyle, 1999), cognitive limits of o rganiza tiona l

awareness (March and Simon, 1958) and unresolvable dilemmas born of equally valued

alternatives (Ogaw a et a l., 1999). In the fi eld of ed ucational change, such ideas ha ve so far

fa iled to get past the fi lters determining popularity. They a re downbea t, focusing on limits

to manageability and managerial empowerment, and on the unintended contribution to

these limits made by government politicians effo rts to enhance ma nagerial control in the

service of their reforms.

U nsurprisingly, government politicians marginalize theoret ical and research knowledgederived from the knowledge-for -cri tical evaluationintellectual project. It is undertaken

from a n explicitly negat ive sta ndpoint towards existing policy and practice. The a im is to

expose and criticize the prevailing ideology and a rgue why it should be rejected (e.g. B all,

1994; G ewirtz et al., 1995), sometimes advoca ting improvement a ccording to a n a lterna-

tive ideology such as the ra dical professionality a dvoca ted by G unter (2001).

Equally understandably, many academics in the field wishing to make a difference to

practice are drawn towards the knowledge-for-action and instrumentalism intellectual

projects, bolstered by the prospect of funding from government politicians and

educational ma nagers. B ut the populist orientat ion of t his movement has led to unrealis-

tic optimism about the manageability of complex educational change. There is heavyreliance on popular prescriptions originating elsewhere whose application to the field is

rarely questioned. Popularity is bought at the expense of practicality through:

building normative theories that ha ve outstripped empirical research on the

complexity of educational change (e.g. conceiving educational organizations as

learning organizations after Senge (1990), assuming that different interests and

struggles for control can be elimina ted a nd belying the inevitab ility of limited aware-

ness within and between organizations);

relying on overstretched metaphors drawn from the natural world, such as theories

of chao s and complexity, where constituent concepts origina lly applied to t he naturalworld have to be shoehorned to ma ke them fit the social world (e.g. the idea o f self-

orga nization [Morrison, 2002], where o rganiza tiona l members are to be freed-up to

take initiatives in conditions of some uncertainty, belying the possibility that they

may take initiatives according to beliefs and values that contradict those of

managers);

embracing an exclusively cultural orientat ion implying that organizationa l culture

can be universally shared and directly manipulated by managers (e.g. underplaying

power and different interests, differential levels of awareness and contradictory

beliefs and va lues);

conceiving organizat ional activity as distinct from and semi-independent of theexternal policy context, rather tha n viewing organizationa l activity a s an integral part




11/22

of the policy development and implementation process (e.g. the idea that it is

possible to take charge of change in educational organizations by creating a new

ethos of innovation, thereby pre-empting the imposition of change from outside

(Fullan, 1991: 353), where choices for a ction w ould a ctually rema in constrained by

various government policies);

reifying social phenomena, a form of conceptual shorthand where the product ofcombined individual human activity is treated as if it wa s a t hing with independent

existence (e.g. conceiving organizations as entities capable of corporate action, so

losing focus on which people are behind this actionSenge (1990: 6) makes the

implausible reifi catory claim tha t w hole organizations (not the people in them! ) can

learn and enhance their capacity to achieve their highest aspirations);

sloga nizingoffering simplistic ea sy-listening prescriptions (e.g. lessons or

pract ical tips tha t promise unrealistic certa inty and belie the significa nce of contin-

gent factors in the diverse contexts where they are to be applied);

overplaying the extent of education managers agency, or choice over their actions

(e.g. implying the potential for high managerial or community control) and under-playing its limits (e.g. pressure from government politicians, and the structural

economic pressures on t hem).

The verdict ha s to be that aca demic producers of ma nagement idea s could do better

but how ? O ne wa y ma y be to conceive different intellectual projects as complementary

rather than separate and incompatible endeavours. My own effort is directed towards

developing knowledge-for-understanding which acknowledges both the potential and

limits of mana geability (wha t G unter and R ibbins refer to a s academic producers position

of d oing intellectual work). The a im is to harness this knowledge-for-understand ing as a

start ing point fo r developing knowledge-for-act ion and instrumenta lism. (The position ofintellectual work is therefore the superordinate basis for subsequent subordinate know-

ledge production within all three of the ot her positions G unter and R ibbins propose of

expertise, consultancy a nd tra ining.) E ducation ma nagers may then be o ffered realis-

tic ideas to inform their practice in diverse contexts. The ideas being generated carry a

high risk of being fi ltered out a nd so never becoming popular prescriptions. B ut if we a re

to fi nd more effective ways of mana ging complex educational change, we must surely first

understand in much more depth w hat makes it so complex to ma nage a nd then consider

how to cope effectively with it inside the limits of manageability. Let me illustrate how

this intellectua l project is being pursued.

