, am... _ ”xv/Kin 1. ., A, "54 HF. A Q . Ev Kama". . A nflnflfiefltfi. fix L tn. chub , 71:1. It? 3.! .t: ... ‘ . ‘ . .l.. t; u a. ‘ . , £1fi§.v.1£...é. . . . ‘ ‘ . , V , .i. .a’. .z A ‘l ..I.| ‘ . ‘ . ‘ .‘ . , ¥ , . . . Tu~E§W4fi a.» A‘ :31 {vita-$.35...E:_xl..:.al7!:z: v: : . . . . 4 ifixwi. ti ’ . V .. 1. Q. . . "11— ~ . A ifm‘? W a ."1 »~~‘ .”'3 n, Q. «~ ‘\ .373 W5 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K.lPrq/Acc&Pres/ClRC/Date0ue.Indd /TONARO A THEORETICAL MODEL OF THE INTEGRATION OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION/ By Russeii R. Rogers // A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partiai fuifiilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curricuium 1984 3 r U *THE 3 1 1222 3% (2 'i'H‘J 6) Copyright by RUSSELL R. ROGERS 1984 ABSTRACT TOHARD A THEORETICAL MODEL OF THE INTEGRATION OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT HITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION By Russeii R. Rogers During the 1ast decade. the administration of higher education has been faced with the responsibiiity of directing coiieges and uni- versities through unprecedented change. ikt the same time. organization deveiopment has been utiiized--primari]y in business and industry--as a strategy for faciiitating the process and dynamics of organizationai Change. With this as context. the purpose of this study was to compare analytica11y the Titerature of organization deveiopment with the Tit- erature of higher education administration as the basis for deveioping an integrative and descriptive mode] wherein organization development couid be expiored as a potentia] strategy for managing the institu- tionai change cruciai to higher education. To accompiish this purpose. the process foiiowed was as foiiows: 1. expioration of fundamentai organization deveiopment literature to determine consensus regarding basic premises. vaiues. and purposes; Russell R. Rogers 2. exploration of fundamental higher education administration literature to determine consensus regarding basic premises. values. and purposes; M. 3. comparative analysis of the relationship between the basic premises. values. and purposes of organization development and those of higher education administration; 4. development of a framework for model building from model theory; 5. development of a descriptive model from the comparative analysis in accord with model theory; 6. submission of model and guidelines to three separate expert panels for their critique (organization development panel. higher edu- cation administration theorist panel. and higher education administra- tion practitioner panel); 7. revision of model and guidelines in accord with responses and suggestions from panelists. It was found as a result of the study that organization devel- opment and higher education administration have substantive areas of congruence as well as incongruence at the level of their basic prem- ises. values. and purposes. Hence. the utilization and application of organization development as a strategy for higher education administra- tion will need to be confined to areas of congruence or adapt accord— ingly to the distinctive qualities of higher education administration. This dissertation is dedicated to all who taught me the skills and values for building. implementing. adapting. and nurturing a dream . . . . . . for of such is the vision of learning and the joy of living. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is clear to me that a great work has been done in these years at Michigan State University. My mind has grown disciplined and quick; my library. wide and heavy; my understanding. competent and confident; and my heart. tender and full. Many have helped. Four. beyond measure. .DL.JJ£LHLJL_§IflmflInkQ§. It has been said that a great teacher is one who picks you up to the edge of knowledge without telling you what to think. This is without question characteristic of Lou. In the course of my study here. I have watched him artfully lead me beyond knowing Just the content of our profession into understanding its context as well. Through problems. questions. tasks. challenges. and discussions. he has consistently invited me to view myself as a colleague. scholar. and steward of a vision. I find in him willing contribution. committed integrity. compassionate competence. and genuine openness. and I find in him. a friend. He has developed my scholarship. He has also entered my heart. Wines. T. 8. Eliot once wrote three of the most challenging questions: Where is the learning we have lost in information? Where is the understanding we have lost in knowledge? Where is the life we have lost in living? Through working with Max as a colleague. studying under him as a student. and admiring him as a friend. I am convinced that his contribution to higher education. and to me. is grounded in the challenge of these questions. He exemplifies a profound command of the information. knowledge. and living while contributing relentlessly to the learning. understanding. and life. Together we have celebrated ideas. their meaning. and their mystery; together we have shared the adventure of more to question and more to believe; and together we have become friends. Both of these men are of those rare people whose special combination of qualities. talents. commitments. insights. and sensitivities mark them as true educators and magnificent human beings. That we share a profession together is an honor. 'That we share a friendship together is a gift. W. The completion of this study could not have been accomplished without the continuous support and encouragement of my dad and my mom. They were the first to teach me the effort that produces excellence; they were the first to show me the value of living with commitment; and they were the first to believe in me. They still do. In short. they are my parents. I am their son. and between us is a most special and deep love. In addition to these four. Dr. Ted Ward and Dr. Don Hamachek devoted much time and effort on my behalf. Their courses challenged me. their membership on my committee stretched and encouraged me. and their ideas and suggestions strengthened me. I am most grateful. iv The true task is to design a society (and institutions) capable of continuous change. renewal and responsiveness. We can less and less afford to limit ourselves to routine repair of breakdowns in our institutions. Unless we are willing to see a final confrontation between institutions that refuse to change and critics bent on destruction. we had better get on with the business of redesigning our society. John W. Gardner LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O FIGURES THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . Significance of the Study . Purpose and Procedures . . . Basic Assumptions . Limitations . Definitions . Organization of the Study . REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE . IntrOdUCt‘Ion O O O O O I - O I O O O O 0 Organization Development: A Definition . . . . Organization Development and Higher Education: Timely Relationship Organization Development and Higher Education: Need for Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization Development and Higher Education: Administrative Responsibility Higher Education Administration Summary DESIGN OF THE STUDY Design of the Study A Research Questions . . . . . . . . Models: Definition. Theory. and Use Definition Models: Advantages and Disadvantages Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi )0 )0 o 00.). Page viii —1 #000000th -l—ul ...n 0‘ _a_a \IO bk” (”—1 mU'lU'l #ON (I) \l ._.I_l 0000C” mo##\l IV. VI. VII. FINDINGS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS . . Basic Premises of OD and HEA values of DO and HEA . . . . Goals of OD and HEA . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . FINDINGS: INTEGRATIVE MODEL . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Model and Guidelines . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . FINDINGS: PANEL OF EXPERTS . . . . Summary and Analysis of Panelists' Conclusions and Revisions . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURmER stY O I O O O O O O O 0 Summary............. Conclusions and Implications . . . Recommendations for Further Study Concluding Statement . . . . . . . APPENDICES O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O O O A. B. C. D. AN OVERVIEW OF OD INTERVENTIONS . . MATERIALS SENT TO PANELISTS . . . . PERTINENT BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION REGARDING PANEL ISTS O I O O O O O O O O O O CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS . . SELECTED BIBLImRAmY O O O O O O O I O O 0 vii Page 104 105 126 l52 172 l76 176 177 183 185 186 190 192 193 193 206 215 218 221 222 234 249 254 262 Table 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 4.1 4.2 7.1 7.2 LIST OF TABLES OD Emergence and Evolution Differences Between Mechanical and Organic Systems . Human Problems Confronting Contemporary Organizations Comparison of Three Models of University Governance . OD Versus HEA: Strategies for Change Bennis's Comparison of Mechanical and Organic Systems Basic Premises. Values. and Goals of OD . . . . . . . Basic Premises. Values. and Goals of HEA viii Page 19 30 4O 64 131 163 199 202 Figure 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.] 5.2 5.3 6.1 7.1 7.2 LIST OF FIGURES Peter's Model of 00 as Described by Dennis . . . . Model for Organizational Diagnosis . . . . . . . . A Simple Political Model of University Governance Administration and the Organization: A Process of Handling and Directing Ambiguity Through Governance. Management. and Leadership . . . Evolution of a Successful Model . . . . . . . Design of the Study: An Adaptation of Figure 3. Comparison of Basic Premises of OD and HEA . . Comparison of Values of OD and HEA . . . . . . Comparison of Goals of OD and HEA . . . . . . Comparison of OD and HEA: Basic Premises. Values. and 60315 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O A Theoretical Model of the Integration of OD "IthIn HEA O O O O C O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Four Major Approaches in Assessing Organizational Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Six Critical Questions in Evaluating Organizational 1 Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Theoretical Model of the Integration of OD Within HEA (Revised) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Theoretical Model of the Integration of OD "1th1n HEA O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O A Theoretical Model of the Integration of OD Within HEA (Revised) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 30 51 66 77 93 93 127 153 173 174 178 181 182 191 205 207 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The major thrust Of this chapter is to present the reader with a perspective for this study. To do so. the following is provided: an introduction to the problem. a statement of the problem. a rationale for the study. its purpose and procedures. its basic assumptions. and its limitations. The chapter also includes a brief discussion of basic terms as well as an overview of the study. Intuducflon In flighen_£ducat19n_1n_lnan§1t19n (1976). Brubacher and Rudy documented the history of higher education from 1636 through 1967. Specifically. they traced the institution of higher education through an evolutionary process more characterized by the effects of change ‘than by the effects of permanence. Clearly. the "transition" is not raven. In fact. the pace seems only to be accelerating. Words such as "transition." "transformation." "trauma." "retrenchment." "curtail- ment." "reexamination." "alternative." and "adaptation." to name but a 'few. are numerous in titles of current publications whose authors are attempting to capture the core of higher education's metamorphic pro- CGSS. Indeed. higher education is faced with the threat and/or challenge (danger and/or opportunity) of substantive change--a change involving much more than unstable external support systems and poor internal coordinating mechanisms. ‘The time when students (customers) filled classrooms to learn from dedicated professionals is over. Oversized budgets probably never will occur again. at least not in the next decade or more» The time when stable salaries and relatively flat operating costs existed has given way to double-digit inflation and expensive salary indexing. Meanwhile. the "customers" of higher education. themselves. are changing from that of 18-22 year old young people to a more diverse group of adult learners who want immediate payoffs for their tuition investments--a situation resulting from both society's increasing pragmatism as well as from the process of adult development itself. In WM Highen_Education. Bowen (1982) asserted that . .. the early 19805 is a time of uncertainty and pessimism among educators. They have already experienced or they fear demographic decline. reduced student aid funds. diminished appropriations. continuing inflation. and lukewarm popular and political support. Their goals range from sheer survival to maintenance of the status quo. (p. 155) The scenario is certainly serious. if not bleak. The challenge. one of metamorphic adaptation or eventual extinction. One is reminded of the foreboding demise of the long-departed dinosaur. Information about it is fragmentary. but we can be reasonably sure that it ran into mortal trouble when conditions changed and it did not. Clearly conditions today are changing. The question remains as to the response of higher education. WW Surely it is obvious that society changes. and does so con- stantly. In retrospect. such changes appear immense. yet within the 'Hnmediacy of passing time they take the form of many small adjust- ments--each within the capacity of the people in organizations to assimilate and adapt "naturallyJ' Thus. as Roeber (1973) asserted. . . . organizations have been able to adapt themselves to slow changes in their environments by making small concessions to pressures. and through the import of new personnel and the diffusion of new ideas. Through these unstructured. untutored. and unconscious adaptive responses organizations have "tracked" changes in their environment. much as the rear wheels of a long trailer track the changes in direction at the front. But such natural processes are no longer appropriate when the environment changes rapidly. (p. x) Such. then. is the problem facing higher education. Todayhs organizations of higher education are facing change at a rate which exceeds the scope of natural assimilation processes. and they are lacking for any other method to address change in as comprehensive a fashion as is needed to adjust and adapt the organization. Clearly. for higher education to enhance its effectiveness. increase its excel- lence. and ensure its survival. its administrative leadership must develop conscious and explicit processes for managing change that are capable of "defining missions. setting Objectives. allocating resources. and coordinating efforts for the institution" (Corson. 1975. p. 18) amid conditions of rapid change. Such processes for the manage- ment of change that do exist in higher education are naive at best (dealing with fluctuations in its financial environments while ignoring changes in its social environments) and nonexistent at worst. W511 Debate on the best way for higher education to respond to the conditions mandating change is polarized into two sharply different approaches. At the one pole. the situation before higher education is viewed as one demanding the "management of decline" (Crossland. 1980). Here. the conditions mandating change are accepted as givens wherein the responsibility of administration is to assure that any necessary contraction is orderly. The alternative pole is more flexible in approach. Instead of assuming the conditions as givens and specifying the job to be done as planning and coordinating contraction. this approach branches immedi- ately from the scenario of change to the "identification and careful assessment of the possible outcomes of strategies for offsetting pro- jected declines" (Frances. 1980. p. 38). Regardless of polar position (management of decline or strate- gic planning). the existence of "conditions mandating change" remains uncontested. Furthermore. recognition of the multiplicity and complex- ity of variables involved in such change has sent many administrators looking for a means of change that preserves. if not strengthens. the integrity of institutional purpose and effectiveness. This situation is certainly similar to that faced in business organizations in the 19605 and 19705. Prior to the 19605 the major approaches to management education were generalized "principles of management." As long as business organtzations remained internally simple and their environment remained simple and stable. such approaches to management maintained their applicability. However. as business organizations grew in size. increased in complexity. and faced environments of accelerated change. the "principles of management" and intuitive approaches were found wanting. There was a need for knowledge of better alternatives and confidence that such alternatives represented an improvement. 'R: answer this need. organization development emerged in the 19605 and 19705 as an applied discipline. The similarity of situation that higher education now faces raises the substantive question--insofar as there is virtually no collective experience or policy precedent to guide higher education administrators in managing the envisioned transition and/or retrench- ment--can the applied discipline of organization development aid in the accomplishment of administrative leadership purposes? If so. how? W Corsen (1975) argued in WM unjyensitjgs for a "rational modification of organizational forms and processes which colleges and universities [may inherit] from other fields of endeavor" (p. 89). Such is the general aim of this study--to conduct a "rational modification" of organization development for the administration of higher education. Specifically. it is the purpose of this theoretical study to compare analytically the literature of organization development with the literature of higher education administration as the basis for developing an integrative and descriptive model wherein organization development can be explored as a strategy for managing the institu- tional change crucial to higher education. Guidelines of the applica- tion of the model are also included. Herein. the following Objectives are attained: --a document that provides for a working understanding of organi- zation development; --a document that provides a framework for extracting meaning from the organization development literature by higher education administrators; and --a document that provides a framework for the application of organization development to the practice of higher education administration. The idea "toward" the building of an integrative model. as expressed in the title. is utilized to indicate the boundary of launching the construction of the needed model. In so doing. it is understood that the study only lays the groundwork for continuing efforts to develop a model. Further. the guidelines are offered primarily to direct the implementation of the initial model. It is presumed that such implementation will provide the perspective of experience necessary for the model's subsequent and on-going improvement. In accord with this purpose. the process followed to complete the study and to develop the model and its guidelines is as follows: 1. investigate fundamental organization development literature to determine consensus regarding basic premises. values. and purposes; 2. investigate fundamental higher education administration literature to determine consensus regarding basic premises. values. and purposes; 3. conduct a comparative analysis of the relationship between the basic premises. values. and purposes of organization development and that of higher education administration; 4. abstract a framework for model-building from model theory; 5. develop a descriptive model from the comparative analysis (step 3) in accord with model theory (step 4); GM submit model and guidelines to three separate expert panels for their critique (organization development panel. higher education administration theorist panel. and higher education administration practitioner panel); and 7. revise model and guidelines in accord with responses and suggestions from panelists. It is not the intention of this study to develop a model or guidelines for use in any one specific higher education institution or type of institution. Rather. the purpose is to develop a general model. substantive enough to enable pertinent and appropriate application Of organization development regardless of institutional type. Without such a resource to guide decision making. .administrators are left to their best judgment which may or may not result in an organization development effort that is faithful to the integrity of higher education. Additionally. it is the investigator's belief that those who review the entire study will understand how each aspect of the model is derived from. and contributes to. the institutional pur- poses and values. Such understanding is critical both to an awareness of the model's integrated significance and to its intelligent applica- tion. Win: The following are the basic assumptions upon which this study is developed. 1. It is assumed that higher education is in transition. 2. It is assumed that the findings of organization development "are not only applicable to business concerns. but to goal-directed organizations in general. including organizations of higher education" (Bobbitt & Behling. 1981. p. 29). 3. It is assumed that in order to be effective. administrative leadership must take into account the beliefs and attitudes of organi- zational actors-~a critical focus of organization development (Blake & Mouton. 1967). 4. It is assumed that business/industry and higher education organizations are sufficiently distinctive that application of strate- gies and procedures from one to the other is not possible without an adaptive procedure which is sensitive to the peculiarities of the receiving organization. 5. It is assumed that the institution of higher education is a "professional bureaucracy" characterized by totally different patterns of behavior of those at the top who seek to control the organization and those at the bottom who seek to control their professional work without outside interference. i.e.. administration (Mintzberg. 1979). 6. It is assumed that organization development. while admit- tedly new. is developed to sufficient degree to withstand comparative analysis as a distinct. albeit emerging. discipline (French & Bell. 1978; Huse. 1975). 7. It is assumed that higher education administration. albeit a conglomerate of multiple perspectives. is developed to sufficient degree to withstand comparative analysis as a distinct and scholarly field (Dressel & Mayhew. 1974). Limitations The limitations of this study are as follows. 1. The information sources utilized in the comparative analy- sis and subsequent building of the model included Dissertation Abstracts searches. books. periodicals. and documents on file in the Michigan State University Library. and books and materials owned or borrowed by the investigator. 2. Insofar as the investigator constructed a model. the study inherits the limitations of models. Bross (1953) listed these as (a) the tendency toward oversimplification. (b) the limitations of symbolic language used. and (c) the "all-too-human tendency of model builders to reify their brain children--to look upon their models not 10 as representative of the real world but as being identified with it" Definitions The following terms are defined in accordance with their use and meaning in this study to provide a common basis for understanding. Infininistnatinn. The process whereby an enterprise performs the work outputs it is expected to achieve within the available resources provided and in accordance with the techniques of direction employed (procedures). Administration translates purposes and available resources (including professionals) into work outputs (Millett. 1974). It refers to the subtle execution of control whereby professionals are directed in their work output in such a way as to be sensitive to their value of working without outside interference. .Gaxsnnance. The process whereby purpose and performance expectations are established. It involves the determination of the values to be realized. the goals to be accomplished. and the distribu- tion of benefits to be obtained through the activities of the enter— prise (Millett. 1974). Governance involves a policy focus. Lhunuumnsnt. The process of "getting the job done" (Millett. 1974L It is similar to administration in that it translates purposes and available resources into work outputs. However. the subtle execu- tion Of this process is not as critical as that of administration in that the work force is typically not comprised of professionals. Leadership. The process of encouraging. motivating. and facilitating the decision-making process by which basic policies and 11 purposes are determined (governance) and the performance process by which goals are attained (management). Leadership seeks objectives that embody purpose and seeks effective performance to achieve these objectives (Millett. 1974). .Engisssigna1_flunsaucnasy. An organization possessing a structure that is hierarchical. logical. and systematically rational. and is characterized by the totally different patterns of behavior utilized by those at the top who seek to control the organization and by those at the bottom who seek to control their professional work without outside interference (Mintzberg. 1979). .Qnganizstign. The structural arrangement bringing together purpose and people to the end of translating purpose into performance. The "people" aspect is viewed as essential to the existence of the specific purpose. (For the purpose of this study. higher education will be considered an organization [Gross. 1971].) .Institutign. An organization having a long-established purpose that is viewed as essential for society. The traditional and sacred- trust nature of the purpose is considered. at any point in time. as distinct from the "people" involved. 