Agency and its Structural Limits as a Foundation forUnderstanding Complexity

The research on large-scale reorganization of schools from which the computer dispute

saga wa s taken ena bled reorganization to be conceptualized inductively a s a single case of

complex educational change. The theoretical orientation was pluralistic, based on the

expression of human agency as individuals and members of different groups involved in

educational change interact (e.g. where the fi rst a nd middle school headt eachers sought

respectively to obta in or to retain some of the middle school computers). On the one ha nd,

they use their own agency to try a nd channel others agencyin their favoured direction byencouraging them to act in a particular way, the stuff of mutual trust and collaboration




12/22

(the first and middle school headteachers agreed on the principles governing redistri-

bution of resources and protection of students education w hile reorganization w as being

implemented). On the other hand, they also try to delimi t others agencyif the latter

threaten to step outside the comfort zone of the former, the stuff of monitoring and

corrective action (first school headt eachers wrote to the C E O in the hope that LE A offi -

cials would act for them in forcing middle school headteachers to hand over their up-to-date computers).

H owever, informed b y early theoretical wo rk by H argrea ves (1983) to reconcile plural-

ism with neo-Marxism, interaction w as viewed a s taking place inside very broa d structural

limitsbounding all human agency. Structural limits are of tw o kinds: economic, manifested

in resource constraints (the not-do-able); and ideological, manifested in unquestioned

assumptions about t he legitimacy of the existing social and economic order (the unthink-

ab le). This orienta tion provided the conceptual a ppara tus for sensitivity to the possibility

of structural limits being approached, indicat ed w here agency became directed towa rds

seeking compromise solutions because of economic constra ints that remained very largely

accepted. While endemic ambiguity was a product of human agency, structural limits puta ceiling on it b y ruling out possibilities which were never even ent erta ined. Throughout

reorganization, the legitimacy, inevitability and resource parameters of the process went

virtually unchallenged.

What Makes Complex Educational Change so Complex toManage?

Patterns with management implications were identified in the complexity of reorganiz-

ation. A single case is an inadequate basis for generalization, so my hunch that the

patt erns I fo und may a pply to ot her changes at a high level of abstraction is only a hunch.I crea ted a typology of fi ve characteristics, each with tw o or mo re constituents (Tab le 3).

Ano ther hunch is tha t the more complex the change, the more likely it is to fea ture all

five characteristics. The computer dispute illustrates how these characteristics were

expressed.

First, complex educationa l change is typically large-scale, impinging on the lives of many

people who w ill perceive it different ly according to their varying circumsta nces. A multi-

tude of stakeholders wi th an extensive range of specialist knowledge and pri or itieswill

proba bly be involved or affected , by design. Sta ff from the eleven schools in the computer

dispute were among t housands whose work and career were affected by reorganization.

Middle school headteachers priority was to secure jobs for their staff when their schoolsclosed. First school headteachers priority was to secure computers for their additional

classes of students.

The large number of sta keholders will proba bly hold allegiance to a plu rality of partially

incompatibl e beliefs and values, wi thin l im itsof the assumptions they hold about their

entitlement a nd constraints on a lternative courses of action. Middle school headt eachers

believed in suite-based computer provision. First school headteachers believed in class-

based provision. The two beliefs became incompatible in the exceptional circumstances

of the pa rt 1 reorganization arra ngement. Yet bot h groups of hea dtea chers assumed tha t

existing resource parameters must be followed. First school budgets could not bear the

cost of more computers, middle school budgets were for middle school students, and t herewa s no spare cash in the LE A.




13/22

Second, complex educational change is componential, an entity consisting of inter-

related and differentiated parts that vary over time. The content of the change will

probably consist of a diversity o f sequential and over lappi ng components affecting dif ferent

stakeholders at parti cular times, a striking feature of the LEA reorganization initiative.The schools in the computer dispute were a mong 21 being reorga nized in the last of fi ve

annual phases for reorganizing schools in different area s of the L E A. U ntil recently, LE A

offi cials supported ot her schools that ha d now been reorganized. Now they concentrated

on implementing the fi nal pha se in the rema ining 21 schools.

The variety of compo nents, and their cumulative impact over time, will dicta te a multi-

pl icity of d if ferentiated bu t interrelated management tasks. The two-part reorganization

arrangement for the first and middle schools in the computer dispute necessitated reallo-

cating staff and redistributing equipment associated with one year-group of students

during part 1. R eallocation of sta ff a nd eq uipment associated with three more yea r-groups

had to take place a year later.Third, complex educat ional change tends to be systemic, spanning administra tive levels

of an education system, which both shapes and constrains stakeholders interaction. A

cross-level change process will embody a mul tidi rectional flow of di rect and mediated i nter-

action w ith in and between system levels. Int eraction over the computer dispute took place

both inside a nd a cross school and L E A levels. The CE O mediated t he LE A response to

the fi rst school headt eachers letter, passing it to a n offi cial with pastora l responsibility for

the schools involved, toget her with a request tha t he resolve the dispute. The many people

caught up in complex educational change form an extensive network, ambiguity tending

to result from the unintended consequences of actions of which their perpetrato rs may be

unawa re. The offi cials and head teachers who had a greed on the two-part reorga nizat ionarrangement never predicted that it could trigger the computer dispute.