14%. faculty. staff. administra- tion. (Terms such as institutional advancement or institutional plan- ning focus more on the role of the organization as partner with the public it serves [purpose] than on the way the organization itself functions [peopleJJ .flighsL_Educatign. A generic term referring to post-secondary education institutions (e.g.. liberal arts colleges. community 12 colleges. universities. vocational/technical colleges) and a field of study referring to research. service. and formally organized programs of instruction. W. A planned. organization-wide effort that is managed from the top both to increase organization effective- ness and to improve organizational problem-solving and renewal proces- ses. Such an effort is accomplished through planned interventions in an organization's "processes" and through a collaborative management of an organization's culture--both using behavioral science knowledge. The goals of organization development include both the quality of life of individuals as well as the improving of organizational functioning and performance (French & Bell. 1978; Beckhard. 1969). A5 a field of study. organization development represents an interdisciplinary per- spective that emerges from the realization that a variety of social and psychological factors affect work performance. ‘QLgsnizatign_£i£sctixsnsss. ‘The quality wherein an organiza- tion is properly designed and managed in accordance with its estab- lished goals; decisions are made at the appropriate level; communica- tions are relatively undistorted; win/win activities are maximized; there is accepted diversity of personnel without resulting in interper- sonal difficulties; there is emphasis on helping each person grow and develop both personally and professionally; and the organization is Open and adaptive in solving its problems. 13 .Engblsm:sglxing_Engcsss. The way in which an organization deals with the opportunities and challenges of its environment (French a Bell. 1978). I .Bsnsnsl_Engssss. The process for initiating. creating. and confronting needed changes so as to make it possible for an organiza- tion to become or remain viable. to adapt to new conditions. to solve problems. and to learn from experiences (Lippitt. 1960A .Qultnns. The prevailing pattern of activities. interactions. norms. sentiments. beliefs. attitudes. values. and products in a given social setting or. in this case. organization. This includes the formal. overt aspects of the organization such as goals. technology. structure (including formal roles). policies and procedures. products. and financial resources; plus the informal covert aspects such as perceptions. attitudes. feelings. values. informal interactions and roles. and group norms relating to both the formal and informal systems of the organization (French & Bell. 1978). W. A structure of symbols and operating rules which purport to match a set of relevant points (organization develop- ment) in an existing structure or process (higher education administra- tion). In this. it is a way of representing a situation or set of components so that their relationship within it is describable (McFarland. 1974). As Morris (1965) contended. "it is the expression of the links of reason which bind concepts into a system. for a heap of facts is no more a science than a heap of bricks is a house" (p. 84). l4 ‘Ggal. An event or state of affairs which is preferred and sought after by the actor to other events or outcomes (Bolman in Adams. 1974. p. 271). In this study. the purposes of organization development and of higher education administration are viewed as synonymous with its goals and/or objectives. .Basic_Ensm1ss. A belief. assumption. or hypothesis about the world. oneself. people. situational contingencies. etc. (Bolman in Adams. 1974. p. 271). ‘Valus. A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. A value system is an enduring organization of beliefs concerning pref- erable modes of conduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance (Rokeach. 1973. p. 5). WM The study is organized into seven chapters. Chapter I has included an introduction and statement of the problem; the signifi- cance. purpose. and design of the study; basic assumptions. research questions. limitations; definitions of terms; and a statement of the organization of the study. A review of selected literature and research relevant to the application of organization development to the administration of higher education is presented in Chapter II. The design of the study comprises Chapter III. This chapter includes an explanation of methodology and an exploration of model 15 theory which provides the grounding for the study's initial and revised model development. Insofar as the findings in this study are threefold. Chapters IV. V. and VI are organized accordingly. Chapter IV includes the comparative analysis of the literture of organization development and the literature of higher education administration in accord with basic premises. values. and purposes. Chapter V presents the initial descriptive model of the relationship between organization development and higher education administration (guidelines included). Both the model and its guidelines are derived from the comparative analysis of Chapter IV in accord with model theory as outlined in Chapter III. 'The responses of the three panels of experts to this initial model are presented and analyzed in Chapter VI. Chapter VII. the concluding chapter. includes the revised model and guidelines. discussion and implications of the study. and recommen- dations for further research based on the findings of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE In this chapter. the investigator's primary objective is to review literature pertinent to considering W (00) as it has implications for h1ghsL_sdugatign_sdm1n1stnstign (HEAL To accomplish this objective. the following is provided: (1) an intro- duction outlining the scope of the literature reviewed; (2) a succinct discussion of 00 to clarify further the definition offered in Chapter I; (3) a synopsis of pertinent literature supporting the readi- ness (ripeness) of higher education for 00; (4) a synopsis of pertinent literature supporting the need for adapting 00 in order for it to be effective in higher education; (5) a synopsis of pertinent literature upholding the primary responsibility of administration for managing the integration of 00 and higher education; (6) a succinct discussion of HEA to clarify further the definition offered in Chapter I; and (7) a summary. Introduction In addition to a traditional manual search of the literature. two additional approaches were utilized. A literature search was conducted through the computer retrieval sources of ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center). and a computer search of dissertations l6 17 was conducted using the comprehensive dissertation query service of Xerox University Microfilms International. Both computerized searches were facilitated by staff of the Michigan State University Library. In light of the volume of literature and information reviewed in both the area of HEA and 00. the investigator was selective in the choices he made for inclusion in this chapter. Given the purpose of the study and its procedure as specified in Chapter I. pertinent lit- erature from both fields is utilized in both Chapters II and IV (Findings: Comparative Analysis). Accordingly. the literature of interest in this chapter is included for its relevance to the "idea" of considering the relationship between HEA and OD. Literature pertinent to a comparative analysis is reserved for Chapter IV. .QL9anizaIion_Doxoloomont;_A_Doiinition Organization development (00) is an interdisciplinary field that emerged from the realization that a variety of social and psycho- logical factors affect work performance. In exploring 00 for Student Affairs. Conyne (in Miller et al.. 1983) referred to the interdisci- plinary scope as "a broad net of applied behavioral science techniques" (p. 54). It has its origin in the theoretical studies conducted by Lewin at the National Training Laboratories in 1947 which spawned the "T-group" and "sensitivity training" movement (Byers. 1974. p. 66). In fact. for approximately a decade after World War II. there existed a parallel emphasis in organizations on individual training and on organizational planning. Unsuccessful in improving the effective- ness of organizational change. this dual emphasis yielded to the 18 research conducted by Lewin. Lippitt. Bradford. and Benne for the Connecticut State Inter-Racial Comnfission in 1946. research which ulti- mately established the concept of the "T (training)-group" (Lippitt. 1949; Bradford et al.. 1964; Benne et al.. 1975). OD's basic ideas also emerge from Mayo's Hawthorne studies (Mayo. 1945; Homans. 1950; Roethlisberger & Dickson. 1939). Coch and French's (1948) study concerning resistance to organizational change. and Jacques' (1952) consultation case study. McGregor's (1960) studies of the human element in the organization and the resulting Theory X-- Theory Y constructs further enhanced the OD concept. Likerifls (1961) studies relating productivity to Theory Y and Argyrisks(l964) research which linked "psychological failure" to traditionally structured organizations were also influential in the acceptance of OD as a viable management tool. (A general overview of 00's emergence and evolution from the late 19505 to the late 19705 is presented in Table 25L) In general. among the many definitions and explanations of OD available in the field. 00 is grounded in open systems theory while perceiving organizations to be composites of three interacting subsystems: human. technological. and structural. Burke (1977) succinctly summarized the concepts and intent of OD when he wrote: 00 can be described as (l) a set of humanistic. democratic. scientific. and economic values in combination with (2) a set of intervention technologies which (3) are implemented through a set of collaborative relationships and processes between the change agent and organization toward (4) the objectives Of greater personal and organizational exploration and growth. (pp. 53-54) .Aoow.v 505.0Lu so». oouooo< "OOL:Cm uacoxu oc.::u-oc..- cocoon Euum>n .ououo mu_a._oa\cuzoa .o uucoaavuum- A>u_ooza:mv Luzon ccsucu>o- Acme; us“ go o_oo.ev co.aoucu.co oso-m:um~m- co_uoucu_oo 0.5.5.- uococu couu->n-auaw- oucocu e_amL- >0; 0:“ etc :mocoz- >0; 0:. use :ncooE:u u.uuu_uu- u..n._ooo_- uucoLueb.v moses co.um:..m- oucoLo.u.v «axes canouo- Azc.p<»zw.¢o u.»20u wzwszu. no.5moE u.EOcOuu new acoeuoocms 3..) co.uma:uoo .ouu .mucuE_Loqxo “m:o_u:mu neon "ac—unusuo; ”u>_ncueuo .c_OLoEE0u >Loco.u:.o>05 “.0u._ooco>u “muz<»m no no.5moL 9.50:090 ecu “cueoaocos 1“.) co.“ acueao_o>oe ou550moE -onsuuooLa “nun..o.uueu oust 00.0» «0.0» be Louncu cuss; “evacu_co-o>.uuunno .uccOnsva "acceno.o>uv “c0609. -n.:.Evo nuco.muo 3o: .0 "woox nucueo omcosu vumsuo» mcouo:_a>o "mongoos.uoexu A.u.o .uucn..nEoO .omo. .nmoLuu .o.oLOE .>u.>_.u:ooca .Em. -uuucomcn .cu>o:o:~v muscuuso c¢E32 so >au_cn> o c. nomcocu oc..aocu noocnzu cu.) o:_aou 159 oc.xc_:u >Lec_.a_um.o -_u.:E “acoeao.o>uv Loocou "mmucum .c.comocme u>._c:uooaao .navo no... ago: Go >u_.o:a mco.um~_cnoLo new u.aooa ocmuucaa. acute. .o~o.u6m to“ so» mu_avuocum mc.aoO __o;m u>_mcobuv sous oucoocoeo acne “>Lou_oco. .0 Eoocubuv acuEuoocoE o. nuco>con unum.uo_oao "ac-.u..__oa "nun..o:oobc umLu:OEQUnuE mu_:moL "u:0E£m_.ooumo acoeouocne o:_c_om u_o>.>L:w Em_u.«noon--uooco--ouco_um “u.umEoan "co.unuco_co -xmou "co.uaucu_oo-mu.:muo ”mu—:muL .ou_an_uo~n use: uu_=muc non: Lou u_oEoLum u.m>.>csm m:.:.0oxn~..oca :. “EOEo>oEn -E. ~ceu...cu_m 0.“... "vocmsu .moo so .~5v_>.oc_ oc.umo— co so: as. c. 0.55.. su..u.u=. name .ou..m.uaam can: “Lute—b co 0;“ ‘50 ..o. eoo.a 0;. so._0m “measuoLa so cucu_muo nLOOuuxsoE "auto“.smcou .o:o_nnOsoLn “assoc0cnucuco mco_.m~. -coooo oL_uco use n.o:o_>.oc. “mom .0: ac.aso>cou "mooc_osu ‘0 .0: ”065.05 “co..u “mo—om omcosu .oco_un~.cowoo “co.aoca0ac. ”JLOIEOOU "u.>.n n.3nLuoou. unuoouuo oc_c_oca «was “no:_o> :ovamxuoa: co ac._.um\ocmuoxcoe no so coo >L.cmu -Eos.u ecu ..o.. .mco..m~. -couco oa nu:.u> cc .0 oc...un 03¢ on to. ca .0 amouuao v.90» «souo>oo "Lagoon. hzapsamzcu co «cocoons “whamnOCOLa “ac-.u.luvouo umpzwu< ocusuo o. o>.u.nc0u ecu coaxo-u.um aces oEOuua n_o:o.>.oc_ mc_a.o; "uncogu we. oc_c.oo. .o:o.>.vc. uocou u.un_:osss u:vooa: Lo. .o..=u.oa as. ;s_: nu.£¢c>o cocoa ou vau:n_ouuu Luzon "AmazoEu mnu.;uoau.. co_Loa.Eogu:o-_uca ”cocoon .QEOmcoa "dungeon. "co—u neocoLuEOO "unoccoao names» ”mu:4<> cuzoco .QCOmLuo “mayo; accesso. Loo-o "oo_cvn n.nocou on“ “au.4.x a<¢u2uu :ssc oc_;ucecr: ”mu.»zwsum “pas :eosuocx cc...oa: “mu.p2u>mw >a¢a¢o use eucoobuEu 00--...N o_aep 20 Other prominent writers (Beckhard. French & Bell. Bennis. and Blake & Mouton) have delineated the concept of OD further in their respective definitions. Beckhard (1969) contended that organization development is based on behavioral science knowledge. it is managed from the top. and it is organization-wide in its approach. It is concerned with the development. change. and improvement of systems and subsystems. It is focused on and closely related to short- and medium-term organization mission goals; its aim is to increase organization health and effective- ness. It differs from. but may encompass. management development and training; it differs from. yet should be coordinated with. quantitative planned-change efforts such as operations research. (p. 25) In the scientific sense of the term. OD has been defined by French and Bell (1978) as' a long-range effort to improve an organization's problem—solving and renewal processes. particularly through a more effective and collaborative management of organization culture--with special emphasis on the culture of formal work teams--with the assistance of a change agent. or catalyst. and the use of the theory and technology of applied behavioral science. including action research. (p. 14) Bennis (1969). described by Burke (1982) as a "romanticist about the field" (p. 369). defined 00 as a response to change. a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs. attitudes. values. and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies. markets. and challenges. and the dizzying rate of change itself. (p. 2) And Blake and Mouton (1964) offered that a realistic behavioral unit of development is found in the organi- zation. The behavioral unit becomes the organization membership including all the significant variables such as policies. rules. regulations. reward and punishment systems. production controls. informal social systems. etc. ‘The organization. then. is the environment within which individuals and groups perform and inter- relate toward accomplishing organizational aims. In this sense. the organization is the critical unit of development. (p. 261) 21 This focus on the "entire" organization is characteristic of 0D. Kirkhart (1973). in seeking a comprehensive definition of the term. concluded that. by necessity. such a definition must include the idea of the total system. Drawing from these perspectives. and for the purposes of this study (as stated in Chapter I). 00 is a planned. organization-wide effort that is managed from the top both to increase organization effectiveness and to improve organizational problem-solving and renewal processes. The OD effort is accomplished through planned interventions in an organizationus"processes" and through a collaborative management of an organizationhs culture--both using behavioral science knowledge (French & Bell. 1978; Beckhard. 1969; Huse. 1975). 00 techniques and strategies (i.eu. interventions) are differ- ent from traditional management development strategies and need to be differentiated clearly at the point of definition. Burke (1971) pre- sented a comparative typology that clarified the differences between management development and 00 based on the following characteristics: (1) reason for use. (2) typical goals. (3) interventions for producing change. (4) time frame. (5) staff requirements. and (6) values. He emphasized that 00 programs are concerned with the whole system while other programs are designed primarily to improve only some aspects of the organization (pp. 569—79). Bennis (1969). stressing this broad purview of 00. clarified that 00 is not synonymous with "sensitivity training." although it may use such training as a strategy (p. 17). He continued that 22 organization development is not another fancier version of "permis- sive" leadership. Why this myth continues to be perpetuated despite all the experience to the contrary puzzles me. Organiza- tion development does not prescribe any particular "style of lead- ership" other than an open and confronting one. which is anything but "permissivefl' Nor does it imply a group consensus as the only form of decision-making. though some writers (such as Blake and Mouton) certainly believe that consensus is a natural conclusion given training under the "Managerial Grid" orientation. The basic value underlying all organization-development theory and practice is that of choice. Through focused attention and through the collection and feedback Of relevant data to relevant people. more choices become available and hence better decisions are made. That is essentially what organization development is: an educational strategy employing the widest possible means of experience-based behavior in order to achieve more and better organizational choices in a highly turbulent world. (p. 17) 00. then. clearly involves a process of "planned changel" a process that. according to Byers (1974). includes "(1) a client system. (2) behavioral change agents. (3) a collaborative relationship between Client system and change agent. (4) specification and selection of goals. [and] (5) methods and interventions feedback" (p. 57). French and Bell (1978) stated that the features that are common to most 00 processes are (1) the "client" is a total system or major subunit of a total system; (2) the interventions are primarily directed toward problems and issues identified by the client group; (3) the interventions are directed toward problem solving and improved functioning for the client system; and (4) the interventions are based on behavioral science theory and technology. (p. 13) One of the most elaborate systems for implementing 00 is that Of the "Managerial Grid-Organization Development" (Gnidznn) designed by Blake and Mouton (1969). These creators utilized in .GLLd:QD the hypothesis that in order to achieve meaningful changes in organiza- tional performance. it is essential that the organization's history and present problems (i.e.. its "culture") be the focus Of organizational 23 study and planning for the execution and evaluation of change (pp. 59- 73). While Gridzgfl is certainly extensive and popular. Byers (1974) cautioned that it is not typical of all 00 work. Blake and Mouton used a highly structured approach while many 00 change agents and consult- ants have used a less structured approach. For example. Burke and Schmidt (in Byers. 1974) of the National Training Laboratories (NTL) proposed a less structured approach to 00 for use in Nllls Programs for Specialists in Organization Training and Development. Burke and Schmidt defined 00 in the following manner: Using knowledge and techniques from the behavioral sciences. organization development (00) is a pxggsss which attempts to increase organizational effectiveness by integrating individual desires for the growth and development with organizational goals. Typically. this process is a plannsd_changs effort which involves a 1g1a1_systsm over a period of time. and these change efforts must be related to the organization's mission. (in Byers. 1974. p. 58) The key terms which provide a conceptual framework for 00. then. are onocsss..nlannsd_changs..tota1_systsm. and igngsnjzstignsl_m1ssjgn. As a snagsss. 00 is dynamic and continuous. Burke and Schmidt (in Byers. 1974) referred to the process as a "con- tinuing effort to develop better procedures. relationships. and sup- porting climates for dealing with organizational problems” (p. 58). As a W intervention. 00 is employed to deal with changing personal. interpersonal. and group relationships in addition to dealing with the technical features of an operation. Fundamentally. planned change takes into consideration the human personality. inclusive of the dynamics of motivation. The term tota1_systsm recognizes that 24 organizations. by nature. have numerous interrelationships and inter- dependencies. From a systems perspective. the purpose of 00 is to enhance recognition of. and consequently inform action regarding. the component and interrelated roles of subgroups within an organization. A change in one part may impact on another part of the system. There- fore. it is crucial to an organization's effectiveness to consciously consider. plan. and evaluate the interface among component parts in order to make a successful and effective organizational intervention. Another basic assumption of OD is that an organization's effectiveness can be improved by progressively integrating the goals of personnel with the goals of the organization (Byers. 1974. pp. 58—60). manila: nonsmssjon is considered within 00 as critically linked to the need for goal integration. According to Byers (1974). it is almost axio- matic in OD work that "maximum use of human resources to accomplish the organization's mission requires invol vement—-which leads to commit- ment--which leads to increased organizational effectiveness" (p. 60). OD activities/interventions are not mutually exclusive but in fact tend to fl ow into each other. They range from what Sturdevant (1978) called "soft" person-changing interventions to "hard" task- oriented or structure-changing interventions (p. 82). Typically. an effective OD effort includes a comprehensive array of interventions representing both the "hard" and the "soft" realities that exist in an organization. (An overview of basic OD interventions is presented in Appendix A.) 25 Interventions. then. are situation-specific and organization- specific. Each 00 effort is essentially "tailor-made" to the organiza- tion. its type of system. the nature of its problems. time and money constraints. the background and sophistication of its planners and implementers. etc. This uniqueness of each 00 effort notwithstanding. the literature does offer some general objectives of an OD effort which stand as the basic "material" from which the "tailoring" is done. These include: Create an open. problem-solving climate; Get decision making located close to the information sources; Supplement the authority of the role with the authority of knowledge; Build more trust among individuals and groups; Reduce unhealthy competition and maximize collaborative efforts; Develop a reward system which recognizes both achievement of mission and individual efforts toward personal develop- ment and achievement; Have organizational objectives "owned" by the entire work force; Help managers manage according to relevant needs and objectives. rather than according to past practices; and Increase self-control and self-direction for people within the organization. (Byers. 1974. pp. 60-61) Bennis and Peter (in Byers. 1974) offered five basic objectives for an OD effort: Effecting a change in values. so that feelings and similar non-intellectual expressions come to be considered a legitimate part of organization life; Improving the personal skills. knowledge. and particularly the interpersonal competence of managers; Developing increased understanding within and among working groups in order to reduce dysfunctional individual tension; Developing "team management"; Viewing the system as an organic system of relationships which tend to work when marked by mutual trust. mutual 26 support. open communications. interdependence. multi-group membership of individuals. and a high degree of personal commitment. (p. 61) ' According to Byers (1974). the above-stated objectives are sustained operationally in an organization by (1) being the focus of planned change. (2) utilizing and applying the latest findings of the behavioral sciences. (3) providing feedback. (4) evaluating results against the change objective. and (5) reviewing experience for learning (p. 63). Such sustenance Of an OD effort within an organization requires a duration of two or three years. according to Buchanan (1967. l969h»iriorder for serious and self-supporting change to commence with lasting impact. In general. then. the primary impact of the early stages of an OD effort is a change in the climate and culture of the organization. Bennis (1969) contended that the only viable way to change organizations is to change their "culture”‘that is. to change the systems within which people work and live. A "culture" is a way of life. a system of beliefs and values. an accepted form of interaction and relating. Changing individuals. while terribly important. cannot yield the fundamental impact so necessary for the revitalization and renewal I have in mind--if our organizations are to survive and develop. (p. v) Sturdevant (1978). drawing on Schmuck and Miles (1971). offered the following description of the evolutionary impact of OD. Certainly the individual benefits from the OD impact. yet the primary focus is that of the system and its culture. Sturdevant described. The organization becomes more open. trusting. cooperative. self- analytical. and inclined to take risks. Structural changes become typical outcomes as the program proceeds. Development of new roles and groups. reorganization. and new forms of work-flow is comuuuu In time. the OD process becomes institutionalized and an OD department or group is formed to take responsibility for continuing 27 the process. drawing on outside resources as needed. Internal change agents or 00 specialists become increasingly profession- alized and must continue their development through associations. training and networks of other professionals. In turn. they may serve as outside consultants to other organizations. (pp. 84-85) Another element. basic to 00. is that of organizational self- assessment. Bennis (1969) argued that The important thing about organization development is that data are generated from the client system itself. Frequently. these are the only data that count anyway. as there is sufficient evidence that data collected on "others" (no matter how valid) almost always lack the impact of self-generated data. (p. 17) Lindsay. Morrison. and Kelley (1974). however. took another stance. In their discourse regarding their “Content-Based Group- Assessment Modell'they contended that the judgement of experts in the field should be the basis for improvement programs (pp. 3-22). These authors reached this conclusion after a literature search and their own unsatisfactory experience with the "perceived needs" or self-assessment approach to educational needs assessment. The goal of their model. then. is to provide a more effective means to combat the problem of rapid obsolescence of professional competence (pp. 3-7). The need for programs which provide for development of indi- viduals and/or organizations is well documented in the literature. However. Lindsay et al. are the only authors this investigator found who did not recognize the merits of self-perceived needs assessment as critical to the development process. Specific to the application of 00 in the public schools. Schmuck co-authored two books: WWW (Miles & Schmuck. 