Tabl e 3. Characteristics of complex educational change with management implications

1. Large-sca le a multitude of stakeholders with an extensive range of specialist knowledge and priorities the allegiance of stakeholders to partially incompatible beliefs and values, within limits

2. Component ia l

a diversity of sequential and overlapping components affecting different stakeholders atparticular times

a multiplicity of differentiated but interrelated management tasks3. Syst emic

a multidirectional flow of direct and mediated interaction within and between system levels an unequal distribution of power between stakeholders within and between system levels

who a re nevertheless interdependent the centrality of cross-level management tasks

4. D if ferentially Impacting a variable shift in practice and learning required variable congruence with perceived interests and its associated emotive force, altering with

time

a variable reciprocal effect on other ongoing activities variable awa reness of the totality beyond those parts of immediate concern

5. Contextually Dependent interaction with an evolving profile of other planned and unplanned changes impact of the accretion of past changes affecting resource parameters



14/22

There w ill be an unequal di stri buti on o f power between stakeholders withi n and between

system levels, who are nevertheless interdependent. LEA officials depended on head-

teachers to cooperate in implementing reorganization. Headteachers in the computer

dispute depended on officials to resolve it, in a situation where no party possessed

sufficient authority to dictate what must happen. They all depended on each other to

ensure that t he reallocat ion of staff a nd tra nsfer of eq uipment wa s completed on time.The centr ali ty of management tasks across system levelsfollows from the aspirat ion of

policy-makers and their agents a t one level to change education practice at anot her. LE A

officials were responsible for many management tasks that necessitated action in schools,

including reallocating staff and redistributing equipment.

Fourth, complex educat ional change is dif ferentially impactingon the people involved or

affected, contributing to the diversity of management tasks. There will be a variable shif t

in practice and learn ing requi redof different individuals and groups according to the

novelty of what they have to do. The headteachers experienced a steep learning curve in

having to make an unprecedented variety of arrangements to implement reorganization.

While some of the ma in protagonists in the computer d ispute had experienced a previousreorganizat ion (ironically, to creat e the middle schools! ), the present situation wa s new for

them all. Last time, LE A o ffi cials held the budget for school equipment. Since then, central

government policies reducing LE A a uthority ha d devolved much of this budget t o schools.

Shifts in practice will have variab le congruence wi th perceived i nterests and associated

emotive force, alteri ng with time. O ffi cials interest in promoting LE A-wide reorganization

might or might not coincide with the narrower interest of headteachers in protecting

educational provision in their school. First school headteachers were pleased that their

schools were expanding (a s were their sala ries). Middle school hea dtea chers unanimously

condemned the demise of middle schools. When the computer dispute arose, they

expressed indignation at first school headteachers pressuring them over a few computerswhen middle school staff stood to lose their job. Once reorganization was over, the

computer dispute wo uld lose its emotive force for everyone affected. M eanwhile, for L E A

officials involved, this conflict was just one of many challenges. Yet they were concerned

that a resolution be found to pre-empt either group of headtea chers lobbying parents or

going to the press, which would be contrary to officials interest in promoting reorganiz-

ation across the LE A.

The change w ill have a variable recipr ocal eff ect on o ther ongoing activi ties. Reorga niz-

at ion ta sks were a minor concern for some offi cials and school sta ff while, for others, such

ta sks consumed most wo rking hours over many mont hs. When the computer dispute a rose

the fi rst school headtea chers were concerned with expansion, af fecting a minority o f staffand students, alongside the no rmal business of running their school. Middle school hea d-

teachers were concerned with closing their school, helping their staff to find jobs, and

running the institution with a reduced staff and complement of students for its fina l year.

There will be var iable awareness of the totali ty of the change beyond those par ts of

immediate concernto particular individuals and groups. Senior LEA officials had an

overview of the entire reorganization initiative, but little knowledge of the computer

dispute. The first and middle school staff concerned were acutely aware of this dispute,

but had only a sketchy understanding of what was happening in other schools and the

LEA.

Fifth, complex educat ional change is contextual ly dependent, facilita ted a nd constrainedby a spects of the wider political a nd historical milieu to w hich it relat es. The change w ill




15/22

in teract wi th an evolvi ng profile of o ther planned and unplanned changes. We have seen

how central government reforms to reduce LE A authority over schools delimited offi cials

agency, constraining their response over the computer dispute. Officials and school staff

had to implement reorganization a longside all the education reforms of the da y.

The impact of the accretion o f past changes aff ecting resource parameters for the change

may be fa cilita tive or inhibitory. Pressure to dow nsize provision in the LE As wa s an unin-tended consequence of past expansion when the school-age population was growing.

Surplus student ca pacity f ollowing popula tion decline since the 1980s had contributed to

a level of public expenditure tha t, in the harsher economic climate of globa l competition,

was now deemed excessive. Central government ministers had even passed legislation

entitling them to take over reorganizing LEA provision of schools if officials failed to

undertake initiatives of their own.

G iven tha t the reorganization initiat ive was completed, it wa s evidently not w holly

unmanageable, even if ambiguity reigned while it was happening. So how is it possible to

cope with complex educationa l change? A nd wha t did ha ppen to the computer dispute?

Unpopular Ideas for Coping: Complex Educational ChangeManagement Themes

In moving toward s knowledge-for-act ion, I ident ified fo ur hierarchically ordered practical

themes for ma naging complex educationa l change. Topping the hierarchy is the meta ta sk

of orchestration, narrowly distributed a mong senior forma l leaders within and between t he

different administrative levels of large education systems. The term is used figuratively

(hopefully as an under-stretched metaphor), consistent with the dictionary definition to

orga nise a situation o r event unobtrusively so that a desired effect or outcome is achieved

(Encarta, 2001: 1023). Orchestration implies steering the complex change process, oftenat some distance from the sharp end of implementa tion in organizations at the periphery

of a n education system. It enta ils instigating, organizing and ma intaining oversight of a n

intricate a rray of coordinated t asks as the change process unfolds, and coping with this

change alongside other work. Orchestration is unobtrusive, characterized by behind-the-

scenes string pulling. It is evolutiona ry, and it includes at tent ion to deta il. O rchestration

contrasts starkly with the public, visionary and charismatic behaviour widely popularized

as ha llmarks of lead ership (Leithwood et a l., 1999).

The current orthodoxy t hat visionary leadership of a transformat ional kind provides a key

to ma naging educational change (D ay et a l., 2000) seems misplaced, at least for the U K. The

emphasis on leadership overplays the extent o f designated leaders agency a nd underplaysfactors that set limits on what leaders can do. As piggies in the middle of other stake-

holders, leaders agency is channelled most significantly by government politicians in their

favoured direction. Leaders agency is also delimited by accountability mechanisms to

ensure compliance which entail extensive surveillance and the possibility of tough correc-

tive action. However, some agency remains because government politicians ultimately

depend on those they ho ld responsible for implementing their education policies. A shift of

conceptual emphasis from leadership to orchestration has greater potential for realistic

practical guidance; empowering practitioners make the most of their limited agency.

This conception o f orchestra tion mea ns both more a nd less than lea dership. The distinc-

tion to be d rawn between orchestrat ion, leadership and ma nagement ha s two dimensions(Figure 3):




16/22

the extent to which activity includes deciding the direction of change rather than

implementing ot hers decisions;

the extent to w hich activity is distributed within and between organizations.

Advocates of transformational leadership as a popular prescription increasingly distin-

guish it from mana gement, reinforced in the U K by government politicians preference

for the term. L ead ership is ta ken to imply making new things happen by tra nsforming the

staff culture through:

articulating an a ltruistic vision of a desirable future state for the organization that

reaches beyo nd a ny individuals self-interest;

garnering colleagues support for it;

empowering colleagues to realize this shared vision through developing management

structures and procedures emphasizing professional dialogue, team-working,

continuing professional development and mutual support.

Management is confined to keeping things going, getting routine tasks done inside the

para meters set by leadership. The distinction is well captured in B ennis and Na nuss

(1985) epithet managers do things right; lea ders do the right things. It is implicit in the

definitions offered by Louis and Miles (1990: 1920):

Lea ders set the course for the organisat ion; mana gers make sure the course is followed .

Lea ders make strategic plans; managers design operationa l systems for carrying out the

plans. Leaders stimulate and inspire; managers use their interpersonal influence and

authority to translate tha t energy into productive work.