1971) and Ibo_§esond_tlandoook_of_omanization 28 W (Schmuck. Runkel. Arends. & Arends. 1977). These publications present the case that the techniques of 00 do indeed have potential for "humanizing" the schools. At the writing of the first book in 1971. the techniques of OD were only minimally being used in schools. yet the authors were nonetheless optimistic regarding their future application. Indeed. the second book was designed as a "tool kit" for 00 specialists involved in that application. Schmuck and Miles' primary interest in writing the first book stemmed from their desire to encourage wider diffusion of OD and to stimulate research on the topic. As behaviorists. they were interested in fostering the development of empirical research based on planning. implementation. and evaluation of 00 interventions in the public schools. In the second book. the authors offered a "more systematic and concisely stated theory. a more completely tested technology. more exercises and procedures. more information about diagnosis and evalua- ‘tion. and much more conceptualization and techniques for designing" (Ix xvii). The critical nature of higher education organizations is explored later in this chapter as the peculiarities of such organiza- 'tions mandate a careful process of applying OD--in fact. a serious integration--if DD is to be effective and they are to improve as a result. What. then. is 00? Bennis's (1969) perspective offers a suc- cinct summary. He stated that OD is essentially an educational strategy that is adopted to bring about planned organizational change. Organizations which engaged in OD are generally motivated by a concern 29 for problems of destiny (survival). human satisfaction and development. organizational effectiveness. or a combination of these factors. According to Bennis. OD maintains basically six normative goals in addressing such problems. These goals. integral to 00's philosophy. are as follows: 1. Improvement in interpersonal competence; 2. A shift in values so that human factors and feelings come to be considered legitimate; ‘ 3. Development of increased understanding between and within working groups in order to reduce tensions; 4. Development of more effective "team management." i.e.. the capacity for functional groups to work more competently; 5. Development of better methods of "conflict resolution." Rather than the usual bureaucratic methods which rely mainly on suppression. compromise. and unprincipled power. more rational and open methods of conflict resolution are sought; and 6. Development of organic rather than mechanical systems. This is a strong reaction against the idea of organizations as mechanisms which managers "work on." like pushing buttons. (p. 15) Bennis offered clarification of the differences between mechanical and organic systems as shown in Table 2.2. Hollis Peter's model. shown in Figure 2.1. graphically depicts iflie elements that Bennis considered critical to 00. 00. then. is more a conceptual perspective and a total system process than it is a specific program. It enables organizations to Progressively plan for change. more effectively integrate individual and organizational goals. and. in so doing. make more effective and efficient use of their human resources. In a particular organization. 00 involves the application of a cadre Of specific planned interventions. adapted.ILom applied behavioral science and adapted to the particular client organization. 30 Table 2.2.--Differences between mechanical and organic systems. Mechanical Systems Organic Systems -Exclusive individual emphasis -Relationships between and within groups emphasized -Authority—obedience relationships -Mutual confidence and trust -Delegated and divided responsi- -Interdependence and shared bility rigidly adhered to responsibility -Strict division of labor and -Mu1tigroup membership and hierarchical supervision responsibility -Centralized decision-making -Wide sharing of responsibility and control -Oonflict resolution through sup- -Conflict resolution through pression. arbitration. and/or bargaining or problem-solving warfare Source: Bennis (1969. p. 15). Environment Feedback System outputs Organiulion improvements \A In; Collaborative pp?“ relalionship know'rledae Figure 2.1.--Peter's model of 00 as described by Bennis. (From Bennis, 1969, p. 16.) 31 Here. the term "00" refers to the coordinating "umbrella" for these interventions. The result? Whether the term "00" is used to describe the conceptual perspective. the coordinating process (umbrella). or the particular interventions applied with an organization (in the litera- ture. unfortunately. the term is used indiscriminantly for all three). it purports to increase quality of life for organization members; to improve organizational functioning and performance; to enhance collabo- ration. cooperation. and participation among organization members; and to address organizational culture and planning as comprehensive and holistic concerns. WW LIImeJLBolationsnio Numerous voices in higher education have lamented the decade Of the 19805 for the "hard times aheadJ' Surely any number of such voices can be cited to recount the symptoms which confirm the diagnosis. Gallant and Prothero (1972) identified seven dysfunctional symptoms that have attended university growth: diffusion. absence of community. over-specialization. administrative complexity. bureaucracy. aliena- tion. and the striving for status as an end in itself (pp. 381-88). These symptoms are the legacy of today's higher education. Smith et a1. (1981) assessed the "campus" as having the "pains. strains. and frustrations" of impersonalization. isolation. withdrawal. anxiety. fear. mistrust. adversarial polarized relations. security and dependence reaction. powerlessness. and passivity (pp. 4-6L These 32 authors offered. perhaps. the most comprehensive list of the current conditions in higher education which mandate both the need and the readiness for change: Colleges and universities are not keeping up; Lagging leadership readiness is changing; Future orientation is becoming widespread; Power sharing is increasing; Proactive inclination is increasing; Reliance on consultant resources is increasing; Readiness exists for mobilization with estates (factions); Resources are decreasing; Dissensus (non-consensus) is increasing; More campus innovations are required; An "action mentality" is required; Peer competition can be replaced with collaboration; The emphasis on quality is increasing; and Neglect of the human environment is showing. (pp. 12-17) In addition to this already formidable diagnosis. such voices as those of Teffler (1974. 1980). Naisbitt (1982). and Houston (1980)-- to name but a few--have documented unprecedented pressure on institu- tions of higher education to change and adapt to a society marked most characteristically by rapid change itself. Frederickson (1978) sum- marized this pressure when he wrote that institutions of higher education must be responsive. Responsive- ness is a situational requisite. We need to move with the changing interests of the students. the shift in employment supply and demand. and the growth and decline in disciplines and professions. Someone suggested that we need a kind of gyroscope that somehow keeps the institution balanced between sundry demands for respon- siveness and long-range demands for stability. q» 15) Roeber (1973). exploring the plight and challenge of the organization in a changing environment. seemed to echo the "gyroscope" concept when he suggested that Society is fundamentally dynamic. changing through a process of evolutionary adaptation and at a rate that allows its parts to assimilate this change organically; however. when change in society 33 is more rapid. more conscious processes of adaptation may be needed by organizations. (p. 21) And Corson (1975). one of the fundamental voices in HEA. wrote To make these institutions fully effective. i.e.. to harness the energies. talents. and imaginations of trustees and administrators. faculty members. and students in a dynamic learning effort. requires modernization of the processes of governance that typi- cally now prevail.(p.19) Be it Frederickson's "gyroscope." Roeber's "conscious process of adaptation." or Corson's "modernization of the processes of govern- ancem" higher education is in need of a change mechanism. a "means of modification within itself" (Willey. 1979. p. 564). In short. the truism of Patten and Vaill (in Craig. 1976) offers valid summary: "The larger the entity to be changed [in this case institutions of higher education] the more important it becomes to replace opportunism by strategy" (p. 20-18). In this study. 00 is nominated and explored as such a strategy. Hammons (1982). in W. Offered support for this nomination when he contended that a new era demands a new strategy. one which recognizes individual needs and goals as well as those of the organization. relies upon planned change. encourages participation by all members of the organization and encompasses a sufficient variety of techniques to allow a contingency approach to each situation. Organization development is that strategy. (p. 1) Further support from the perspective of higher education can be found in Pascal's (1978) paper "The New Reality of Higher Education: The Agony and Ecstasy of Educational Development!’ After exploring the usefulness of professional and instructional development programs in the "new reality of higher education." Pascal asserted that such 34 programs are of no meaning "unless we add a new dimension--organiza- tional development" (p. 19). Hammons's (1978) paper "Staff Development Is Not Enough" reinforced Pascal's mandate for 00: Sole emphasis on staff development neglects the need to adapt the organization so that it can respond to pressures exerted by staff with newly acquired skills. Staff development also is not suffi- cient for dealing with any of the common organizational problems that we find in our institutions today. By common organizational problems. I am referring to problems such as the following: -ineffective managerial practices or styles which keep the organization from reaching its goals; -policies/procedure5 which are incompatible with what the organization is doing or needs to be doing; -inadequate or non-existent goals; -inappropriate organizational structures for future or present functions; -1ack of trust or openness; -inadequate communications system or lack of downward flow; -lack of planning or lack Of involvement in planning; -authority/responsibility imbalance; -low motivational levels and apathy among members toward the organization; -inadequate problem-solving capability; -lack of team work or disruptive competitiveness; -decisions which are too far removed from the action; -organizationa1 norms which are inconsistent with people in the organization; and -a policy-procedure orientation versus a goal orientation. To deal with these kinds of problems. you need to develop or improve the organization. which is [the purpose of] organizational development. (pp. 9-10) The perspective of 00 also offers support for the nomination of 00 as a "strategy" for higher education (if not explicitly. at least by implication). Patten and Vaill (in Craig. 1976) reported that Many of the organizations which have embraced OD most enthusias- tically have been ones existing in turbulent environments--where it seemed that the only way to survive under such uncertainty was to undertake some process of building up internal strength. resili- ency. Openness to change. and tolerance for ambiguity. (p. 20-19) Such is clearly the state of much of today's higher education. 3S Beckhard%s(l969) list of organizational conditions which sup- ply impetus for successful 00 is also suggestive of the "readiness" of higher education. Beckhard's conditions include: -need to change managerial strategy; -need to make the organization climate more consistent with both individual needs and the changing needs of the environment; -need to change and/or manage "cultural" norms. values. ground rules. and power structure; -need to change structure and rules; -need to improve intergroup collaboration; -need to open up the communications system; -need for better planning; -need for coping with problems of merger; -need for change in motivation of the work force; and -need for adaptation to a new environment. (pp. 16-19) It is certainly well established that the great majority of these conditions exist in today's organizations of higher education. Further support for considering 00 as a strategy for responding to the current reality of higher education is readily available insofar as 00 addresses such critical issues as human resource development. collaboration. strategic planning. organizational "culture." partici- patory decision making and problem solving. and. ultimately. educa- tional quality. In.Ine_state_oI_Ine_Nation_and_tns_Aconda_£OL_Hicnen_Enuoation. Bowen (1982) contended that amid the turmoil of the 19805 thatfaces the nation and higher education the objectives of highest priority lie in conservation and in the development of human resources. 'These objectives are far more urgent than the routine economic goals that have commanded most of the attention of our leaders. (p. 154) 36 This "development of human resources" is an integral focus of 00. Carson (1975) underscored the essentiality of such development when he wrote that The efficiency of an organization. i.e.. its effectiveness in carrying out the function for which it was created. is directly related to its effectiveness in securing the»complementary personal contributions of all those who make up the organization. (p. 282) Yarmolinsky (1975) attributed "institutional paralysis" to institutions of higher education for their inability to change. a situation resulting from the lack of any one interest group having sufficient power to alter the organization's course and the lack of collegial collaboration (pp. 61-67). Corson's (1975) argument supported this diagnosis of "paralysis" when he wrote that The exigencies of the late 19605 and early 19705 marked a period when authority was so diffused and the several constituencies of the institution so loosely related to each other and so limited in their allegiance to the institution as to make impossible delib- erate. purposeful cooperation among trustees. academic officers. administrative officers. faculty. and students in resolving prob- lems. and importantly in bringing about persistent educational advance.(pp.l7-18) Pascal (1978) summarized the need for his concept of "educa- tional development" (inclusive of OD) by arguing for a cooperative. fluid. internally consistent activity throughout the institution. He wrote. Our institutions have been suffering from a bad case of "hardening of the categories" with everybody doing their own thing to survive. "Partnership problem-solving" in higher education has never been as crucial as it is today. If we bury our heads and define long-term planning in terms of next year's budget and "who is going to teach the introductory course?" we're in trouble. The problems of the new reality--the aging professorate. the need to retrain redundant staff. setting and achieving appropriate 37 institutional goals in a time of restraint. designing cost- effective instructional methods--are all solvable if. as secure professionals. we engage in sound educational [organizational] development. (p. 21) The facilitation of this "partnership problem-solving." this collabora- tion throughout the organization. is one of the goals of OD. Kotler and Murphy (1981). in their article "Strategic Planning for Higher Education." contended that if colleges and universities are to survive in the troubled years ahead. a strong emphasis on planning is essential . . . the process of developing and maintaining a strategic fit between the organiza- tion and its changing marketing opportunities. (p. 470) This perspective of strategic planning. in that it relies on the con- cept of "fit." is consistent with Perkins's (1973) diagnosis of today's colleges and universities as having "a bad case of organizational indigestion because they swallowed multiple and conflicting missions" (p. 24). Clearly the balanced awareness of the dynamics of the organi- zation and its markets is within the scope of 00. Far tOo often the strategic planning in higher education has focused on the external. the dynamics of potential markets. without careful analysis of the internal components of the institution.‘ Caren and Kemerer (1979) argued for such analysis in their article "The Internal Dimensions of Institutional Marketing" (pp. 173-88). Their assertion was that in adopting a new strategic posture. an institution may also have to develop a plan for changing the "culture" of the Organization. They wrote. College presidents who attempt to have their faculties improve their teaching. spend more time with students. develop new courses for non-traditional markets. and so on. often encounter tremendous resistance. With the growing shortage of students. the challenge 38 facing the president is to develop a marketing orientation with the faculty in which everyone sees his or her job as sensing. serving. and satisfying markets. Changing the culture of an organization is a mammoth task. but one that may be essential if the organization is to survive in the new environment. (p. 178) The "mammoth task" of changing or adapting an organization's culture is well within the focus and purpose of 00. In his article "Can Theory Z Be Applied to Academic Manage- ment?" Nichols (1982) argued that institutions of higher education are characterized more by individualistic chaos and factionalism than by a coherent teamwork that produces "quality education for students" (p. 72). He proposed that American business has had to put aside its pride and go to work on quality. We in higher education can do it. too. The first steps are to address the need for genuinely participatory decision-making and to develop new models for collegiate administrators. We will need to learn to use and trust group-consensus methods and agree that quality is a team responsibility not adequately covered by lone professors or academic departments.. . . With the most educated work force of any industry. we should set the example in participatory management. (p. 72) In a seemingly prophetic vein to Nichols. Corson (1975) argued for participation as the essential "social cement" in institutions of higher education. He explained that Increased emphasis throughout the society on specialization accentuated many professors' identification with their professional discipline. This identification limited the attachment of the specialist professors . . . to the employing institution. Coupled with the essential independence of the intellectual way of life. this tended to erode the "social cement"--the mutual trust that derives from a complementary relationship among colleagues in an (enterprise--that is essential to organizational effectiveness. (p. 13) Corson continued that Administrative absurdity increases directly with the square of the distance between principle and context; 39 If an enterprise is to enlist the creativity. enthusiasm. and collaboration of its members. these individuals must have a sense Of participation; [and] The college has been held together less by structure and authority and more by shared beliefs. attitudes. and values: beliefs about the importance of learning; attitudes on the responsibility of the scholar to his discipline. his peers. and his students; and values concerning the worthiness of the academic life. devoted to the conservation and discovery of knowledge and to the development of youth. When decision making is centralized in the hands of individuals remote from those who share these beliefs. attitudes. and values. the collegial organization becomes particu- larly susceptible to disintegration. (pp. 59-60) Without question. OD--in value and Objective--addresses these concerns to enhance meaningful participation throughout the organization. Throughout the literature of 00. documentation can be readily found asserting the effectiveness of 00 interventions in dealing with the problems confronting today‘s organizations. Bennis (1969) con- tended that these problems can ultimately be categorized into six core areas: (1) integration. (2) social influence. (3) collaboration. (4) adaptation. (5) identity. and (6) revitalization (pp. 28-33). Table 2.3 offers a summary of Bennis's views of the problems. bureau- cratic responses. and contemporary conditions which have made such responses obsolete. It was Bennis's contention that problems asso- ciated with bureaucratic management can be alleviated through 00 inter- ventions. The applicability of this table to higher education is Clearly apparent. One final argument--and. perhaps. the most important--for the application of 00 to higher education institutions was offered by Smith et a1. (1981) in MohflizinthoJamouLioLBeionIion. These authors 4(1 .A--w~ .na .mwm_v o.::0n "outsom .0>.~0:00£. :0.m_>0: :0 nm0005o 0:0 00 :0.0:00a0 0:00m:00 04:5 _.0 >.0_00m 0:0 0m_00000:0 00 n.000 .>.0.0om .0 «05_0> 0:0 «5:0: .o_0.:0aoe 30: .cvzoo -:0E .mxmou .m0.00.0::000 :_ 000:0:0 v.00: .>0_50.aeo ecu .u0._0:00 .>0.x0_3500 0.0: nou0000 .>0_..o05 c00000500:. .>0._.30000 0000:5o.0.5s .>a.m:0>_o 0“ 05% >0_x0.0600 ounoocuc. .0ucog0 .00_00_0:;000 :0 0.0: 500:00000co:: .0.a0a0.00:o nau— .u:0_5o:50 0:0! EL.» 00 “:0E:OL.>:0 .0::0uxm .00:0.0¢.:Eo L0 0.5: :oE-0:0 :00 x0.0£00 000 o.:m:0 -uo0a .00:0o:0o0o000:_ :0: v00: 00n00cuc. 0:: :0.0o~..0:0.nm000:o 0:: :0_uon..0_00ow .0.5: :0_:00 -_L0:.5o 00 0000500 000:00:_:5 0:0 0>_0ou0z .:0.u:05o0 .0:0:0m 0:0 n:0.:5 00000 :0 0a.: .o.;mc0:30 so». .:06000:oe .0 :0_00:0o0m .00100 0.0050050o-0..m_:0s5z .m:0_u00.0m0 o:_m_¢ .>0.x0_0500 0.:06 :0 o:_o::.mcoo:5 ecu 000:0.0m :025; :0 00:0oL0Eu .0moo 0:0 00 c0..e.u >..00_noo «000. a: 0:0 :.00000 on ._.3 0:5u5: 0:0 “0:“ :0.ooE5mno a:_>_:0v:: .0_oeun 5:0 .0.0E_n .000_0 :0.0o~.:0000 ‘0 .000 >00£.:o .vc50o0 n00:0500m:00 0000:.0_a:0:: .a>03 0:0.a.u:0>v0 tea ccouogoos :. «c5000 00:0:0 00 u:_0000< .0:_050: name. "0.;- -00_v0:o 0:0 .0.oE_n .0.oean 0:05:0:_>:u .>0.0>04 .no5ocu .ou:0~.:0: :00300a 00._0:00 0>.0n00 0. ::0.00:_o:000 :0 0-5:: 0:0 o:0 n::0: :003005 na0... -:00 0>.0n0: 00 :>;000c0.: .0 0.50: 0:» .0500 .ou0. 5:0 .:0.0:000 .00:000o500 :0 x0_o500 u:.00_:u .u505 -o.oeo .o0m5»:00 0 .0m00 >:0 :. .50300 0>_00000 *0 0&005 0.0..0E_ :0 05a .50303 .0:0_00:-_0a0_ :0 00::..0: 0.0..0x0 :< .o0o:omu:u.o 0.0: cc: >u..o:00:0: :00300o :0.u:0» .0:0£5000:. 0>.ummo no o0ocoooc .00.u_.0s_o-00>0 >_0m:> .o5o_>.o:. .Eo_noco 0: n. 050:“ 005:00a :0_.5.00 0: .>o00t o:- 503050 :0.) 0:..009 CO—uINn .Oa—>0¢ .n.0ou .0:0.. -0~_:0o:0 00 0:0£0_EEO0 o:- .n5n:0m:00 .>0_:0.0 m:.>0_:0< N5_.Eoe_ .0:05:00 -_>:0 0zu >9 v005v:_ 000:0;0 00 >.000_:o0:o00 0:.ocoom0x :0_000meo¢ .00..»:00 :0 .000:00 05 :0: 22:300.: 3.0509... co....oso._o0 .>._:o£05m o:0 :020: :0 000.500 o:0 c030: u:.~5o.:um_o 00:05_.:. _0_00m .w.oou .o:0.00~.:mm:0 0:0 «$00: .05v.>_o:_ 9:.uocu0uc. :0_uocm0u:_ 0.0.0mao m:0_05.0m 0.00L050005o 0:0: 0>02 00;» m:0_0.0:00 >550:0u-:00_.:03» nee—“5.0m 0.000050055o .m:0.u0~_:emuo >00500500000 m:_0:05¥:00 «50.noL0 :0651--.n.~ 55.50.: c.5a» 41 contended that as students interact with virtually all segments of the organization's environment during their tenure on a campus. a studentfls decision to persist until the completion of educational goals may be influenced. in part. by the nature of those interac- tions. Thus. activities that serve to generate significant improvements in the organization as a whole ultimately serve to improve student retention. In short. improved retention starts with the development of a holding environment which can be created through the careful design and the thoughtful delivery of quality academic and related student services and experiences. And it really begins when the institution enters into an internal dialogue about its mission and the quality of life it hopes to build on its campus. (p. 93) The facilitation of such dialogue is fundamental to an OD effort even as it is essential to the "survival" of higher education (Sabin. 1974; Bennis. 1975; Harvey & Stewart. 1975; Sawhill. 1979; Lyman. 1975; Simmons. 1975). It is important to note that while the application of 00 to higher education organizations is relatively new. the need for change and improvement in higher education per se is not. Miles and Schmuck (1971). writing primarily about primary and secondary education. aptly described a situation not nonapplicable to post-secondary education. They contended that school systems are stubbornly resistant to improvement efforts and that people wanting and/or seeking change in schools have been well-intentioned but naive. They argued. "School improvement efforts have generally failed because they have been piecemeal. 'They have not focused on the systemic features of schools that enhance or retard innovative efforts" (p. 14). There is certainly telling irony in the fact that the majority of industrdal OD efforts have been initiated from within as internal 42 change agents requested collaboration from outside experts. In schools. examples of 00 projects are largely the result of external researchers inviting educational systems to collaborate (Schmuck 5 Miles. 