Making new things happen

(broad focus:choosing direction for change,promoting organizationaltransformation)

Keeping new things going

(detailed focus: implementing change decisions, routinized activity)

widelydistributed

restricted toincumbentsof formalleadershippositions

leadership management recent focus on distribution

orchestration established focus on top managers

Figure 3. The contribution of leadership, management and o rchestration to the change process



17/22

Orchestration means more than leadership. The unobtrusive aspect of orchestration

entails delving into management territory through oversight of the multifarious activities

and a dministra tive minutiae necessary to keep new things going by continuing to do new

things right during the long haul of the change process. Orchestrators attend to main-

ta ining momentum a nd ma king sure the set course is followed. Ma ny novel mana gement

tasks embodied in the change soon become routinized. They must be sustained as thechange is gradually built into normal practice, often over several years. Orchestration

involves monito ring others practice relating to t he change, channelling their agency in the

desired direction through encouragement and incentives, and attempting to delimit their

agency through the threat of corrective a ction where their practice is deemed unaccept-

able.

O rchestra tion mea ns less tha n leadership. In B olman a nd D ea ls (1991: 408) apposite

phrase, things make leaders happen. Scope for selecting the content of a vision is more

restricted in the state ed ucation sphere than ad vocates of t ransformational lead ership tend

to assume. Q uestion: whose vision is it a nywa y? A nswer, in the U K: government poli-

ticians, and woe b etide any formal leader w hose vision does not comply. Consequentlythere is also limited scope for charisma. G iven the predictab le government-sponsored

content of their vision, leaders who behave like inspirational visionaries stand to be

received with cynicism either for promoting a party-political agenda or for being inau-

thentic. B ut the need for stimulat ing and steering a coherent change effort remains even

where visionary content is externally supplied. So significant, though delimited, scope

remains for doing the right things by setting the course for organizationsas long as it

aligns with go vernment politicians vision.

Second, orchestration also means less than the increasingly popular prescription of

distributed or shared leadership inside educational organizations. Making new things

happen, especially in large organizations, is seen to be unequally but widely shared(G ronn, 2000) amo ng senior and middle managers, and by individual tea chers in their

classrooms. Normatively, it is advoca ted that lea dership should be widely distributed , not

restricted to a privileged few in formal leadership positions. B ut orchestrat ion is the

exclusive province of a sma ll number of senior ma nagers in hierarchically ordered o rgan iz-

at ions who are in a position to steer the w ork of orga nizat ion members. It is more narrowly

dispersed inside any organization than distributed leadership implies. With complex

educational change, orchestration entails a coordinated thrust not only inside organiz-

ations but also between them, including those at different administrative levels. The

conceptual a nd explana tory pow er of o rchestration a s a concept derives from its compass

spanning part o f leadership and mana gement, avoiding the distinction they imply betw eenmaking new things happen and keeping new things on track, but not reaching to either of

their extremes. Orchestration excludes some choice over the content of a vision that

leadership implies, and is less potentia lly distributive. It also excludes the a ttent ion to very

specifi c and deta iled ta sks that mana gement implies.

The orchestrators embroiled in the computer dispute were the headteachers and the

C E O. The headt eachers instigated action on b ehalf of t heir staf f to protect their incom-

patible interests. The C E O steered the L E A response by d elegat ing the task of respond-

ing to a colleague offi cial. It wa s he who actua lly at tempted to break the stalemate.

O rchestra tion fra mes activity grouped under three themes. The fi rst isflexible planning

and coordination. It covers planning what needs to be done by managers at differentsystem levels, retaining short-term fl exibility through incremental planning and coherence




18/22

through longer planning cycles. P lans are coordinated and frequently updated informally

(and occasionally formally) as the change process evolves.

The official with pastoral responsibility for the first and middle schools adjusted his

programme of work, prioritizing a swift response. He checked out the overall budgetary

situa tion in each school and in the LE A, a nd planned his response accordingly. The head -

teachers had minimal knowledge either of other school budgets or of w hat wa s in the L E Acoffers. H e ma de his move in a coordinated ma nner by seeking the opportunity t o speak

in public to all headteachers concerned simultaneously, during a regular headteachers

meeting that offi cials facilitated.

The second theme is culture buil ding and communication. Since managers depend on

other stakeholders to a ccept and implement change, they must attempt to fo rge a culture

of acceptance for their vision (ultimately derived from that of government politicians).

While culture is not predictably and reliably amenable to deliberate efforts at shaping it,

mana gers cannot affo rd not to try. Forcing through a cha nge by o vercoming resistance

as opposed to trying to hea d off negative reactions by nurturing a culture of a cceptance

can never bring more tha n minimal compliance. E xpensive surveillance and sanctions a rerequired to police compliance under such conditions where resista nce must be suppressed.

Communication implies giving consistent messages, and gathering feedback to assist

coordination a nd t o pre-empt a ny resistance.

The fact that the first school headteachers complained to the CEO, with no authority

to intervene, testifies that officials had done their culture-building work well. Here it had

worked. Several officials, including the one who stood up to address the headteachers

involved in the computer dispute, had served in the LEA for many years. They had long

esta blished a reputa tion for even-handedness. O ffi cials had worked to gether to communi-

cate a consistent vision of the benefi ts of reorganization over almost a decade. B y this final

phase, most school staf f and parent s were positively disposed tow ards offi cials, convincedthat offi cials had their own diverse interests at heart. The legacy of t he recently eroded

structure of L E A authority lived on, headt eachers continuing to assume subliminally that

offi cials were a uthority fi gures, despite simultaneously being a wa re tha t central govern-

ment policies had put headteachers in the driving seat. When the official attending the

headtea chers meeting started t o speak, they were read y to listen.

The third theme is dif ferentiated suppor t. It entails carefully planned but also respon-

sive provision of whatever different people need, when they need it. Needs identification

procedures must be ongoing. Support to meet diverse needs may take equally diverse

formswhether expertise, time, finance, training, counselling, the offer of a job, an early

retirement arrangement, or opportunities to observe practice elsewhere.Here, the need was for new computers and therefore the money to buy them. What

happened? The official attempted to channel the agency of the headteachers towards

accepting a resolution tha t a ll would perceive to be in their best interests. H e thought the

hitherto unthinkab le. H e proposed that midd le school head tea chers should relinquish the

number of up-to-date computers requested by the first school headteachers. The middle

school headteachers should also purchase new machines to replace them, financed

through their devolved budget. He knew this proposal was do-able. All the computers

would be needed a fter reorganization in a years time, and he judged that the inroad the

purchases would make into the middle schools budgets would be minimal. He knew their

budgets were healthy and LE A resources were sufficient to underwrite any shortfa ll whenthe middle schools closed. It was a negligible price to pay for restoring harmonious




19/22

relationships between first and middle school staff during the stressful year leading up to

the part 2 reorganization arrangement. The official therefore resolved the computer

dispute by empowering members of both factions to continue separately with their

alternative traditions until the end of the year, in line with their existing professional

cultures.

Reorganization had directly generated ambiguity arising from lack of authoritativecontrol at school or L E A levels over the redistribution of computers, from limited a wa re-

ness of the possibilities for alternative courses of action, and from contradictory beliefs

and values about the fairness of alternative redistribution arrangements. The change

management themes indicate how the CEO possessed sufficient agency to delegate the

LEA response. The official possessed sufficient agency to broker a solution that amelio-

rated these sources of ambiguity. The computer dispute proved to be only relatively

unmanagea ble, thanks to stakeholders capacity to fi nd a w ay o f coping with it.

Implications for Research and Theory, Policy and Practice

The characteristics of complexity and these themes for managing complex educational

change are tentative. The contextual dependence of complex educational change implies

that any characteristic or theme could apply elsewhere only at some level of ab straction

from the concrete circumsta nces of a ny change. B ut the characteristics and themes have

enough face-validity t o suggest tha t t hey do have potential a s a b asis for further research

and t heory development w ithin a knowledge-for-understand ing to inform know ledge-for-

act ion intellectual project. The next item on the research and theory a genda is to investi-

gate other complex changes in education and elsewhere.

The characteristics and themes also of fer a framewo rk for planning practical action. B ut

it is doubtful tha t these ideas will become popular prescriptions, in the U K at least. Theyare likely to be t rapped by the fi rst filter (ma nagers needs), since centra l government poli-

ticians now comprehensively defi ne the needs of educat ion mana gers and fund the means

of meeting them. These politicians have already sunk too much investment in popular

prescriptions like transformational, visionary leadership. For education managers to

believe they possess more agency than they do may even be in government ministers

interest. An explicit aim of their endeavour to modernize the education profession is to

modernize the culture of educa tiona l professionals (D fE E , 1998). A know ledge-for-

critical eva luation conspiracy theorist might perceive the underlying aim as being to create

a self-regulating profession, where tea chers, lecturers and ma nagers delimit their a gency

for themselves. Envisioning courses of action lying outside government politicianscomfort zone w ould become unthinkable, so ta king them w ould become simply not do-

able.

B ut I subscribe to a cocked-up conspiracy theory of history. We proba bly canno t get

round the structural limits imposed on agency by globa l capita lism. B ut amb iguity cannot

be eliminated either. The three sources of organizational ambiguity apply equally to the

wider policy process of which orga nizationa l activity is an integra l part. D espite their best

efforts, central government politicians do have only l im ited control over education

professiona ls. Witness the chronic tea cher recruitment a nd retention crisis in this country

triggered in part by innova tion overkill and a lasting increase in teachers workloa dunin-

tended consequences of the well-intentioned reform eff orts of po liticians from successivegovernments. Yet politicians agency to express their reformist zeal is demonstrably




20/22

delimited by their dependence for implementa tion on the expertise and energy of the very

people who still possess enough agency to vote with their feet by avoiding or getting out

of the education profession.