1971. p. 23). Gardner (1964) highlighted this irony in his remarks regarding organizational renewal. He noted that every organization needs a department of continuous renewal whose role it would be to view the entire organization as a system in need of continuous innovation. In addressing the incomplete approach to innovation in universities. he wrote. Much innovation goes on at any first-rate university--but it is almost never conscious innovation in the structure or practices of the university itself. WWW mums. (p. 76. emphasis added) The application of OD within today‘s higher education is based on the assumption that it is time to get our "home" in order. Both this assumption and the application of 00 were supported by Conyne (in Miller et al.. 1983). when he wrote that What appears to be happening is that 00 has been garnering increas- ing attention in higher education (Astin. Comstock. Epperson. Greeley. Katz. a Kauffman. 1974; Borland. 1980; Boyer & Crockett. 1973; Miller & Prince. 1976). .Its_usa_in_nichon_sducation_wiii. Anson. (p. 70. emphasis added) The former factor. retrenchment. is a given; the latter. committed staff. is the challenge that faces today's and tomorrow's adminis- trators. 43 OrganizatioLQevolomnenundJiignoLi-Iduoaiion: LNoodJoLInteonation Clearly the literature of higher education is replete with- calls for change. adaptation. growth. flexibility. etc.. and many are convinced of a need for a strategy. a process. a planned procedure for managing such change. Here. three avenues of progress are available: (1) reinvention of the wheel. (2) adoption of packaged responses. or (3) integration/adaptation. Insofar as a substantive amount of the change that is called for in higher education is within the purview 0f 00. it seems illogical to "reinvent the wheel" rather than assess. adapt. and apply what is already available. Smith et a1. (1981) contended that this "tendency for human organizations to make the mistake of trying to reinvent the wheel" is common due to the limited (if at all) "intentional and continuous scanning for innovations" (p. 74). The infrequency of such scanning makes Smith's concluding comment a cause-and-effect truism: "The degree to which external and internal scanning are present is a sure sign of campus renewability and health" (p. 74). At the other end of the continuum from "reinvention" (without consideration of what is already available) is the acceptance of packaged responses 1n_toto (without consideration of the "fit" with the organization). Here. Levine's (1978) exhortation regarding curriculum change is no less applicable to organizational change: "Successful curriculum change is most likely when an innovation is consistent with the norms. values. and traditions of the environment in which it is being introduced" (p. 432). 44 In his article "Improving Organizational Performance: The Key Variables for Institutions of Higher Education." Chamberlain (1979) explored the dynamics of institution variables (leadership. purpose. program. resources. structure) and environment linkages (enabling. normative. functional. diffused) available to a change intervention. In so doing. he warned that In approaching the topic of improving the organizational perform- ance of collegiate institutions it must be remembered that we are dealing with a unique societal mechanism for regulating social and psychological behavior. Institutions are social organizations for serving value referenced goals. As such. institutions of higher education cannot be approached in quite the same way as one would approach other kinds of organizations if organizational change is contemplated.. . . Surprisingly little research has been devoted to studying collegiate institutions as a distinct organizational form. Apart from many authoritative essays. much of the reported research is based on what is done by business. industry. or the military and describes attempts to replicate it in collegiate settings. The assumption is that research conducted in non- educational organizations is appropriate for use in collegiate institutions as well . . . but one still should proceed with cau- tion with other innovations .. . for their compatibility should first be assessed with the norm referenced behavior of institu- tions. (p. 234) Another critical aspect mandating the need for integration/ adaptation rather than acceptance 1n_toto is the unique nature of .higher education as a "professional bureaucracy" (Mintzberg. 1979). One cannot imagine a more potentially dysfunctional organization type. yet it is the structure with which administrators must deal. During these difficult economic times. administrators of such bureaucracies are set upon by outside critics demanding that they (the administrators) "control" the process of their institutions. The natural response to that pressure is to tighten down the bureaucratic 45 "screws." Specifically. the administration attempts to use coordinat- ing mechanisms such as direct supervision. evaluation systems. stand- ardization of policies and procedures. and curriculum control measures such as competency-based instruction in order to "control" the process. However. research clearly supports the notion that complex work such as that delivered by a professional cannot be effectively per- formed unless the intrinsic motivation is present for the person who delivers the service (Montagna. 1968). If professionals feel that they are not in control of their work. conflict. demotivation. and job dissatisfaction result (Sorensen & Sorensen. 1974). Thus. administrators of higher education are in the damned-if- they-do-and-damned-if-they-don't dilemma. Responding to forces demand- ing control. they move to increase the use of plans. rules. and codes. Often. this pressure results in poor conditions for learning wherein the student receives impersonal and ineffective services delivered by individuals who have lost their will to be professionals. Change. in order to be effective--particularly in a profes- sional bureaucracy--must then "seep in" (evolutionary. not revel n- ary) by the slow process of changing the professional who delivers the ' service. and change must also seep into the bureaucracy of the institu- tion. 00 efforts facilitate such a Change process by focusing on the beliefs and attitudes of organizational actors (Blake a Mouton. 1967M In effect. the theory of 00 seeks to reverse the typical sequence of "systems change people" to "people change systems" (Hampton et a1“. 1978). 46 In short. to utilize 00 without adaptation is to negate its heritage in business and industry and the clear differences between organizations of business and industry and organizations of higher education. For example. one clear and fundamental difference is that while the aim of business is to direct individualism toward the production of economic wealth. the core aim of education is to direct individualism toward self-knowledge and from that self- knowledge toward world knowledge. of which economic wealth is but one part. (Gold. 1981. p. 3) Here the question becomes. does this difference in aim preclude 00%; application to higher education? If not. will the OD process change to accommodate the difference in aim? If so. in what ways? Clearly such interrogation begs the question of integrative analysis. In addition to these considerations of higher education. the literature of 00. in addressing public service/human service organiza- tions (a category under which higher education falls). also supports the need for integration/adaptation. Here there are two primary per- spectives: (l) the success of an OD effort in an organization is contingent upon that organization not being "input-focused." e.g.. education. It is less effective in such organizations; and (2) the success of an OD effort in an organization is contingent on careful integration of 00 values and objectives with those of the supporting Organization (regardless of its focus--input or outputh Obviously the perspective of this study is more supported by the latter viewpoint. Nevertheless. both perspectives are presented below. and in the final analysis. both reinforce the need for inte- grative analysis.u What happens in organizations where there are multiple goals or unclear goals? Where measurement of results is difficult or impos- sible? Where evaluation is a personal and highly controversial matter? Where administrative action is seen as capricious. irrelevant. or worse--an illegitimate interference with the organization's main pur- poses? What happens when there is no obvious correlation between working together and getting the job done? Weisbord (1978). a major proponent of this viewpoint. called - such organizations "input-focused" (p. 21). The following lengthy quotation is included for its representativeness of this perspective. its clarity of description of an input-focused organization. e4}. higher education. and for its pertinent conclusion. The critical characteristic of such systems (a university is a prime example) is that the main producers (professors for instance) derive major rewards. and therefore self-esteem. from sources external to the organization itself. Usually. these people prac- tice a form of expertise that can be applied in toto without the assistance of others. Collaboration is possible. but not essen- tial. for tasks such as teaching. research. consultation. design. therapy. and the like. In professional systems. each producer tends to have customers who are not easily transferable to colleagues. unless the colleague has a different expertise. Consumers are loyal to individuals much more than to the organization as a whole. Doctors. for instance. tend to keep their patients no matter what group they belong to or what hospital they practice in. Therefore. there is little to collaborate on in terms of serv- ice to any particular customer. In a typical output-focused sys- tem. delivering just one jar of aspirin to a single consumer requires the close cooperation of dozens. if not hundreds. of people doing a variety of tasks. By contrast. the most brilliant university teaching. intellectually complex and capable of stimu- lating thousands. may be the tour de force of a single unique professor. That is input. 48 One way to think about the central contingency in input-focused systems is that the incentives towards joint. rational problem- solving are low. Each professor. lawyer. social worker. account- ant. physician. scientist. etc.. can explicate the personal goals. ways of measuring. evaluation criteria. and actions that he or she would take as a result. Few or none can articulate such matters in ways that would bind the organizations in which they work. Input-focused systems do their main systematic. clearly under- stood. highly proceduralized evaluations at the input end. They evaluate admission to the system through various governing boards. Once a person is admitted. uniting with others to create an insti- tutional output is a very low priority. The output focus in such systems moves to the individual professional level. Organizational goal-setting. evaluation. and action are seen as restrictive. puni- tive. and undermining of innovation. Moreover. they are experi- enced that way. for there is little or no organizational reward for participating in joint exercises with others to negotiate such value-laden matters when concrete goals do not exist. 'There is even less motivation when the person in authority lacks the formal clout to compel such problem-solving. The organizational problems of low goal clarity and commitment and low recognition of authority are very difficult. if not impos- sible. to solve through participative and collaborative strategies involving large numbers of people. Such strategies themselves are viewed as part of the problem. When you go to a meeting feeling constrained. put upon. and undervalued. when you think your time is being wasted and you ought to be back in your office solving "real problems." that is a loss of self-worth. In another context I have suggested why this happens in aca- demic medical centers (Weisbord. 1976). Briefly. the sources of physician identity are external to given institutions. Thus. man- agement--the coordination of work toward certain outcomes--under- cuts instead of supports such identity; it deprives physicians of the right absolutely to decide everything of consequence to the care of their patients. Yet their training (and society's expecta- tions) have socialized them to do just that. I think such conditions may pertain in all professional organi- zations where individuals see themselves as creators and entre- preneurs rather than as employees. Demand on the input system is insatiable and infinite. It cannot be satisfied. for there will never be enough knowledge. health. or education. The problem is not a marketing problem (to create a demand); it is a limitation problem: deciding on con- straints to live within and than learning how to live within them. Output systems manage output. Input systems must learn to manage input. While it is relatively easy to help managers in such systems diagnose their situations. it is much harder to find legitimate ways to encourage professionals to enter the dialogue. Profes- sionals wish to be left alone. At best. they wish to be critics. 49 Few show enthusiasm for sharing the risks and responsibilities inherent in making policies that constrain their own behavior. even when such constraints are based on rational analysis. This stance becomes increasingly risky as consumers demand more voice in evalu- ating the quality and quantity of the professional services they receive. To the extent that input-focused systems must take consumer pressures seriously. they become better candidates for organization development intervention. Nevertheless. a different kind of organ- ization development is called for: one focused more on creating legitimate structures for change than on interpersonal and group processes. The latter will become appropriate only when the new structures are valued. (Weisbord. 1978. pp. 21-22) Wei sbord's essential argument. then. is that the success of an OD effort in an organization is contingent upon the kind of organiza- tion. If the organization is "output-focused" the effort can be effec- tive. and if the organization is "input-focused" the OD effort is destined to be less effective. Hence. since higher education is an input-focused organization. OD--according to Weisbord--is precluded from being optimally effective. Surely. Weisbord's description of an input-focused organization is applicable to higher education. even if his argument seems to negate the purpose and focus of this study. However. Weisbord's final para- graph. held particularly in light of the current state of higher educa- tion. lends critical support. In short. higher education is becoming more and more a candidate for OD even as it is taking seriously. albeit reluctantly. consumer pressures. What remains is the development of Weisbord's "different kind of organization development." which is the purpose of this study- 50 Where Weisbord contended that 00 is successful only in output- focused organizations (i.e.. not education). Goodstein (1978). a major proponent of this second perspective. contended that success depends on careful integration regardless of input or output focus. Goodstein asserted that there are important systematic differences between private (output) and public (input) organizations--differences that are not well understood but that have critically important consequences for any intervention into these systems. ‘Through the examination of a model of organization diagnosis (see Figure 2.2). Goodstein presented a systematic analysis of the organizational differences between the public and private sectors. In short. he contended that public sector organizations have far less clarity of purpose and much less commitment to organizational goals. The structure of public agencies tends to be more compartmentalized. hierarchical. and rigid than that in profit-making organizations. But because there is less task interdependence. the nature of these structures tends to interfere less with task accomplishment. ‘The relation- ships among both individuals and subunits are more remote and structured; conflict is managed primarily by avoidance. smothering. or compromise; rewards are given for compliance rather than for accomplishment; and there is little risk taking. Leadership is more authoritarian. with built-in issues at the interface between political and career managers. (p. 58) Given the differences between public-sector and profit-making organizations. Goodsteinhs contention is that 00 must be adapted to the interrelated processes (inherent in all organizations-~Figure 2.2) as they exist in the particular supporting organization. In this case. the supporting organization is higher education. ‘This is the ultimate 51 point of this study--to develop a model for adapting 00 such that it is "not a program grafted on to an existing organization as an ornament. but rather movement toward a new way of organizational life" (Patten 8. Vai11. in Craig. 1978. p. 20-16). PURPOSES: WMoNxoMescme / we in? RELATlONSHIPS: How do we STRUCTURE: monoge conflict How do we divide among people? up the work? With 1. DE HIP: technologies? DoEeAs 50:; one keep the boxes in balance? HELPFUL REWARDS: Hove we tasks have adequate incentives? COOKWKNMQ redmob9bfiL-~—_——fl”’///’ ENVIRONMENT Figure 2.2.--Mode1 for organizational diagnosis. (From Goodstein. 1978. p. 48.) Why integration? Because higher education is "ripe" for the kinds of changes that 00 addresses; because 00. born in business and industry. in order to be effective must be clearly linked to 52 organizational mission (Beckhard. 1969; Weisbord. 1978; Burke. 1982; French & Bell. 1978; Huse. 1975); and. because. if the staff and facilities of our institutions are likely to remain the same or if we assume only modest growth. what will likely be our primary manifestations of change? If we assume rapid social change to be a permanent phenomenon (the "future shock" argument). and if we assume a permanence of staffing and facili- ties. all we really have left is our wits. This means that we will be obliged to institutionalize change procedures that will guide the institution so that it can be responsive and changeable. It is important that these procedures be developed within the organiza- tion. rather than applied to the organization from external insti- tutions. Strategically. this is important in terms of faculty and student acceptance. (Frederickson. 1978. p. 14-15) W An_Admi.nis.tI:atiiLe_Bosoonsib_i_l_i_tx Given the state of today's higher education and the potential-- albeit adapted--applicability of 00. the question of responsibility is critical; i.e.. if 00 and higher education are compatible. where does the concept meet personnel? The answer is quite logically administra- tion. and this. for two reasons: (1) what 00 purports to address is the primary concern and responsibility of leadership and administra- tion; and (2) the personal values. behaviors. and attitudes of adminis- trators (particularly top administrators) are essential to 00 effec- tiveness. In short. the integration of 00 within higher education is the responsibility of effective leadership and mandates effective leaders. 1. .Loadestio_and_ndministnation. Scores of writers have enumerated the tasks of organizational administration and leadership. Their views can be summarized as 53 a. the developing and maintenance of a system of communication; b. inducing cooperation; c. eliciting the interest. zeal. and loyalty of members of the organization; d. viewing the organization as a whole and dealing effectively with a variety of specialists; and e. raising the standards of the organization and the sights of its members. (Barnard. 1938; Etzioni. 1964; Burns. 1978; Selznick. 1957; Gardner. 1961) The compatibility is clean. 10 hold this list of administrative tasks beside the goals and objectives of 00 reveals a clear congruence. Selznick (1957) pointed out that the function of leadership is to define goals of the organization and then "design an enterprise distinctively adapted to these ends. and to see that that design becomes a living reality" (p. 37). Put in another way. the purpose of leadership is to infuse an enterprise with significance beyond the requirements of day-to-day operation--another OD objective. "This institutional leader." said Selznick. "is primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values" (p. 28). Selznick continued that Members playing different roles. and involved in varying degrees. will differ in their ability to understand the reasons behind many decisions. Many members will have only partial views of the organ- ization. and only a limited understanding of its objectives and principles. And because of weak or narrowly defined participation. their experience within the organization may offer little oppor- tunity for greater comprehension. This makes it difficult to channel information easily. and especially. to hold the organiza- tion to its basic goals and values. (p. 98) Herein. one of the principal purposes of administration is to expand the horizons of personnel's understanding of organizational function- ing--another OD objective. 54 The burden of Selznick's book is the distinction between man- agement and leadership. The manager presumably would be devoted to a certain kind of administrative efficiency. He would be preoccupied with administrative procedures and orderly processes. with lines of authority and channels of communication. with bureaucratic housekeep- ing. with respect for hierarchies Of status and position. The leader. on the other hand. would be concerned with values and the commitment of participants to them; with procedures. regulations. and operations as the embodiment of purpose and not as the manifestations of sacred ritual; with the members as creators of the organization and not its pawns. Leaders would then consider the organization as such to be expendable insofar as it exists merely as an instrument for the attain- ment of shared purposes and values. But organizations are subject to the law of inertia. After institutionalization has taken place. change becomes difficult. Educa- tional institutions. in particular. are notoriously conservative. Administrative structures are retained long after they have become dysfunctional (Ford. 1980). Old knowledge makes way for new rel uc- tantly and belatedly. Schools and colleges train students for jobs that no longer exist or teach them skills no longer used. Professional education lags far behind advanced professional practice ( McConnell. 1968. p. 285). Hence. if one of the great functions of administration is the exercise of cohesive force in the direction of institutional security. another great function is the creation of conditions that will make 55 possible in the future what is excluded in the present--that maintain flexibility of. and in. the organization (Willey. 1979). "This requires a strategy of change that looks to the attainment of new capabilities more nearly fulfilling the truly felt needs and aspira- tions of the institution (Selznick. 1957. p. 154). Such a strategy is 00. The definition of goals. infusion of significance. promotion and protection of values and commitment. expansion of a wholistic view of the organization. and maintenance of flexibility are all congruent with the aims of 00. Young (1981). in exploring the dimensions of strategic planning for higher education. offered a most straightforward rationale for OD being the responsibility of administration. He wrote that The responsibility for university transformation rests with the leadership of higher education. This is not the role of the fac- ulty. which historically have been academically conservative.. . . If leaders of higher education are to be successful in this endeavor. they have to be aware of the origin. development. purpose and larger social context in which the traditional university emerged. Particularly they have to be sensitive to the development of their own leadership role. The traditional university is not a self-evident proposition and the history of the university is one of continuous change in terms of the large historical changes of which it has been a part. There is every indication we are now entering a new change period. The leaders of higher education are obligated to exercise similar imagination to that of their earlier counterparts.... . Their task is to refashion the university in terms of this changing context. (p. 7) 2. Loadocunudministnatons. In examining the major challenge confronting today's higher education. i.e.. the maintenance and enhancement of quality in a time of increasingly scarce resources. Smith et a1. (1981) outlined the 56 dimensions of a successful mobilization effort. They wrote that such an effort must be an intentionally planned and managed process. implemented on a campus-wide basis. and directly related to the institutionus mission. It must have the capability for attaining and sustaining optimum institutional efficiency. effectiveness and health and it must deal constructively with external and internal environmental forces for change. It must establish collaborative mechanisms for problem-solving as well as for setting. implementing and evaluating the goals. objectives and results of the planned change process. (p. 33) To accomplish this. Smith et a1. emphasized the need for support. participation. and commitment from faculty. staff. students. and particularly the chief executive officer who. they asserted. "must see institutional renewal as a critical campus priority" (p. 33). This emphasis on the participation and commitment of administration and the chief executive officer is further support for integrating 00 within HEA. Argyris (1973). a recognized leader in 00. also pressed for the integration of 00 beyond that of the mere concept of leadership and administration per se into the realm of the person of the adminis- trator. He wrote. Because of the way most companies are organized. the chief executive officer is the focal point of power and responsibility for managing and renewing organizations. ‘The CEO is therefore the key to the success of organizational development programs. iAll this is not new. But what has not been spelled out clearly is the what and the why about the chief executive officer that makes him the key to the success of organizational development. The answer is: his behavior. The way the CEO actually behaves is crucial for the survival of organizational renewal and change activities. It is his behavior (and subsequently that of other officers) that ultimately does or does not conform to the idea that organizational development is necessary. credible. and inexorably linked to his leadership style. (pp. 63-64) 57 Numerous OD efforts in both business and industry and human- service organizations have failed due to a continued discrepancy between top management's statements of values and styles and their actual managerial behavior. Beckhard (1969) told of one organization that spent considerable money. time. and effort in organizational improvement efforts where organizational effectiveness was only marginally increased. His commentary on the organization documented that top management still operates in a generally autocratic and sometimes crisis-oriented style. The rest of the organization knows this. and has only limited trust in the statements of intention from the top. 