G iven the widely accepted legitimacy of pursuing an ideologically driven reform

agenda , government politicians understa ndably t end to marginalize and so have limited

awareness of educational research that does not support their ideology, indicates thatother a pproa ches might w ork better or expresses alternative educationa l values. E ven the

current evidence-informed policy and practice initiative rests on a narrowly delimited

range o f evidence. Funding is not likely to be fo rthcoming for politically sensitive but prac-

tically informative topics for systematic reviews, such as the unintended contribution of

central government policies to perpetuating the problem of low standards they are

designed to a meliorate. The amount o f government-commissioned research is thankfully

on the increase, but the specification of topics and approaches is tightly focused on

immediate policy implementation concerns. Not much room for researchers to think the

unthinkable here. G overnment-sponsored evalua tions tend to be equa lly restricted in

scope. The current external evaluation of the national literacy and numeracy strategies(Earl et al., 2002) is confined to the change process adopted by government politicians.

They have thus avoided raising their awareness of whether the educationally contentious

content o f the strat egies (running counter to a considerable bod y of research) has proved

as educationally effective as the architects of the strategies claimed it would be.

G overnment politicians hold contradi ctory beli efs and values, seeking hyper-control

through education reforms that exacerbate endemic ambiguity through the change

process they enta il and promote conservative ma nagement a nd tea ching to the test in a

changing world. At the same time they wish to encourage the very experimentation they

inhibit, to develop new mana gerial coping strat egies and learning a nd tea ching approaches

that will be more effective in this evolving context.If politicians would only get real about the futility of trying to eliminate ambiguity

through hyper-control, then by easing back on their multiple control mechanisms the

agency of education professionals could be channelled towards more risk-taking and

experimenta tion. B eing realistic about complex educationa l change implies accepting tha t

it is beyond the agency of government politicians, their change a gent ma nagers or other

education professionals to eliminate ambiguity from the change process. Some ameliora-

tion is certa inly possible at the edges, and stra tegies like orchestration o f complex change

may help to reduce ambiguitybut only up to a point. So politicians would ha ve to accept

the risk of some loss of control for the sake of encouraging education professionals to

think the unthinkab le and make the presently not-do-able more do-ab le. U nfortunat ely,the na ture of politics and the structural economic conditions and assumptions driving poli-

ticians to act as they do both militate against greater acceptance of ambiguity. We are

probably not on the threshold of a new age of political enlightenment.

Finally, reaching across to other academic producers positions by pursuing the know-

ledge-for-action and instrumentalism intellectual projects means seeking more realistic

ways of supporting practitioners with managing complex educational change inside the

limits of huma n a gency. The most promising direction for know ledge-for-action tha t w ill

work lies in the humble realm of coping strategies, headed by orchestration, rather than

more grand iose notions like transforma tiona l leadership which treat a gency as potentially

unlimited. E ffective coping implies ameliorating a mbiguity where bo th fea sible and d esir-able. It also implies accepting a signifi cant mea sure of a mbiguity a s a fa ct of ma nagerial




21/22

life, not an ab erration. An importa nt goa l for the allied intellectual project of instrumen-

ta lism is to fi nd w ays of helping practitioners to cope with the relatively unmanagea ble by

learning to live with ambiguity, and so rendering it relatively manageable.

My hope is that the professional culture of a cademics and practitioners in the U K (and

elsewhere) remains sufficiently unmodernized for us to employ our agency in working

toget her on th is mildly subversive practica l agend a, ma king such unpopular prescriptionsmore thinkable and so potentially more do-able. It surely promises to contribute more

than todays hopeless political quest for hyper-control ever can towards tomorrows

educational success. But who knows what will happen?

Dedication

This is a slightly revised text o f a n inaugural lecture given at the U niversity o f B at h on 23 May

2002. It is dedicated t o the memory o f D r Valerie H all, who died o f cancer two da ys earlier.

Valerie wa s my mentor, research collab orat or, good friend a nd a key format ive influence on my

whole a pproach to research. We wo rked together on a study of secondary school senior

mana gement teams (Wallace and H all, 1994) when I wa s just starting out a s an a cademic

researcher. I w as very unsure whether I wa s up to the ta sk. Valerie a lready possessed extensive

qua litative research experience, but she never traded on it. I nstead she built up my confid ence,

and through her example she taught me the a rt of rigorous and probing interview and

observation. She helped me learn how to build tow ards a deeply contextualized understand ing of

social phenomena. The intellectual debt I owe Valerie pervades the topic of this lecture and my

approach to it.

References

B all, S. (1994) Educational Reform : A Cr itical and Post-Structural A pproach. B uckingham: O penU niversity Press.

B ennis, W. and Nanus, B . (1985) L eaders: The Strategies for Tak ing Charge. New York: Ha rper &

Row.