'There is a credibility gap which causes people to be cautious. conservative. and self-protective. (p. 93) It is then crucial for administrators to be committed. congruent. competent. and confident regarding 00 if the effort is to be successful. And. as simple and straightforward as this requisite sounds. it needs to be placed in perspective. Roeber's (1973) lbs Wm does Just tMS- He wrote that planned organization change (00) is paradoxical in that the need for it is generated at all levels but the responsibility for initiating it must rest with the managers--who are. no less than other people. the enemies of change and the guardians of established practice. . . . In fact. the role of managers as initiators of change is less paradoxical than it may seem. and not just because the role of management has been 50 defined by such philosophers of business as Peter Drucker. ("Managers of Change" is a useful definition but one which does not allow for the innate conservatism of social systems.) For only managers are equipped by training and by their position in the company to take this responsibility. (pp. 135-36) Roeber supported his final contention by clarifying that the senior administrator has (or should have) four ingredients which qualify and 58 require him to assume organization change responsibility: knowledge to see the company as a whole and in the context of its environment. knowledge of models for change to draw upon. power to make decisions and marshal resources. and the role to make decisions (p. 136). Roeber also clarified that in terms of leaders' and administrators' responses the challenge of a changing organizational environment is a challenge to their capacity to learn. “The main problem that the manager faces is that of recognizing the unfamiliar for what it is. resisting the natural urge to force it into the mold of his preconceptions. It is a hard thing to ask. since we all live by our experience and cannot simply put it aside. (p. 151) The integration. then. of 00 with higher education is approp- riately and pertinently an administrative consideration because: 1. OD is congruent with the goals and objectives of adminis- tration; 2. OD--to be effective--must be "owned" and managed by the top leadership of an organization; 3. Administrators. not unaware of a changing environment. need a strategic methodology (OD) to enable the organization to "build into its working the capacity to redesign itself" (Roeber. 1973. p. 151). Without such a methodology administrators all too frequently enter into a series of ad hoc compromising decisions that display no strategy at all (Young. 1981); and 4. OD--integrated/adapted to higher education--offers HEA the opportunity for pressing beyond managerial myopia into true educational leadership. 14%. "capable of defining mission. setting objectives. allocating resources. and coordinating efforts" (Corson. 1975. p. 18). 59 Roeber%5(l973) commentary on business and industry was no less a challenge for higher education when he wrote that management--in the long term has no alternative except to reorder the pattern of work to provide the opportunity to achieve more in personal terms than todayus industry is accustomed to offering. iAnd managers ought to lead the change. for the workers will demand what altruism does not provide. Change will eventually be enforced. And there are advantages to meeting the inevitable more than halfway. (p. 142) Knowing what is possible and how to proceed is then the respon- sibility of enlightened leadership. Hechinger (1980) proposed at this point that the coming era of belt-tightening and pruning will give new oppor- tunity to academic leadership. The unrest of the 19605 quite understandably made trustees look for mediators and crisis managers--administrat0rs rather than leaders. The certain prospect of an era of creative regrouping. as the only alternative to drift and decline. could once again put the spotlight on qualities of leadership. Internally. such leadership must mobilize support for the challenge of making less be better. It must initiate and facili- tate an unprecedented attempt to face the hard questions with a sense of unity. and gain support for the painful but necessary decisions. .. . Externally. such leadership must again extend the influence of education beyond the campus boundaries. University presidencies are more than bully pulpits--they can be. as they have been in the past. the outposts of reform and progress. (p. 42) OD purports to address the issues (internal) of the kind facing higher education. Integrated and adapted in concept and functional through administration. it (00) offers HEA a means of application. a method- ology. for accomplishing its internally oriented objectives. BiobonfiducatioudministnationLLQeflnition Drawing upon the pertinent literature in OD and HEA. 00 has been defined. established as applicable to the needs of higher education-- 60 with the provision that it be integrated and adapted to the unique nature of higher education--and placed primarily within the responsibility of administration. Hence. the final onus of logical progression mandates a clarification and/or definition of HEA. To attempt to glean from the literature of higher education a concise definition of administration is a challenge indeed. The field of HEA and its literature are replete with a proliferation of rhetoric and conceptual semantics regarding the concept of administration. Terms such as leadership. management. governance. and administration are clarified and re-clarified in an attempt to ground the ambiguity. or at least make it manageable. And yet. the proliferation is not altogether surprising given the conceptual sophistication of academics and the unique nature of higher education's task. clients. and tech- nology. Karl Weick (1976) captured this reality with vivid imagery which he credited to James G. March: Imagine that you're either the referee. coach. player. or spectator in an unconventional soccer match: the field for the game is round; there are several goals scattered haphazardly around the circular field; people can enter or leave the game whenever they want to; they can throw balls in whenever they want; they can say "that's my goal" whenever they want to. as many times as they want to and for as many goals as they want to; the entire game takes place on a sloped field; and the game is played as if it makes sense. .And if you now substitute in that example principals (administrators) for referees. teachers (faculty) for coaches. students for players. parents for spectators. and schooling (higher education) for soccer. you have an equally unconventional depiction of school (education) organizations. (p. 1) Is it any wonder that the nature of administration is itself ambiguous? If it's a car. a driver is needed. If it's a plane. a pilot is needed. If it's a flock. a shepherd is needed. If it's a kitchen. a cook is 61 needed. So also the nature of HEA is cast and recast in accord with the rival views of what higher education is: --a political system (Baldridge. 1977)? --a hierarchical bureaucracy (Stroup. 1966)? --a professional collegium (Millett. 1974)? --a professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg. 1979)? --a political community (Corson. 1975)? --an organized anarchy (Cohen a March. 1972)? --a special kind of community (Trueblood. 1959)? --a participatory democracy (Wolff. 1970)? --a benevolent anarchy (Dressel. 1981)? --an autocracy (Dressel. 1981)? It is not the aim here to reduce these various perspectives into one grand synthesis but rather to explore the basic terminology and perspectives of HEA so as to extract a "common denominator" clari- fication of administration--the reception point for OD's integration within higher education. ‘To accomplish this "clarification of adminis- tration." two perspectives are explored: (l) the major models of university governance and (2) the related terminology of leadership. inanagement. and governance. From these considerations the investigator is able to extract and conclude with (3) a comprehensive definition of HEA for the purposes of this study. 1. W. What type of an organization is higher education? Many authors have probed the organization of higher education for an answer. Some have emerged with romanticized views. some with pragmatic views. and some with cynical views. Regardless of the particular unique perspec- tive of these authors. the literature regarding the organization of 62 higher education generally falls into three dominant models: bureau- cratic. collegial. and political. The bureaucratic model. founded on Max Weber's paradigm. was propounded by Herbert Stroup (1966) as appropriate to higher education. It effectively explains the complex organization of higher education and explains its formal hierarchy. formal channels of communication. formal authority relations. formal policies and rules. and routinized procedures for dealing with "people-processes." John Millett (1968. 1974. 1980). a proponent of a collegial model. refuted the bureaucratic model as appropriate to higher educa- tion. In its place. he offered the "community of scholars" concept as critical to the nature and purpose of higher education. He wrote. I have already expressed my own point of view in so far as the organization of a college or university is concerned. I do not believe that the concept of hierarchy is a realistic representation of the interpersonal relationships which exist within a college or university. Nor do I believe that a structure of hierarchy is a desirable prescription for the organization of a college or university. The concept of hierarchy may be a useful tool of analysis in the study of group and individual behavior within formal social groups. ‘The difficulty with such a tool of analysis is that many persons may come to assume that hierarchy is being advocated as the desirable system of structural relationships. More than this. hierarchy is apt to be considered the only possible relationship among people grouped together in a common. purposeful organization. I would argue that there is another concept of organization just as valuable as a tool of analysis and even more useful as a generalized observation of group and interpersonal behavior. This is the concept of community. It is the concept of community which I have applied to the description of college and university organization presented herein. To how many different kinds of groups the concept of community may be applicable. I am not prepared to say. That it is applicable to our colleges and universities seems to me clearly evident. The concept of community presupposes an organization in which functions are differential and in which specializations must be brought together in a harmonious whole. But this process of 63 bringing together of coordination. if you will. is achieved not through a structure of superordination and subordination of persons and groups but through a dynamic of consensus. (1964. pp. 234-35) A summary comparison and exploration of these three models is offered in Table 2.4. In addition to these three models--political. bureaucratic. collegial--Dressel (1981) proposed two others: the "benevolent anarchy" and the "autocracy" (p. 78). The benevolent anarchy contends that higher education is a loosely coordinated group of essentially autonomous units. In its fullest blooming. this autonomy requires each unit to accept responsibility for acquiring its own resources. Each unit may offer all instruction required for its various programs or contract with other units to provide certain services. Each unit gains from the presence of certain common resource units. from the prestige conferred by the university association. and from interactions with other units of the institution. This organizational pattern requires faculty members and administrators who act as independent entrepreneurs in developing programs and finding resources to support them. It is. in a sense. the epitome of the laissez-faire approach to governance. (p. 78) The autocracy model derives its heritage from the history of American higher education. Dressel wrote. Reading the history of American higher education. it comes as somewhat of a surprise to those who have visualized colleges and universities as run by the faculty to learn that faculty involve- ment is a relatively recent phenomenon and that most of the sig- nificant advances in higher education came about through dominant and dynamic leaders. (pp. 78-79) Wolff (1970) claimed yet another "variation on the theme of governance]' He contended that modern universities are characterized by their "participatory democracy" of governance. Likewise. borrowing from Clark Kerr's concept of the "multiversity." he showed how the university operates on the principle of "democratic pluralism" 64 ou_c~_um .: “e833: .0 3.2:: ... £2.88 .: 00...:00 :0.) .000 00 m._0. .0005.:00 0:0 m:0.m.> 0>..0E:0: 0:0 0>.0o.:000a :0..00500 0:055: :0.00.5 :0. ._00 .>0.500. .0 >0.:0:050 .0:0.mm0.0:0 .m:u:0m:00 >3 :0.n.0oo u.0:0.mmo.o:o 0:050 m5m:0m:00 .0 :000.0>00 a. :0000. -0m00oe .u5mcoucou >5 0:050m0:0: «moo .0:0 0:. :. «:00: .0:0.mn0.0:0 .0 0:050>.0>:. 0:0 monmo:0m :0...000 :. 055 ..0006 0.00:0500:5A :. u< ._eu.;ao.e__sa. eo.ea .aue_\_oo0 :0000. .0:0.000500 «0 :o.0:.m.:.s00 .n0_60:>0 .0:0u -:00:0.:. use—0500 a:o£0 .m:..: :o.00.5e:0. :0 m.m::060 0:05 >.nono:o .:00.0:: co.000.0..:00 >..:5EE00 .m5mc0m -co0 .m:0.m.000 .0.a0..00 .00:0:m Em..0 -:o_mm0.o:o :0 0:5.0:0... .m:0..0~ -_:0m:o o. :000:o00 n:0..0.0: :0E5z «5mcum .:00 :000 >3 00.0:00.:. .m:0.0;0m .0 >0.:5EE00 0:. >5 000.:5 .>:00.:= :m:0.o£0m .0 >..:52600 05:0: 0 :. 00.0:.E..0 ..0E:0:o0 m0 0030.) .:0600_0>00 ..00a\o:...0.m 60:. 00.5m0: 00:0:0 .::00:00 :0:.: «:000 .0 >0.:55500 .>..:5EEOo .0:0.nm0.0:: ..m~-~ .aa .Nom.. oeu.:e_eo ecu >a__¢ ecu .m.-. oee_:e_ee .> m.:0..0 .00....00 0.0::020 0:0 ouoosm 0:5.05:.m >03 0:: :00_m:00 0. n..0. "0::00000 0:.405-:0.m.000 6:00-0:0. «0:0:0. .m0mm000:0 0..0:0500:5o 0:.050: .0 .0005. 00.05..mo:00:5 "00...:00 nomn0:0u:0>c >..:0:050 .05:0. «0.5.. 0:5nm0:o .00.0__00 ..0:5.0: m. 00...:00 .mo50:u 0n0:00:. 00.:0600:. “:0..00.0..:0o 0.5.. .m..0>0:o >0.>.000:. 0:50:o :0:.0 .0 00:0..0 :0.:500 0:0 >0 00:.0:.u -c00 m. .53 :o.000 .00....00 n.0gu:0fi :0000.-.u00oe .a:.xe§ :o.a.000 0.00.0:0m x00o000. .>0..oo .0 :0.00.:0E0.oe. .nuooo:o 0>.00. -m.mu. .00...:00 .:0.00.50.u:0 0n0:00:. .0x00:00 .0.000 .0 050 05am. .0 00:00:0Eu .0..0Eo0:0. 0000a->0._00¢ :0.0....0o me :000:00.:.500 “0:0eom0coe :0....0o0 .mo.£0:>0 .0:0¢:0o:00:. .>o0.0:0n .00 -.0..oo “:05m00000 .:0.0.000 .:0.0_00002 :0..0.5E:0. :0 0.00:05u m0mm000:o 00:05..:. .00....00 0:0 .u:.:.0o:0o .:0..0..0002 >:00:. :0300 >..:5E600 .>:00:. «60.n>m :000 .>:00:. 050:0 000:0uc. .>:00:. 00...:00 «05.0> 0:0 meso:m 0G0:00:. 0:00:0>.0 0:0 m0:5..5on5m n0nm00§0000 .0.un..0:5.m 00:05..:. >0..00 .o m.m>.0:0 00 >04 ..0E:0: n0 0010.> 00:05..:. 50:. m..5m0: 00:0:0 .::00:00 >:0E.:a :o..0:000. .0:0.mm0.0:o x0.0§00 .00.:0Eoo:. .E0.m>u .00....0: :0n0) .: .o5o:.m .: 00500. .00.0..oo 00:0:0. .00.0...:. 0:0 no.0..oo 30: :.0.ox0 0. m..0. .0:5.05:.m :. 000:0:0 :.0.ox0 0. m..0. .m0mno0o:a 00:0:0. .00:05..:. :0300 .05:0.:. «0:0:0. m:.on-:0.m.000 0>..0..:0:.50 .00.5: 0:0 no.0 -_.oo .n:o.00.0: >._:o:.50 .:o.0 -00.:52500 .0 0.0::050 .>:0:0:0.: .0E:0. .:0..0~.:0o:0 x0.0500 0.0: 0:0 >0.o 0. n0.:. 0: 0:0 «(0.o0:0 0>.0o :00 :0000. .0:0: 0:0 0>0..0o 0.0000--:m.: >:0> .:.:0£0o0:0£ 0...0:0.0m: :0..00:050.oE. .00_0:0 .05.50.00 .00).00::00.0 .0 :0.005.0>0 .o0>.00::0..0 :0. 50:000 .:0.0.:..00 00.00:: .0.00.. 00n04-.0:0.00¢ :000:05 00 :000:: -m.:.s00 .m...xn o:_>.om-eo.no:o .00.:5000 .0:0: :0.:00.:o£.5< :o.0500x0 :0 0.00305“ «0:50000:o o:..0:0ao 0:00:0.n .m0:50000:0 0_.0:0500:5n .ms:0. .0:.xmei:0.n.000 .0:0.00¢ .0005 «Eu.m>m .oe:o. .00.mm0.0 ".000E 0..0:0500:5o :0.:0o03 500n>m .05:0. 0:. >o 00.0:00.:. .>:0..:= m:o_.0c0m 0.00:0500:5a >0 00._0:0 -:00 on 00 ..0E:0:o0 m0 00:0.> 0:5.05:0m 50:. m..5m0: 00:0:0 .::00:00 :0:.: >00:0500:5o .>00:0500:5o .00.:0:0:0.x _c_eo__o0 .00.0..oo .oo ..~m_. 0m0.:0m00 60:. 000o00< "00:50m if 14 "hawzcmcxm ceau.acm oz< oz.bhwm-aoa >0_n:0>.:5 .0 0.0008 00::. .0 :00.:0oeou--.:.~ 0.30» 65 (p. 112). Wolff's research has led him to the conclusion that all of the real power within a university rests with the faculty (p. 112L Wolff held on to the belief that "higher education is the gateway to comfort. leisure. status and security in America" (p. 114). As such. he utilized this belief to conclude that higher education is a powerful social institution in the United States. In turn. Wolff pointed out that When men's vital interests are coercively affected to a major extent by the operation of a system of social institutions from which they cannot escape. it seems to me reasonable to assert that they acquire a right to participate in those decisions of the system which affect them. The right does not arrive from their competence or from their experience. but merely from their entrapment within the system of institutions. Even as Wolff drew these conclusions. he tempered them with the realization that it would be very difficult to understand exactly how his argument for student power could be translated into workable proposals for the distribution of such decision-making authority. Wolff was of the opinion that heterogeneity in the governance of higher education is desirable. He. like many other researchers. conceded that such heterogeneity perpetuates a system in which there is no readily available. or prior planned measure of success (pp. 118-20). Higher education in America is a system of an interacting multiplicity of social units which tend to exhibit lawlike uniformities of mores. behaviors. and norms. But. said Wolff (1970). higher education "is not a system in the legal or political sense of a centrally controlled institution with explicit legislative and executive procedures" (p. 118). 66 Baldridge's (1971) political model is at odds with Wolff's concept of a university. As the schematic in Figure 2.3 indicates. the university does have explicit and implicit legislative and executive procedures when one conceptualizes it within a basically political paradigm (p. 22). According to Baldridge. "The legislative process in the university tends to be complex and highly diffuse. . . . No single legislative body makes binding policy decisions. but instead. a fragmental. segmentalized process occurs throughout the organization" (p. 192). Social Context Interest Legislative Execution Factors Articulation Transformation POUCY of Policy What are the How do the How are the social conditions interest stout” multiple which promote the bring pressure pressures Policy: Policy formation of to bear? translated ——-) An official -1 divergent values into official commitment Execution and interest policy? to certain | coups? goals and I values I ‘1‘ 4‘ 4‘ | L _ | ' .1 Feedback Processes: The generation of new political conflicts Figure 2.3.--A simple political model of university governance. (From Baldridge. 1971. p. 22.) Likert and Likert (1976) presented a conceptual model of their "System 4" structure by relating its application to such political 67 conflicts within a university. The application focuses on the use of System 4 to provide an effective interaction-influence network so that divergent groups with opposing goals can cooperate for the benefit of the university system (pp. 243-59). This "system" posits administra- tion as having complete trust and confidence in subordinates; decision making is widely dispersed; communication flows up and down and later- ally; motivation is by participation and rewards; extensive. friendly. superior-subordinate interaction exists; high degrees of confidence and trust exist; and a widespread responsibility for the control process is felt. Although these models and perspectives offer clarification of the nature and scope of governance in higher education. no one of them is solely representative of the reality on college and university campuses. In all probability. "truth" is no doubt an elusive composite of them all. Clark Kerr (1970). lamenting the lack of a clear adminis- trative theory. asserted that this lack is the culprit for the diffi- culty of college administration. College and university governance. Kerr contended. is partly collegial and partly hierarchical. In a collegial organization. the administrator is one of the colleagues; in a hierarchical one. he is the chief executive. In higher education. he is both and then some. Paul Dressel (1981) further underscored the ambiguity when he wrote. I find no one of the various models of university governance adequate to explain what goes on in most institutions that I have observed. The governance scene in the immediate period is more difficult to characterize than earlier ones. When institutions 68 were growing rapidly and new resources were available. faculty members were very anxious to be involved in the decision-making process. Now that institutions are facing the necessity of some reduction in activities (perhaps the elimination of some programs and units). faculty members are not much inclined to take a major role. Given the opportunity to determine in what areas reductions can be made. they find many reasons why the decision should be deferred. . . . This reluctance is based upon three considerations. First. faculty members recognize that they lack an overview of the institution and its total role in the educational system of the state or area. Second. they fear that a unit taking a negative position on another may incur enmity predudicial to their own. Administrators are expected to make the nasty decisions and take the blame. It is also recognized that program deletions will ultimately have to be approved by higher levels and perhaps even by sources external to the institution. In short. the typical faculty member recognizes that authority within the university is ulti- mately related to funding sources and factors over which the fac- ulty committees have little influence and often even less knowl- edge. (pp. 80-81) Said the Harvard University Committee on Governance (1971): When crisis erupts and blame is assessed. [the administrator] is the lightning rod for the faculty's recognition of failure in its own as well as his jurisdiction. . . . It is abundantly clear that the [administrator] of the university is generally held responsible for more than he can personally control or direct and is expected to lead where he cannot command. (p. 44) The ambiguity of the various models of university governance offers no other conclusion. .Ggysnnanss: Numerous writers have proposed definitions and perspectives of governance. Corson (1975) viewed it as the processes by which decisions are arrived at. who participates in these processes. the structure that relates these individuals. and the effort that is made (or should be made) to see to it that decisions once made are carried out. and to assess the results that are achieved. (p. 20h) The Report and Recommendations by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (April 1973) clarified that 69 The basic test of governance . . . is whether the decisions actu- ally made do or do not enhance the long-run welfare of higher education and of society and the quality of the individual campus. and whether the solutions are appropriate to and commensurate with the problems. A second test is whether the processes followed gain respect and a sense of legitimacy and trust--"government by consent and after consultation" (Ashby. 1966. p. 108). [Therefore. in governance] all who have a substantial interest in a decision may have their views heard about it. and that all who have competence to make the decision. and who must take responsibility for it. have a chance. directly or through their representatives. to participate in making the decision. Both the products and the processes of decision-making are subject to evaluation. . . . Acknowledging the importance of structure and processes and the need for their improvement. we note that the quality of governance depends in the end. and above all else. on the people who participate in it. (p. 79) And. in its statement about governance. the Assembly on University Goals and Governance (1971) acknowledged a college or university as an "intricate organization." involving trustees. administrators. students. professors. staff. alumni. legislators. and public officials. in which "good governance depends on a reasonable allocation of responsibilities that makes the structure of authority credible for all these groups" (p. 7). In addition to these perspectives. the most outspoken and pro- lific writer regarding the scope. nature. and responsibility of govern- ance is by far John Millett. the former President of Miami University and Chancellor Emeritus of the Ohio Board of Regents. In no less than four of his writings. he devoted major sections to its clarification. He wrote. Governance is the process of decision-making by which policies are determined concerning objectives. programs. benefits. standards. and resources. Governance is a procedure for relating power to purpose and for exercising power responsibly. It should seek the general welfare through expression of the general will. (1974. p. 3) 70 The governance of a university is a complex structure and process. The complexity is inherent in the very nature of instruction. research. creative activity and public service as the learning outputs of the university as a productive enterprise. The govern- ance structure and process necessarily reflect the unique require- ments of organizational purpose. (1980. p. 174) Governance involves the determination of the values to be realized. the goals to be accomplished. and the distribution of benefits to be obtained through the activities of the enterprise. (February 1974: p. 3) Drawing from these perspectives. "governance" is most clearly the process whereby purpose and performance expectations are estab- lished. It involves the full scope of decision making from the deter- mination of the organization's values. goals. purposes (i.e.. policy) to the safeguards of its respectability. legitimacy. trust. and credi- bility within the organization. Governance is then the process whereby the organization determines. and is guided by. a core master plan. .Managsmsnt: Once an organization has a sense of its values and goals (i.e.. its mission). it develops a structure for the accomp- lishment/implementation of those values and goals. This is the focus of management. Again. Millett offered clarification when he wrote. There are probably two or three reasons why management struc- ture and process receive so little attention and discussion in higher education discourse. Management is a word more commonly associated with business enterprises and government enterprises than with higher education enterprises. Some faculty members resent any implication that the learning process can be "managed." or that faculty members are to be managed. Management connotes a structure and process that appears alien to the faculty mind. This suspicion. even hostility. is reinforced by the failure of faculty members to understand that they are in fact the managers of the higher education enterprise. To the extent that the learning process is "managed." faculty members. not deans or vice-presidents or presidents. are the managers. 71 Much depends upon how one defines management in the context of the academic enterprise. I employ a simple definition of manage- ment as a process. Management is work planning and work perform- ance. Management is determining work objectives. work technology. and necessary work resources. Management is the production of work outputs with the planned technology and the planned resources. And management is the evaluation of the quality of the work output. It is necessary to state again the work outputs of the academic enterprise: student instruction accomplished. research undertaken and completed. creative activity realized. puinc service per- formed. educational justice achieved. constructive criticism explained. These outputs result from the learning process. which only faculty members can manage. which only faculty work planning and work performance can accomplish. The management of the outputs of the academic enterprise is not just vested in faculty members; it is inherent in the very concept of being a faculty member. of being a scholar. (1980. pp. 87-88) Management is the process of delivering the services of a college or university. It is the development of work programs; the employ- ment of techniques necessary for performance; the provision and use of resources of people. plant. equipment. and support services for the accomplishment of objectives. Management is getting a job done. (197“, p. 3) It is important to note that in managing the academic part of the higher education enterprise. the process of "getting the job done" is carefully a "bottom-up" strategy. Indeed. the impulse of management is not "top-down." as may be the case in a manufacturing enterprise. or even in a retail distribution. The individual faculty member and the separate academic department are not just the basic management units of student instruction. research. and public service; they are the location of management decision processes that determine the quality of instructional. research. and public service outcomes. Product planning and prod- uct performance is primarily a responsibility of the individual faculty member. reinforced by the faculty member's place in the academic department. (Millett. 1980. p. 101) In short. as Wallis (1975) contended. "a centralized. hierarchical [top-down] organization is better for dealing with action. and a decen- tralized. bottom-up organization is better for dealing with knowledge" (p. 71). 72 The challenge. then. of management in higher education is that it must be responsive to parallel hierarchies--to both action and knowledge--a hierarchy which is bottom-up for professionals and a hierarchy which is top-down for support staff. It must be sensitive to the realities of the learning process and the uniquenesses of the_ academic enterprise as it endeavors to translate purposes (determined via governance) and available resources into work outputs. .Lssdsnshjp: From the "work output" focus of management on the one hand. the literature of HEA integrates the concept of leadership on the other. Dressel (1981) distinguished between the two when he wrote. Leadership has been characterized as knowing where to go. whereas management has been characterized as knowing how to get there. Leadership involves identifying and specifying goals; it tends to be idealistic. qualitative. and charismatic in nature. Leadership also tends to be unique; only one person at a time exercises the primary leadership in any particular activity. In contrast to leadership. management is directed to the achievement of goals. using analytical. quantitative. and pragmatic approaches. (p. 182) Echoing this distinction. Zaleznik (1977) offered that "Machiavelli wrote for managers and not necessarily for leaders" (p. 71). With strong support for the concept and necessity of leadership. Millett (1974) wrote that Leadership is the process of encouraging and persuading those involved in governance to decide and those involved in management to perform. Ideally. leadership seeks objectives that embody purpose and seeks effective performance to achieve these objec- ‘tives. (p. 3) _Leadership is an organized arrangement for linking governance and management--for linking decision-making and work performance. Any structure of governance that does not provide for leadership in decision-making [governance] and in work performance [management] is deficient. More than this. such a structure of governance will be self-defeating. guaranteeing for itself fruitless debate. frustration of effort. and failure to govern. 73 Although leadership begins with a structured role. it is per- sonal in that it requires specific personal characteristics. It is customary to identify these attributes as education. experience. judgment. integrity. skill. health. stamina. thoughtfulness for others. and decisiveness. Perhaps more than any other characteris- tic. however. leadership is the capacity to motivate others toward a common objective and to join individual talents in a common activity. Leadership involves the utilization of techniques of direction in the governance and management of an enterprise. (p. 47) In a study undertaken for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and published in 1974. Cohen and March described the American college administrator's leadership role a bit differently. In fact. they referred to it as "ambiguous leadership" (p. 148). These writers asserted that the major features of the college presidency need to be understood in the context of the peculiar characteristics of the American university as an organization. They contended that the university belongs to a class of organization which they labeled "organized anarchies." Quoting from Cohen. March. and Olsen (1972. p. l). Ecker (1979). writing in the Bs11s1_g£_flighsn_fidnsation relative to "Administration in Higher Education: Making the Most of Ambiguity." discussed the general properties of an organized anarchy as (l) problematic preferences (the goals of colleges and universities are vague); (2) unclear technology (its own processes are not understood by its members); and (3) fluid participation (who will participate and in what ways?) (pp. 23-30). Because the president of a university is asked to provide leadership in an organizational setting of organized anarchy. that leadership role is ambiguous. How can leadership be effective when the goals are unknown? How can leadership be effective when the technology 74 is unclear? How can leadership be effective when participation in the enterprise is fluid? Cohen and March (1974) concluded: "When goals and technology are hazy and participation is fluid. many of the axioms and standard procedures of management collapse" (0. 213). In a final chapter the two writers sought to suggest that leadership in an organized anarchy might be enhanced through certain "rules": spend time on major issues. persist. exchange status for substance. facilitate participation of opposition. undertake various projects. manage unobtrusively. and interpret history with flexibility (pp. 195- 229). Undaunted by the concepts of "loose coupling" (Weick. 1976) and "organized anarchy" (Cohen & March. 1974). Ecker (1976) argued for a leadership capable in. and tolerant of. ambiguity. He turned to Hedberg. Nystrom. and Starbuck (1976) for their guidelines for making the most of ambiguity. In their article entitled "Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization." these writers offered six aphorisms--six minimums or fulcra--on which organizational processes should balance: (1) cooperation requires minimal consensus; (2) satisfaction rests upon minimal contentment; (3) wealth arises from minimal affluence; (4) goals merit minimal faith; (5) improvement depends on minimal consistency; and (6) wisdom demands minimal rationality (p. 41). Ecker concluded: The imagery of colleges and universities as organized anarchies and loosely coupled systems emphasizes the ambiguity inherent for leadership and administration in these organizations. The role of the academic leader may be seen as defining the organizational balance points for the six minimums of seesaws. This is no easy 75 task. A consensus sufficient for today's organizational cooperation may dissolve under the press of tomorrow's environment. Academic leaders need to be able to utilize the ambiguity of college and university goals to justify changes in organizational activity appropriate to the changing environment. We need to try new programs rather than equating existing--and perhaps outmoded-- programs with the ends they are intended to serve. The seesaw of minimal rationality is most troubling to the administration trying to cope with the realities of the day-to-day business of higher education. The key here is recognizing that organizational efficiency must be a subordinate goal and accepting that reality. in order to foster organizational creativity. It is so much easier to try to fine-tune existing programs in the name of efficiency than to test which new ventures hold promise for the future. Leaders in organized anarchies and loosely coupled systems need to be comfortable with ambiguity and. indeed. to convey optimism about its potential. (p. 30) Selznick's (1957) perspective. more in the vein of Millett's. countered this seeming "tongue-in-cheek" view of "ambiguous leader- ship!‘ He viewed an institutional leader as one who "is primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values" (p. 28). In his volume. subtitled "A Sociological Interpretation." Selznick observed that The executive becomes a statesman as he makes the transition from administrative management to institutional leadership. (p. 4) Leadership sets goals.. . . Leadership creates and molds an organization embodying--in thought and feeling and habit--the value premises of policy. Leadership reconciles internal strivings and environmental pressures. paying close attention to the way adaptive behavior brings about changes in organizational character. (p. 62) What. then. is the role of leadership in higher education? From the writers already cited and others (Barnard. 1938. pp. 226-27; Etzioni. 1964. pp. 36-37; Burns. 1978. pp. 19-21; Gardner. 1961. pp. 123-26). the following can be summarized: (1) to develop and maintain a system of communication; (2) to induce cooperation; (3) to elicit the interest. zeal. and loyalty of members of the organization; 76 (4) to view the organization as a whole and deal effectively with a variety of specialists; and (5) to raise the standards of the organization and the sights of its members (Corson. 1979. p. 13). In short. leadership is the process of encouraging. motivating. and facilitating the decision-making process by which basic policies and purposes are determined (governance) and the performance process by which goals are attained (managementh Its impact--be it positive or negative--is most readily apparent in the climate of an organization. 3. .Administnation. With the perspective of the various models of university gov- ernance. as well as the related concepts of governance. management. and leadership. a foundation exists upon which to clarify administration as the coordinating mechanism for handling and directing the ambiguity of higher education through the processes of governance. management. and leadership. Indeed. administration is the overall process whereby these three are synthesized. balanced. and implemented in facilitating the dynamic "interface" between the various aspects of the college or university enterprise. As Millett (1980) wrote. This linkage is the means whereby management operations--both those of output programs and those of support programs--are joined to the decision-making structure and process. and the means whereby action is taken on purposes. policies. programs. and resources. (p. 111) The model in Figure 2.4 (adapted from Jones's [1981] "Organiza- tional Universe") offers an overview of the role and interrelationship between these concepts--coordinated within the function of administra- tion. 77 ENVIRONMENT Board Clients/Customers o l’-‘-‘ ,"’-.\\ l’-.‘ winors ,’ " " ‘- x /-a’ “-.__‘ sum‘.“ : CLNIATE \ I. Morale . 1 Funding f.-. 7"” g. ' U--\ mm” ' F m STRUCTURE ‘. Government .’ ' m ' 099""9“ ' Regulatory t--' I ' I l 3 Howard : Reporting , x 9' la“ ““te. " Optimism System i Relationships ’ ‘ ~, ”is... ... \ , ’ Authenticity) \ .t." s ‘ I I ’1 Corresponding .: ‘*++e++,‘:‘ ,’ Ex (COOP. rating) : 000000000... “T‘+s“ Communication ‘s F ‘2‘” Organizations ,' Accountability ( \ amt Y ' Clarity 5 tom “‘YALUES .' Networks ‘\\ A y, 00000000" 50990" I i I \ Competition. 2 o-’ ' Assertion 1. Community W09 \ Norms Decision-Making Organizations ‘. I Procedures Risk Taking \. : Collusion J : ~ : Accrediting ‘ . - - q ‘ Tension . - ‘ :2. Unions .‘ Confrontation :' ‘\ n- s I - ~ \ O l . ~ - I I \‘ ’ , - . .- ‘ Organizational - - s c 20:00:: Prassure Associations ‘ Associations xxxxx primary focus of governance ooooo secondary focus of governance ..... primary focus of management ----- primary focus of leadership *++++ secondary focus of leadership Figure 2.4.--Administration and the organization: a process of handling and directing ambiguity through governance. management. and leadership. (Adapted from Jones. 1981. p. 162.) 78 Historically. administration has always been looked to for its coordinating and coping function between the various facets of higher education. In the Carnegie Corporation's study of the decision-making process in colleges and universities. conducted by John Corson (1975). the major finding was that there existed an "organizational dualism" in academic governance between management decision making and faculty decision making--a dualism coordinated by HEA. Millett (1962) offered a somewhat different interpretation. He suggested that there are four constituencies in the academic community: the faculty. the student body. the administration. and the alumni. Millett's (1974) argument was that "the vitality of any given academic community depends upon the capacity of these four constituencies to achieve a workable consensus about purposes. objectives. and programs" (pp. 11-12). He went on to document that the long history of American higher education. recounted by such authors as Brubacher and Rudy (1958). Rudolph (1962). and Veysey (1965). has established administration as dominating the decision making among the four groups. This domination. Millett (1974) contended. resulted from administration being "the critical force that developed the philanthropic underpinning for American higher education" and being the only structural device competent to cope with the variety of objectives. the diversity of schools. colleges. and other academic units. and the complexity of activities that developed in the American university after 1900 .. . the authority of administra- tion was the only force providing any sense of unity amid all this diversity. (p. 12) Thompson. in probing the nature of organizations. underscored this coordinating/coping function of administration within higher 79 education. In his work WW (1967). he asserted that the fundamental problem confronting organizations is uncertainty and that coping with uncertainty is the very foundation of administration. Millett elaborated: The label "administration" is more appropriate for a college or university. because the task of administration is to facilitate. not to manage. the preservation. transmission. and advancement of knowledge.. . . Administration is essential to the maintenance of the academic community as an environment of learning. A college or university cannot function. or would not long be able to. without the specialized and full-time endeavor of those who seek to free the energies of faculty and students for the pursuit of learning. (1962. pp. 179-80)) Administration is a structure and process whereby an enterprise determines and performs the work outputs it is expected to achieve within the available resources provided and in accordance with the techniques of direction employed. (February 1974. p. 4) Newman (1950) succinctly defined administration as "the guid- ance. leadership. and control of the efforts of a group of individuals toward some common goal" (p. 4). Clarifying this role and perspective of administration even further. Millett described three major objectives or functions of administration in his 1962 work. These are (l) to provide educational leadership and to cultivate an image of the college or university; (2) to augment and to allocate the scarce economic resources of the college or university; and (3) to maintain the college or university as a going. viable enterprise. (p. 180) And. in a paper presented to the Center for the Study of Higher Educa- tion (April 1969). he added another: "to ensure that the university fulfills its social obligations" (p. 18). He stated: 80 Administration in a university seeks to provide the leadership within the academic community which constantly reminds the constituent groups that service to society is the price of society's financial support of the university. (p. 18) These perspectives offer clarification regarding the purpose or function of administration but little about the nature of adminis- trative process. And. as Newman (1950) wrote. "unless we can dig into the what and how of administration. it will remain an elusive ability acquired by the fortunate few through inheritance. intuition. or cir- cumstance" (p. 4). To accommodate the "what and how." Newman offered six basic administrative processes: 1. ‘Elanning--that is. determining what shall be done. As used here. planning covers a wide range of decisions. including the clarification of objectives. establishment of policies. mapping of programs and campaigns. determining specific methods and proce- dures. and fixing day-to—day schedules. 2. .Qnganizing--that is. grouping the activities necessary to carry out the plans into administrative units. and defining the relation- ships among the executives and workers in such units; 3. Assomonnomocosuthat is. obtaining for the use of the enterprise the executive personnel. capital. facilities and other things needed to execute the plans; 4. .Dinscting--that is. issuing instructions. This includes the vital matter of indicating plans to those who are responsible for carrying them out. and also the day-to-day personal relationship between the "boss" and his subordinates; 5. .Contnolling--that is. seeing that operating results conform as nearly as possible to the plans. This involves the establishment of standards. motivation of people to achieve these standards. comparison of actual results against the standard. and necessary corrective action when performance deviates from the plan; 6. WWnperfoming the tasks/responsibilities that cannot be delegated. e.g.. external contacts. political appearances. etc. (pp. 4-5) 81 Litchfield (in Baldridge. 1971) "dug into" administration and emerged with two separate--though related--aspects: administrative process and administrator activities. The former--administrative process--he contended is composed of Dacisignzmaking. We are aware. of course. that decision-making. on the one hand. may be rational. deliberative. discretionary. and purposive; and on the other hand. it may be irrational. habitual. involuntary. and random in character: However. insofar as it is rational. deliberative. discretionary. and purposive. it is per- formed by means of five major steps: definition of the issue. analysis of the existing situation. calculation and delineation of alternatives. deliberation. and. finally. choice. . . ; fflxuugumming. Decisions become guides to action after they have been interpreted in the form of specific working plans. projects. and methods that will achieve the objective which the decision represents; Communication. We are not speaking of all forms of communication here. for that is a larger subject. We are referring. rather. to that aspect of communication which is concerned with communicating a programmed decision to those of whom action is required. .QQDILQl. All action required by a programmed and communicated decision is more nearly assured if specific standards of perform- ance are established and subsequently enforced. A combination of the setting and enforcement of standards is. in fact. "control"; .Boaoonaisal. Decisions. even correct ones. have limited validity. The facts upon which they are based change. The goals which they serve will vary. Indeed. every decision in itself so changes the situation in which it was made as to create a new situation which will ultimately require a revision in the original decision. For all of these reasons. a decision is no sooner made than it is necessary to reappraise it. In reappraisal the process then runs full circle. and the whole group of activities begins again. This might well be referred to as the dialectic of the administrative process. (pp. 152-53) And the 1atter--administrator activities--Litchfield proposed as threefold: .Enooano_oolicx. Here the administrator is concerned with defining the objectives that guide the actions of the whole enterprise or significant portions thereof. In doing so. he is making a 82 decision. designing a program. developing a strategy of communica- tion. devising a system of controls. and preparing the opportunity for reappraisal; Managmsoutcss. Five resources are available to him which he must organize and allocate and husband in every way possible. These resources are people. money. materials. time. and authority. He manages them to the end that he may realize the institutionus objectives or its prepared policies. In doing so. he makes decisions about where he will Obtain these resources and how he will allocate them. He lays plans or prepares programs for securing the personnel. the material. or the dollars from the source decided upon. Likewise. each of the other steps in the cycle is performed in full or cursory fashion with reference to the acquisition. the control. or other aspects of the management of any one of these five resources; .Exoouto_oolioy. Here we are concerned with relating resources to policy and actually setting in motion the whole complex of objec- tives and resources. ‘The performer of the process now has a pre- pared plan and the resources with which to carry it out. In setting it in motion. there are many things that he (or the administering group) will do: They will include providing the enthusiasm which is necessary to carry the policy forward and the constant interpre- tation both of prior decisions and the relationship of actual experience to policy. The administrator will need to keep the various parts of the enterprise developing in relation to time and in reference to one another. He will be constantly concerned with the interaction between the organization and its environment and with the modifications and adaptations which that interaction requires in organizational policy and behavior. He will need to resolve inevitable areas of conflict. both within the enterprise and between it and the environment within which it functions. In some instances. his own performance will be necessary to provide examples to his colleagues or his staff. and he must constantly review it in terms of the standards previously determined. (pp. 153-54) Blake. Mouton. and Williams (1981). focusing more specifically on the responsibilities of the administrator. offered ten activities that are "dealt with in one way or another by academic administrators": 1. Establishing and implementing an implicit or explicit mission and administering the activities that result; 2. Supporting the teaching and learning process; 3. Establishing and supporting the curriculum; 4. Creating a climate for high-quality research; 5. Encouraging service to the university and community and beyond; 83 6. Acquiring and distributing financial resources through budgetary management; 7. Managing the academic personnel function; 8. Coordinating student affairs; 9. Managing external relations in order to secure and maintain the allegiance of various outside groups; and 10. Maintaining the physical plant and basic operations to provide necessary support services. (p. 30) And. in perhaps the most succinct--if not profound and prophetic--of statements. Millett.