B olam, R . (1999) E ducational A dministration, Lea dership and M ana gement: Towa rds a R esearch

Agenda, in T. B ush, L. B ell, R. B olam, R . G latter and P . Ribbins (eds) Educational

M anagement: Redefining Theory, Poli cy and Practice, pp. 193205. London: P aul C hapma n.

B olman, L . and D eal, T. (1991) Reframing O rganisations: A rti stry, Choi ce and L eadership. San

Francisco: Jo ssey-B ass.

D ay, C ., Ha rris, A., Ha dfi eld, M., Tolley, H . and B eresford, J. (2000) L eading Schools in T imes of

Change. B uckingham: O pen U niversity P ress.

D epartment for E ducation and E mployment (1998) Teachers Meeting the Chall enge of Change.London: D fEE .

E arl, L., Levin, B ., Leithwo od, K ., Fullan, M. and Wat son, N. with Torrance, N., Ja ntzi, D . and

Mascall, B. (2002) Watching and L earning 2: OISE /UT Evaluation of the Implementation of the

National L iteracy and National N umeracy Strategies. Second A nnual Repor t. Toronto: O nta rio

Institute for Stud ies in Educa tion and U niversity of Toronto.

E ncarta (2001) Encarta Concise English D ictionary. London: B loomsbury.

Fullan, M. w ith St iegelba uer, S. (1991) The New M eaning of Educational Change. L ondon: C assell.

G ewirtz, S., B all, S. and B owe, R . (1995) M arkets, Choice and Equ ity in Education. B uckingham:

Open U niversity P ress.

G ronn, P. (2000) D istributed Properties: A New A rchitecture for Leadership, Educational

M anagement & A dmini stration 28(3): 31738.




22/22

G ronn, P. (2002) The New Wor k of Educational L eaders: Changing L eadership Practice in an A ge

of School Reform. London: Paul Chapman.

G unter, H . (2001) L eaders and L eadership in Education. London: Paul Chapman.

G unter, H. a nd R ibbins, P. (2002) Lea dership Studies in E ducat ion: Toward s a Map of the Field,

Educational M anagement & A dmini stration30(4): 387417.

H argrea ves, A. (1983) The Politics of A dministra tive C onvenience: The Case of Middle Schoo ls,

in J. Ahier and M. Flude (eds) Contemporary E ducation Policy, pp. 2357. London: Croom

Helm.

Hoyle, E. (1986) The Poli tics of School M anagement. London: H odder & Stoughton.

Hoyle, E. (1999) The Two Faces of Micropolitics, Schoo l L eadership and M anagement19(2):

21322.

H uczynski, A . (1993) M anagement Gur us: What M akes Them and H ow to B ecome One. London:

Routledge.

Leithwood , K., Ja ntzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999) Changing L eadership for Changing T imes.

B uckingham: O pen U niversity P ress.

Louis, K.S. and Miles, M. (1990) Improving the U rban H igh School: What Work s and Why. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Ma rch, J. a nd O lsen, P. (1976) Ambiguity and Choi ce in O rganisations. B ergen:

U niversitetsforlaget.

Ma rch, J. and Simon, H . (1958) Organisations. New York: John Wiley.

Morrison, K . (2002) School L eadership and Complexity Theory. Londo n: R outledgeFalmer.

Oga wa , R ., Crowson, R . and G oldring, E. (1999) E nduring D ilemmas of School Organisation, in

J. Murphy and K. Sea shore Louis (eds) H andbook of Research on Educational A dmini stration,

pp. 27795. San Fra ncisco: Jo ssey-B ass.

R ibbins, P. and G unter, H . (2002) Ma pping Lead ership Studies in Educa tion: Toward s a Typology

of Know ledge D omains, Educational M anagement & A dmini stration30(4): 35986.

Senge, P. (1990) The Fif th D iscipl ine: The A rt and Practice of the L earning Organisation. New

York: D oubleday.

Wallace, M. and H all, V. (1994) I nside the SM T: Teamwor k in Secondary School M anagement.

London: Paul Chapman.

Wallace, M. and Pocklington, K. (2002) M anaging Complex Educational Change: L arge-Scale

Reorganisation of Schools. Londo n: R outledgeFalmer.

Wallace, M. and Poulson, L., eds (2003) L earning to Read Cri ticall y in Educational L eadership and

M anagement. London: Sage.

Weick, K . (2001) M aking Sense of the O rganisation. Oxford: B lackwell.

World B ank (2000) Entering the 21st Century: Worl d D evelopment Repor t 1999/2000. Washington,

D C: O xford University Press.

Correspondence to:

P R O FE S SO R M IK E WA L LAC E , Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.

[[email protected]]


managing educational change

Documents