(l974) offered two fundamental essen- tials as the "proper exercise of administration": widespread consulta- tion and effective communication. He wrote. Presidents and their associates must listen carefully to the vari- ous interest groups within the academic community. and to the extent deemed reasonable and consistent with basic purposes. to accommodate these interests. To this end. consultative bodies of all kinds . . . should be given access to all desired information. provided with all available choices. and afforded an opportunity to express their points of view. Furthermore. because the consulta- tive machinery is at its best representative. communication of problems and decisions. with the reasons for them. must reach all individuals who make up the academic community. These individuals may be only partially interested. and they may not hear or read the communication addressed to them. But the effort at communication remains indispensable. (p. 25) Such is administration--a multi-faceted. multi-opinioned process charged with the task of coordinating the enterprise of higher education in all of its ambiguity and uncertainty toward the accomplishment of its mission and charged with the challenge of balancing decision making. direction setting. policy enforcing. governance. management. leadership. participation. communication. etc.. within an organization which by its very nature is fluid and dynamic. It is. for this investigator and for the purposes of this study. the Comprehensive process depicted in Figure 2.4 (p. 77). It is viewed as the "guardian of the connections" between the many facets of the 84 enterprise of higher education in the process of translating purposes and resources into mission fulfillment. And. in short. it is the premise of this study that OD--if adapted--can aid this "guardian" in increasing the effectiveness of those "connections." Sumarx In a most perceptive statement. Oppenheimer (1955) encapsuled the tenor of the latter half of this century when he wrote. In an important sense this world of ours is a new world. in which the unity of knowledge. the nature of human communities. the order of society. the order of ideas. the very notions of society and culture have changed and will not return to what they have been in the past. What is new is new not because it has never been there before. but because it has changed in quality. One thing that is new is the prevalence of newness. the changing scale and scope of change itself. so that the world alters as we walk in it. so that the years of man's life measure not some small growth or rearrangement or moderation of what he learned in childhood. but a great upheaval. . . . To assail the changes that have unmoored us from the past is futile. and in a deep sense. I think. it is wicked. We need to recognize the change and learn what resources we have. (pp. 10-11) It is this "need to recognize the change and learn what resources we have" that undergirds this study. In the past. stability meant the maintenance of the status quo; now it means the maintenance of an organization's functioning in such a way as to include processes of planned change. Surely it is incongruous--if not completely contra- dictory--for education to "spring from the interplay between the individual and a changing environment" (Toffler. 1974. p. 13) while educational organizations ignore their own interplay with such an environment. 85 00 offers a resolve. It offers a means--and has been effectively utilized--to break down the staunch resistance to change that is characteristic of highly bureaucratic organizations. Such a "break down" does not result from overt attack but from the careful integration of 00 interventions within the substantive activities of the organization. Herein. those involved in planning and implementing OD interventions share the challenge and responsibility of this "care- ful integration"--thus changing behavior and attitudes. and thus influ- encing individual and organizational effectiveness. It has been the intention of the investigator to review litera- ture in this chapter from both the perspectives of 00 and HEA as they address the notion of planned change. To accomplish this review in an orderly fashion. the concept of 00 was expanded from the definition offered in Chapter I. the premise of 00's pertinence to the needs of today's higher education was grounded. the need for adapting 00 to higher education was explored. the rationale for integrating such a concept within HEA was supported. and HEA itself was explored beyond the definition offered in Chapter I. Numerous voices--both from OD and from HEA--have lent support to the notion of integrating OD and HEA. Many have warned against grafting 00 on to HEA as a "packaged response" (Smith et al.. 1981; Levine. 1978; Chamberlain. 1979; Mintzberg. 1979; Gold. 1981; Weisbord. 1978; Goodstein. 1978; Patten & Vaill. in Craig. 1978; Beckhard. 1969; Burke. 1982; French & Bell. 1978; Huse. 1975); a few have jumped from the warning to specific adapted 00 programs (Smith et al.. 1981; 86 Schmuck et ah” 1977; Hammons. 1982); yet. the literature discloses no evidence of a reasoned procedure for the integration process--a process which is essential to 00 effectiveness and higher education compati- bility. In short. the literature offers statements of "intended desti- nation" (adaptation) and examples of "those who arrived" (actual OD efforts in higher education which are offered as packaged responses). It lacks. however. the "map"; ins. it lacks the guide for thinking through the application and understanding the dynamics of applying 00 to higher education (integration). Such understanding is critical to the function of effective HEA as it faces the challenge of "making change plannable and manageable" (McLean et al.. 1982. p. 95). CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY In Chapter I. the purposes of the study and its significance were explained. Chapter II broadened the foundation of that significance through a review of pertinent literature from the fields of organization development (00) and higher education administration (HEA). The purpose of this chapter is to present the necessary information and procedural guidelines and directives which are identified for conducting a study of this nature. Major topics include (1) design of the study; (2) research questions; (3) models: definition. theory. and use; (4) models: advantages and disadvantages; and (5) conclusion. Dosion_o£_the_Stu.dx The objective of this study. as stated earlier. is to compare analytically the literature of 00 with the literature of HEA as the basis for developing an integrative and descriptive model wherein 00 is explored as a strategy for managing the institutional change crucial to today's American higher education. To accomplish this objective. the study proceeded along the following steps: Stsp_1. Pertinent literature in the field of 00 was examined in search of a consensus regarding the basic premises. values. and 87 88 goals of 00. 'The literature included that which was consistently cited (and/or recommended by OD professionals) as fundamental to the 00 field and which had been published since l958--when the field clearly began to focus on systems and objective results for its efforts (Bennis. 1966). Consensus of basic premises. values. and goals was determined through rational analysis. comparison. and synthesis of the OD perspec- tives considered. The derived consensus is presented in Chapter IV as the basis for the comparative analysis. _StsLZ. Pertinent literature in the field of HEA was examined in search of a consensus regarding the basic premises. values. and goals of HEA. 'The literature considered included that which was consistently cited (andflor recommended by HEA professionals) as fundamental to the HEA field and which had been published since 1955. (Dressel [1974] asserted that higher education has emerged as a field of study only since the mid-1950sJ Consensus of basic premises. values. and goals was determined through rational analysis. comparison. and synthesis of the HEA perspectives considered. The derived consensus is presented in Chapter IV as the basis for the comparative analysis. Stsp_3. With the consensus derived from Step 1 (OD) and from Step 2 (HEA). a comparative analysis was developed (see Chapter IV) by exploring the relationship between (a) the basic premises of 00 and the basic premises of HEA. (b) the values of 00 and the values of HEA. and (c) the goals of 00 and the goals of HEA. 89 Stsp_i. Insofar as the foregoing comparative analysis was developed for the purpose of synthesizing the components into an integrated descriptive model (see Chapter V). the most crucial task of this study--that of model building--was essential creative. Herein. to guide and give conceptual basis for this task. a framework for model building (definition. theory. criteria. purpose. advantages. and disadvantages) was established from model theory and model-building literature (see pages 9h-103). ,fitsp_5. Utilizing the framework of model theory. a model was developed from the comparative analysis of 00 and HEA. including proce- dural guidelines for its application/implementation by higher education administrators. Deutsch (1967) characterized conceptual model theory as having four. more or less distinct. functions. These are (a) the organizing. (b) the heuristic. (c) the predictive. and (d) the measur- ing or mensurative. For the purpose of this study. in». description. the "organizing function" is the most appropriate. and hence crucial. Deutsch wrote. By the organizing function. is meant the ability of a model to order and relate disjointed data. and to show similarities or connections between them which had previously remained unperceived; to make isolated pieces of information fall suddenly into a pattern. (p. 339) Questions. then. that the model seeks to answer through its descriptive function of clarifying and organizing are: --On the basis of compared basic premises of OD and HEA. where is there theoretical compatibility? Incompatibility? --On the basis of compared values of OD and HEA. where is there theoretical compatibility? Incompatibility? 90 --On the basis of compared goals of 00 and HEA. where is there theoretical compatibility? Incompatibility? W. The resulting model was then presented to three separate panels of experts for their critique. Submission of the model and its guidelines included a cover letter. an abbreviated explanation of the model's purpose and evolution. and a guide for panelists' critique (see Appendix B). Each panelist was asked to review and critique the model and its guidelines from his particular perspective (00. HEA theory. or HEA practice) in accord with the model's purpose. Specifically. panelists were asked to address the issue of clarity (were the model and its guidelines understandable?). the issue of validity (were the model and its guidelines congruent with their under- standing and perspective?). and the issue of improvement (what sugges- tions might they offer to strengthen the model and its guidelines?). Composition of the three panels was determined as follows: EanaLI. Four experts in 00 were identified and their willingness secured to review and critique the model and guidelines. Criteria for expertise on Panel I included (a) recognized contribution to a professional association of OD (00 Network. American Society for Training and Development. National Training Laboratories. University Associates. etc.). (b) authorship of often-cited publication(s) in the field of 00. and (c) consulting or professional experience in the field of 00. Panel I members included: Dr. Warner Burke. Professor of Organizational Psychology. Teachers College. Columbia University; Former Executive Director of Organi- zation Development Network 91 Dr. Leonard Goodstein. Chairman of the Board. University Asso- ciates; Diplomate of the American Board of Professional Psychology; Former Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychology. Arizona State University Dr. Anthony Reilly. OD Consultant; Former Director of the Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan Dr. Walter Sikes. Executive Director. Center for Creative Change; Former Program Director for NTL Institute and Dean of Students. Antioch College .Eans1_ll. Four experts in the theory of HEA were identified and their willingness secured to review and critique the model and guidelines. Criteria for expertise on Panel II included (a) present or recent (within five years) tenure in a reputable graduate program in HEA. (b) recognized contribution to a professional association of HEA (American College Personnel Association. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. etoJ. and (c) authorship of often- cited publication(s) in the field of HEA. Panel II members included: Dr. David Borland. Former Professor of Higher Education. North Texas State University Dr. Paul Dressel. Professor Emeritus of University Research. Former Professor of Higher Education. Michigan State University Dr. George Kuh. Associate Professor of Higher Education. Indiana University Dr. Robert Shaffer. Professor Emeritus of Higher Education. Indiana University .Eans1_111. Four experts in the practice of HEA were identified and their willingness secured to review and critique the model and guidelines. Criteria for expertise on Panel III included (a) current or recent (within five years) presidency or vice-presidency of a col- lege or university of recognized standing. (b) tenure in office of not 92 less than five years. and (c) perspective representing each of four types of higher education institutions: a university administrator. a community college administrator. a private college administrator. and a private church-related college administrator. Panel III members included: Dr. Ward Kriegbaum. Vice-President for Academic Affairs. Wheaton College. Wheaton. Illinois Dr. Gunder Myerin. President. Washtenaw Community College. Ann Arbor. Michigan Dr. Charles Ping. President. Ohio University. Athens. Ohio Dr. Patrick Smith. President. Nazareth College. Nazareth. Michigan For further information regarding the selected panelists. see Appen- dix C. .Stsp_1. The responses of the panelists were synthesized and recorded in Chapter VI. All responses provided by the panelists were collected. organized. and considered for model revision. This activity was accomplished through clustering panelists' comments according to panel (00. HEA theory. HEA practice) and issue (clarity. validity. improvement). Comments appearing more than once--either per panel or issue--were utilized for revision; however. those comments appearing only once. while considered. were included or excluded from revision in accord with the model's internal logic as determined by the investi- gator. Stsp_8. The final revised model along with implications of the study and recommendations for further research were developed and presented in Chapter VII. Lippitt (1973). drawing from the work of both Bross (1968) and Borko (1967). 93 indicated that the evolution of a successful model generally follows the pattern represented in Figure 3.1. Md u : H 'e Concept Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation world formation 7 A J ------------ --—-i----- -1-—-—--— "l— '— j v j v 1 Dcductive i:: wood Modal. hkoehz Mood?) em. ————— —i ————c-i ——-—— —-—-i;— -——— L—d;-————}——— Real Data New data New data New data —-——* world ‘ Figure 3.1.--Evolution of a successful model. This study. as outlined above. follows such an evolution. 1973. p. 32.) (From Lippitt. Specifi- cally. the design of the study can be viewed in the adapted version of Lippitt's (Bross's and Borko's) model found in Figure 3.2. iivufcfiww‘ Concept ' EVALUATION I E I vs . : va ua ion ' wORLD formation Chapter VI 7 A Evaluation ' _____________ _L __l -5 . . F r Dedua'" > HODEI. 1; MODEL 2; Mod 1 3 ‘ world i——*‘ Chapter V (trigger 9 e C. ----- --——qL—-—___ ---——_ ————-——_ R i Y ——1 ea inn“ imwtnmr world commune PANEL or' New "3'3 New data i——J Anusrs- mens- ‘——-—- Chapter IV Chapter VI Figure 3.2.--Design of the study: An adaptation of Figure 3.1. 94 Wow Several question clusters were formulated to provide a framework for the comparative analysis of Chapter IV. and consequently. as the basis for the model of Chapter V. ‘These question clusters were as follows: 1. What are the basic premises of 00? What are the basic premises of HEA? And how do the basic premises of 00 compare with those of HEA? 2. What are the predominant values of 00? What are the predominant values of HEA? And how do the predominant values of 0D compare with those of HEA? 3. What are the predominant goals of 00? What are the predominant goals of HEA? And how do the predominant goals of 00 compare with those of HEA? WWW Several writers have explored and theorized about the develop- ment of models. Much of their writing. though. is nongeneric; i.e.. it explores and theorizes about models within specific contexts (cyber- netics. mathematics. organizations. information systems. eth rather than models as models per so. In a review of the literature relative to model building. the investigator made an effort to extrapolate those ideas and concepts that were relevant to model building per se and to the development of a model useful to HEA. The material in this section 95 and the next section (Models: Advantages and Disadvantages) offers a synthesis of this effort. Man visualizes what will happen and tries to cope with what he visualizes. Present sense experience is related to prior visualization so as to improve prognosis for the future. In other words. "the behav- ior of man is not only dependent upon knowing what is happening now but also upon having in mind a representation of what is going to happen next" (Lippitt. 1973. p. 30). This is the realm of models--the abstracting of reality into a representation while retaining the rele- vant and viable characteristics of reality in order to enhance manks perception. and hence. his problem-solving ability. A model. then. is always an approximation. usually a simplification. and hopefully an aid to insight (Borko. 1967). Authors Lippitt. Massie and Douglas. McFarland. Buffa. Haynes and Henry. Albanese. Rudwick. Morris. Bertalanffy. and Vemuri have defined models. respectively. as follows: A model is a symbolic representation of the various aspects of a complex event or situation. and their interrelationships. A model is by nature a simplification and thus may or may not include all the variables. It should include. however. all of those variables which the model-builder considers important and. in this sense. models serve as an aid to understanding the event or situation being studied. The true value of a model lies in the fact that it is an abstraction of reality that can be useful for analytical purposes. In a way. models are analogies which problem-solvers use to clarify their thinking about a relatively complex presentation. (Lippitt. 1973. p. 2) Models are simply abstractions of real-world situations. (Massie & Douglas. 1977. p. 257) 96 A model is a way of representing a situation or set of conditions so that behavior within it can be explained. Understanding. pre- diction. and control are enhanced in the real situation if it can be explained in terms of the model. (McFarland. 1974. p. 201) Models are invariably abstractions to some degree of the actual systems for which we wish to predict performance.(Buffa. 1963. p. 9) Models are abstractions from reality that capture important rela- tionships. allowing the analyst to understand. explain. and pre- dict. The purpose of a model is to represent characteristics of a real system in a way that is simple enough to understand and manip- ulate. and yet similar enough to the more complicated operating system that satisfactory results are obtained when the model is used in decision making. (Haynes 8. Henry. 1978. pp. 12-13) A model is an abstraction of reality. Its purpose is to improve understanding and/or prediction of the reality being modeled. .. . Modeling is a valuable managerial skill. Its essence is in abstracting only those components of reality that are important to the model's purpose. (Albanese. 1975. pp. 106-107) A model can be defined as an explicit representation of some phe- nomenon or problem area of interest. including the various factors of interest and their relationship. and is used to predict the outcome of actions. ‘Thus. a model is some analog or imitation of a real world. (Rudwick. 1973. pp. 48-49) By the broadest possible definition of the notion. a model is an attempt to impose a conceptual order on the perceptual confusion in which experience first comes to us.. . . Everybody works with schemes for organizing the data of experience. but these schemes must be made explicit. their vagueness reduced to the point where they can be written down and expressed in a language that allows one to talk about them and teach them. As has been suggested. it is not entirely necessary that all the concepts in a model be opera- tional in a strict sense. It is necessary. however. that the model produce some predictions both verifiable and interesting in the context of management decision. (Morris. 1963. p. 83) A theoretical model is a conceptual construction reflecting in a clear simplification manner. certain aspects of a natural phenome- non and permitting deductions and predictions which may be tested. In a wider sense. any scientific theory may be regarded as a con- ceptual model. In a narrower sense. a model is an auxiliary con- cept illustrating certain relations and facilitating working with them. .. . Substantive models relate elements of the system under investigation to corresponding similar elements in a known system. (Bertalanffy. 1975. pp. 104-105) 97 There are great and viable differences between theories and models. A theory could state that the subject matter has a structure. but it is a well-conceived model that reveals the structure. A model can be constructed as a specific form of a theory. .A model is a representation of a system. it is the interpretation that a scientist gives to observed regularities and facts. One should keep in mind that facts remain unchanged. but models change. . . . In a descriptive model the attempt is to describe an observed. organized complexity or regularity. without necessarily seeking recourse to an explanation for the observation made. Description is the first stage of rationalization. generalization. and theory building. expressed in a native language. (Vemuri. 1978. pp. 66. 67. 69) Drawing from these definitions. a descriptive theoretical model (the objective of this study) is a structure of symbols and operating rules which purport to match a set of relevant points (00) in an existing structure or process (HEA) (Deutsch. 1967). In this. the model built in this study is a means of representing a situation or set of components to that their relationship within it is describable (McFarland. 1974). Through the integrative considerations of 00's and HEA's basic premises. values. and goals. the resultant model is all the more faithful to the fundamental purpose of models--that of aiding problem solving. In this case. the model enhances problem solving in today's higher education on two counts: it makes OD--with its problem-solving focus--accessible. and through exploring integrative considerations. it clarifies the potential problems of applying 00 to HEA. Buffa (1963) succinctly put the purpose of models in perspective when he wrote. Models are bases of the prediction systems. and are vital to the formal decision making process. Indeed. they are vital to an intellectual attack on any problem. Models come to us from scientific methods. the scientist attempts to duplicate. in some kind of a model. the behavior of the system or subsystem with which he is working. Once he has achieved this parallelism between the 98 real phenomena and his model. it is usually easier to manipulate the model to study its characteristics in which he is interested than it is to try to work with the real phenomena or the system in question. (p. 9) In order to understand complex processes. then. models are made. The only alternative to their use would be to consider the complex process with all of its interrelated complexities directly and completely. This is improbable. if not impossible. Indeed. "the very construction of a model. as a scientific procedure. is founded on the belief that there can be order and reason in the mind. if not in the real world" (Borko. 1967. p. 39). Deutsch (1967) clarified that Each model implies a theory asserting a structural correspondence between the model and certain aspects of the thing supposed to be modeled. It also implies judgments of relevance; it suggests that the particular aspects to which it corresponds are in fact the important aspects of the thing for the purposes of the model makers or users. (pp. 337-38) In exploring the performance criteria of a model. Deutsch contended that three considerations are essential for evaluating the "correspondence between the model and . . . the thing supposed to be modeled"; originality. simplicity. and realism (p. 339). Originality is. according to Deutsch. an issue of "improbability": Any idea. scheme or model may be thought of as the product of the recombination of previously existing elements. and perhaps of a subsequent process of abstraction omitting some of the traces of its combinational origin. The greater the probability or obviousness or triteness. of a model. the more frequent is this particular recombination in the ensemble of combinatorial possibilities at the immediately preceding stage. Originality or improbability is the reverse of this value. (p. 339) Simplicity. Deutsch's second criterion. is a matter of economy of means. Deutsch compared it to efficiency in economics when he contended that efficiency in economics denotes the attainment of a 99 given result with the greatest economy in the employment of these means which are shortest in supply at each particular time. place. or situation. The last criterion. reality. has to do with the degree of reliance which is placed on the model. representing some approximation to physical reality. (p. 339) Lippitt (1973) offered yet two additional sets (lists) of criteria for evaluating a model: How accurately can the model explain actual observations of the system or situation being studied? i How accurately can one predict reactiOns and outcomes by using the model? How well does the model fit similar situations? Basically. this is a measure of generality. How much new insight or understanding of the system or situation does the model provide? (pp. 87-88) Lippitt's second list. taken from Thompson and Van Houten (1970). contends that the model should be designed for the kind of problem being faced. should make no more assumptions than are absolutely neces- sary for the level of understanding desired. and. when two or more models appear capable of handling a problem. be the simpler one (p. 88). Clearly. all of these lists have points in common--si mplicity. accuracy. flexibility. clarity and paucity of assumptions. and applica- bility. These characteristics of an effective model offer guidance for the building of the model found in Chapter V and the revised model found in Chapter VII. lOO ModelsLAdiLanizacoLanLDIsadnntaoos As with most activities and situations of the real world. models have advantages as well as disadvantages. In searching the literature to ascertain what these are. the investigator found that many of the theorists presented similar concerns and endorsements regarding models. In order to enhance the reader's understanding and scrutiny of the model developed in this study. a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of models is presented below. The advantages serve to enhance the appeal of this study; the disadvantages serve to put the reader and investigator "on notice" to proceed with caution. Bross (1968) contended that the advantages of models include (1) their remarkable record of prediction in the past history of mankind. (2) their use as a frame of reference on which to "hang the problem." (3) their usefulness (even when a failure) for suggesting fruitful avenues of research. (4) their simplification of the problem by employing only the significant attributes abstracted from the real world.(5) their use of symbolic language for both manipulation of the model and for the purposes of easy communications. and (6) finally. their economical approach to the costs of prediction (pp. 330-31). Lippitt (1973) summarized the advantages: (1) Models allow experimentation without risk. (2) Models are good predictors of system behavior and performance. (3) Models promote deeper understanding of the system. (4) Models enable the determination of the relative significance of various factors. (5) Models indicate the type and 101 amount of data which should be collected and analyzed. (6) Models enable consolidation of the problem situation as a whole (pp. 79-81). Chinn (in Bennis et al.. 1961) offered five advantages: -The model provides "mind-holds" to the practitioner in diagnosis. -A model lessens the danger of overlooking the indirect effects of a change of relationship. -The identification of and analysis of how tension operates in a system are by all odds the major utility of system analysis for practitioners of change. -A model can be used for a diagnosis of persons. groups. organizations and communities for the purpose of change. -A model can provide directional focus for analysis and action and a temporal frame of reference. q» 421) Chin noted that the behavioral scientist by constructing a simplified model can analyze his thoughts and concepts. and see in turn where the congruities and discrepancies occur between these and actual events. In this way. the behavioral scientist becomes at once the observer. analyzer. and modifier of the system of concepts that he is using. So it is for any model builder. Model theory. then. offers clear description of the advantages of models. It also documents their disadvantages which give cause for care and caution in their development and use. Bross (1968) indicated these disadvantages of models as: -the tendency toward oversimplification; -the limitations of symbolic language; -the dangers inherent in abstraction (e.g.. the all too human tendency of model builders to reify their brain children--to look upon their models not as representatives of the real world but as 102 being identified with it. When a model does not fit the real world it is the model that must give way. and not the other way around.); and -the lack of guaranteed applicability and pertinence during the model-building process. (p. 331) Lippitt (1973). in exploring both the art and science of model building. argued for "the essential consideration . . . and the skill [for] abstracting from the real life situation those elements required to analyze. synthesize. and conceptualize" (pp. 81-82). Even so. a model. he contended. is still subject to encounter "pitfalls and disadvantages resulting from both its creation and its subsequent use": -A model may induce one to overgeneralize a situation. -The temptation arises to make the situation fit the model rather than trying to fit the model to the situation. -The relationships between the variables in a model. or the nature of the constraints. may be incorrect or misleading. whereby the model could lead to unproductive research or conclusions. -A model may not be properly validated or understood. As such. some work or effort could be expended on an invalid model or certain factors may be overlooked. -Model-building may divert useful energy into non-productive activity. -Modeling might produce oversimplification. -A model may have no intrinsic means of evaluation. -Modeling requires conceptual ability and a modest degree of sophistication. neither of which is always readily available. (p. 82) In addition to these eight "pitfalls or disadvantages." Lippitt offered five concerns in the application of models: -Models neglect many pertinent factors in the systems they represent; 103 -Graphic technicalities often affect the validity of the model; -Models are often over-complicated by excessive detail; -Restricted models are sometimes used where they are not applicable; and -The model builder has a tendency to optimize his own criteria. and therefore. bias his model. (pp. 82-83) In light of these advantages and disadvantages. as well as the scope of model theory itself (definition. theory. and use). it is clear that model building and model using are hardly casual matters. The reader and the investigator are forewarned. Conclusion A bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this. that the architect raises his structure in imagina- tion before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labor process we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the laborer at its beginning. (K. Marx. in Lippitt. 1973. p. 73) Such has been the intention of this chapter--to explain the "structure raised in the imagination" which is the design of this study and which is the substance of model building (the goal of the study). Herein. this chapter offers a delineation of the two methodological perspec- tives that ground this study: the model (design) of the study. and model building per se. Through both--the design of the study and the resulting model--the study offers a structure for thinking through the problem of integrating 00 within HEA.and provides a conceptualization (model) for visualizing. analyzing. and intuiting an answer. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Numerous examples. metaphors. and similes can be assembled to document the critical nature of the "degree of fit" between two entities if an effective collaboration is to result. 'The innate wisdom (or moral) of each readily points not so much to a "surface" fit as to a "root" fit: 15 there "fit" in the way the two entities view the world (basic premises)? Is there "fit" in what the two entities affirm as important (values)? And is there "fit" in the direction the two entities are headed (goals)? In this chapter. the investigator's primary objective is to delineate and compare the basic premises. values. and goals of organization development (OD) and higher education administration (HEA) to determine the nature of "fit" between the two of them at this critical "root" level. To accomplish this objective. each of the three areas--basic premises. values. goals--is examined and comparatively analyzed for both 00 and HEA from the perspective of their respective literature. Herein. the literature of OD is both prolific and specific regarding such "root" considerations. while the literature of HEA offers substantially less specificity and volume. This inequality is evident-~though managed--throughout the chapter. 10h 105 Basic.Enemisos.o.f_QD_and_liEA In his monograph. Inojtouotumoijciontiflgflexolutions (1970). Kuhn explored the nature. evolution. and demise of paradigms. Herein. he contended that a paradigm is a framework laced with basic premises--sets of assumptions about the way the world really is from which hypotheses. models. and theories grow. Basic premises. then. reflect the untestable "beliefs. hypotheses. or assumptions about the world. oneself. people. contingencies. eth'(Bolman in Adams. 1974. p. 271). In short. the question of basic premises for this study is "upon what set of assumptions about the way the organization and its people are does 00 (and HEA) stand?" From a synthesis of the fundamental literature of 00 and HEA1 in regard to assumptions and beliefs. two general categories emerge: basic premises about people (organizational members) and basic premises about organizations. Both of these are examined below. BasiLELemisoLnoouLBeopJo WW Rejecting the view of humankind as basically bad and incorri- gible. 00 views people with "bounded optimism"; i.e.. "man can become 1The enterprise of higher education. as clarified in Chapter II. is a composite of two systems: the educative system which carries out the primary mission of the organization (instruction. research. and public service) and the service system which supports/"serves" the educative system. Generally speaking. the educative system is staffed by specialty-related professionals. whereas the service system is staffed by job-related employees. Administration. then. plays two roles: to the educative system it is a collegial "first among equals" and to the service system it is "hierarchical managementfl' Fer the purposes of this study. the focus is on the former for it is this uniqueness that sets higher education apart from business and industry. 106 less imperfect" (Golembiewski in Adams. 1974. p. 85). Herein. 0D avoids the "either-or" definition of human nature. of man as good or bad. rational or irrational. As Greening (1964) wrote. in pressing for a "both-and" concept of human nature. One school of thought holds that man is basically good. self- actualizing. and cooperative. if only we can help him let down his barriers. On the other hand. there are those who argue that man is basically an amoral. irrational animal who must be kept in check by external restraint and a self-deluding veneer. Personally. I pre- fer the position I once heard Martin Buber take in a discussion with Carl Rogers: "Man is basically good and badJ'(p. 21) Basic. then. to 00 is the view that an organization's members are both rational and irrational (good and bad). HEA. on the other hand. makes the assumption that people (faculty) are rational. If presented with enough information (facts). they will understand. c00perate. change. etc. (Olmosk in Pfeiffer 8. Jones. 1972. p. 166). As Stoke (1967) wrote. "Administration in higher education is nine-tenths explanation. . . . Never underestimate their intelligence [faculty]. nor overestimate their information" (pp. 23. 27). . Certainly this view. this elevation of rationality. has its roots in the Cartesian dualism of mind and body out of which the academic professions emerge. Once man is subdivided. it is a matter of Course to prioritize the parts--a process that posits the mind (the cognitive) with the greater value. It follows then that "faculties" (understood semantically both as learned persons and as special abilities) would be. and are. developed in and rewarded for cognitive Special ization. Herein. the learned human resources of higher 107 education (faculty) are not only viewed as rational and rewarded as rational but view themselves as rational. To speak otherwise or to address them otherwise is to affront a fragile. albeit critical. academic pride. The interface between OD and HEA at this juncture is then tenuous. In areas of rationality. there is congruence; in areas of irrationality. it may well be a matter of a "special aide" (OD) informing the "emperor" (HEA) regarding his lack of attire. Stoke (1967) warned at this point that "relationships which have overtones of superiority and subordination beget sensitivities very quickly and academic pride probably suffer from more than their share of sensi- tivity" (p. 27). W. In addition to viewing humankind as rational and irrational. OD assumes that insofar as the act of valuing is what distinguishes humanity as a species. it is critical to human functioning. Indeed. "all behavior action is [viewed as] val ue-based" (Greiner in Burke 8. Goodstein. 1980. p. 321). The valuing process. then. is considered by CD to be an essential component in individual and organizational effectiveness. OD's role is to redress a balance between both the individual and the organization so that a working integration of both's values can be maintained. The literature of HEA is congruent with this valuing of values; however. it places greater emphasis upon individual values (faculty Values) with lesser emphasis on integrating such values into an overall Organizational culture (Bowen. 1982). The latter focus is left to the 108 all-too-often unapplied philosophical rhetoric of convocation and commencement addresses (Wallis. 1975). It is noted. however. that the role and importance of institutional values may well be increasing due to decreased faculty mobility from one institution to another and the increased concern for institutional uniqueness in a competitive market place. Wm Consonant with its nondualistic view of man. OD views humankind holistically. i.e.. including feeling. The individual is a unified being that functions on multiple levels simultane- ously: emotional. physical. intellectual. interpersonal. social. and spiritual. These levels are considered to be intimately and synergistically interrelated. and actions on any one level are accompanied by actions on all others. 'There is a life flow in the human being on all these levels. an energy that flows through cycles of motivation. preparation. performance and consummation. When these energy cycles are interrupted. physical blocks lead to physical illness. emotional blocks to underachievement. social blocks to incompatibilities. and spiritual blocks to postponement of the realization of the total person. Removal of the blocks is a therapeutic task; however. development of the energy cycle--in an organizational context--is the task of DO. (Schutz. 1972. p. xviii) This holistic perspective is particularly distinctive in that it maintains that the affective domain (feelings. attitudes. emotions. eth is integral and significantly interrelated within the reality of (human existence and performance. It is in this context that French and Bell (1978) contended that "suppressed feelings and attitudes adversely affect problem-solving. personal growth. and Job satisfaction" (p. 32). Further. insofar as feelings/emotions are implicit value-responses and humankind is fundamentally valuing. the affective domain is a critical 109 source of information for understanding the essential value base of the "human side -of enterprise." Huse (1975) wrote. "When feelings are seen as important data. additional avenues for improved leadership. communi- cation. goal-setting. intergroup collaboration and Job-satisfaction are opened up" (p. 24), The philosophies of higher education are unsettled regarding this holistic focus. Philosophers such as Newman (1959). Veblen (1968). Flexner (1968). and Hutchins (1943) have supported a university model that seeks to develop man's cognitive ability (detached and abstract). Dewey (1967) and Whitehead (1968) "pressed more for man's ability to apply (experiential and concrete). Regardless. the dualism of cognitive versus affective (detached versus experiential) still exists in higher education with the bias toward the cognitive being 01 early stronger. Students are taught how to think (or what to think. depending on the institution) by faculty who have achieved some measure of "thinking" expertise (M.A.. Ph.D.. Ed.D-.. etc.). Further. the rewards (grades. degrees. appointments. prestige. advancements. etc.) available throughout the entire system of higher education are attained through cognitive accomplishments. Ideas. thoughts. and concepts are valued over feelings and often to the suppression. if not exclusion. of feelings. As Levi (1969) wrote. Universities and colleges have kept alive the tradition of the life of the mind. They have continued the traditions of culture and rediscovered cultures which had died. They have inculcated an appreciation for the works of the mind. developed the skills of the intellect. emphasized the continuing need for free inquiry and discussion. the importance of scientific discovery and the need to bring logic to bear on the non-rational. (p. 69) 110 For higher education and HEA. people are fundamentally cognitive. Students are a part of the organization to be developed in their cognitive skills; faculty are part of the organization because of their developed (and continually developing) cognitive skills. Holism is merely a theoretical construct; cognition (the intellect) is the primary Wadi. The interface between OD and HEA at this Juncture. then. is tenuous. Certainly cognition is included within the concept of holism; however. for many academics there is a suspicion that holism is a form of the affective bias disguising itself in order to compromise the supremacy of intellectual development. The work here. as with the fi rst premise. will be in the careful facilitation of academics beyond dualism--a work aided by society's current pragmatism and existential humanism which are calling into question the relevance of exalted rationality. WW Woman: The fourth basic premise of DD is that people are social beings in need of reference groups. French (in Plovnick et al.. 1982) con- tended that "most people wish to be accepted and to interact coopera- tively with at least one small reference group. and usually with more than one group. e.g.. the work group. the family group" (p. 182). Groups, then. are highly important to people and afford the context wherein most people satisfy their needs. And. specifically. the work groupuincluding both peers and supervisors-~15 one of the "most 111 psychologically relevant reference groups for most people" (Plovnick et al.. 1982. p. 182). In the realm of higher education. organizational members (faculty) are more independent and individualistic than social. Millett (1980). in examining the relationship between faculty and concepts of management and power. wrote: The faculty profession tends to be a profession of individualists. Even when exhorted to indulge in faculty collective bargaining as a protection against the fears and anxieties aroused by managers. governing boards. governors. and legislators. faculty members retain their innate disposition to be different one from another. (p. 199) Certainly the academically "sacred" concepts of autonomy and academic freedom further the nonsocial individuation of faculty. Personal/ professional independence is often valued over interdependence even when the price is alienation and loneliness. Indeed. what few social needs the faculty do have are sublimated within one's particular insti- tution and are reinforced across one's particular discipline. Millett wrote: For most faculty members the closest professional relationships do not occur within a particular academic community but across college or university boundary lines. . . . It is often said that faculty members have a major loyalty to their discipline or professional field of knowledge rather than to the college or university in which they practice their profession. To a considerable extent this observation is valid. The very nature of the academic profes- sion with its emphasis on specialization promotes this sense of scholarly rather than local or community identity. (pp. 70-71) Corson's (1975) depiction of academic governance clarified further this nonSocial nature of higher education. He wrote: In considerable part the decision-making pattern is founded in the belief that the department (and the college) is a "community of scholars" whose members are studying. inquiring. teaching. and 112 exchanging ideas. experiences. and opinions among each other. In practice each faculty member has a Job to do and a life to live. and he goes about it. He relies on his colleagues to mind their classes. their articles. and their consulting and to allow him to mind his. The specialization of an individual's interests deters interchange. and few institutions provide mechanisms that bring teachers together for intellectual (as distinguished from administrative) interchange. (pp. 104-105) HEA. then. views its people as independent individuals--a cxompany of scholars engaged in the fundamentally personal endeavor of 'instruction. research. and service. Herein. the concept of academic freedom and the resulting position of full autonomy are predicated on tflie belief that such will automatically result in the best possible performance for individuals and the institution. Clearly. the two basic premises of interdependence versus autonomy seem to be antithetical at least and tenuous at most. And it is the tenuousness that is gaining strength in the current state of frigher education. As Boyer and Crockett (1973) wrote. The current economic depression of higher education with the implied loss of faculty mobility and prolonged institutional tenure suggests the need for a shift by faculty toward more institutional identification. (p. 244) 'Triis move. along with the pressure of accountability and the research on retention (Smith et al.. 1981). is bringing HEA to more seriously consider the social climate of the organization. WW £32141291a1 The fifth basic premise focuses on the participative nature of °"Qanizational members. OD holds that people are indeed participative. the "people support what they help to create" (Beckhard. 1969. p. 27). 113 Hackman and Suttle (1977) undergirded this premise with three sub- assumptions: -People learn best from their own experience. For this reason change comes about from opportunities to experiment [partici- pate] with new ways of doing things; -The quality of the solution improves when people who are part of the problem participate in shaping the final solution; and . -People can only become self-directed in creating change when they have learned to take responsibility for change. (p. 391) The literature of HEA is consonant with the concept of participation (usually referring to it as "collegiality"). Indeed. it 'is the very core of both the rhetoric regarding the nature and function of being a "community of scholars" as well as the purpose of academic and student governance. From a theoretical viewpoint. Corson (1975) a rgued that if an enterprise is to enlist the creativity. enthusiasm. and collaboration of its members. these individuals must have a sense of participation . . . they must be assured that their voices will be heard by those who make the decisions that affect their work lives. (p. 59) I11 exploring a participatory form of administration and its impli- cations for higher education. Nichols (1982) proposed that "Theory 2" has much to offer academic management by facilitating both decen— ‘trflalization and participation. He wrote: Decision-making processes are purposely slow [and are] aimed at gathering facts. seeking opinions. discovering relationships. and building a consensus that gives the decision. once made. a real chance for successful implementation. (p. 72) At the level of basic premise. then. OD and HEA are congruent regarding the participative nature of people as organizational members. 114 Whether the participation be politically or democratically motivated. it is a basic premise of both. W W The last basic premise regarding people involves the nature of their growth and development. OD contends that people are growth- prone. that they have need for. and drives toward. personal growth and development. and that these needs/drives are most likely to be actual- ized in environments which are both supportive and challenging (Huse. 1975; French 8. Bell. 1978). Herein. the potential for increased effectiveness and continuing development of organizational members is 1 i fe-l ong and contingent--at least to some degree--on the environment Created within the organization. HEA. on the other hand. has tended (with the exception of Sabbatical leaves1) to ignore the training and development of its ol"9anizational members (Millett. 1972). This situation is rooted in the belief that the scholar who attains the doctor of philosophy degree will engage in continual scholarship and teaching and thus will grow in understanding and in the capacity to gntegaret and transmit what he knows [on his own]. (Corson. 1975. HeVein. HEA propounds the rhetoric of life-long learning while organi- za‘lt‘ionally abdicating any directive or environment-creating role in its \ 1It is noted that sabbatical leaves of absence are viewed and Q"‘anted more as a privilege than as a right or expectation. and then. 0111 y if the individual faculty member submits "a plan for a significant p"Ogram of accomplishment during the leave" (Fortunato & Waddell. 1981. p. 311). The onus of responsibility is on the individual faculty mem bar. It is further noted that amid increasing financial stringen- " es throughout higher education the existence of--and encouragement °P--even this form of faculty development is in jeopardy. 115 regard. Organizational members (faculty) are presumed to be self- motivated. self-directed. and self-responsible in terms of continuing their own growth. Corson (1975) continued: These beliefs are closely associated with a prime attraction to the academic profession--the right of self determination or. in other words. freedom to fulfill responsibilities in ways that the indi- vidual determines to be appropriate. These beliefs effectively limit or deny the department chairperson's or the senior profes- sor's right to supervise or to develop. even though these indi- viduals must make decisions as to the effectiveness of the individual. (p. 104) HEA. then. is a complex mix of the rhetoric of life-long learn- ing. the belief that such learning is the individual's responsibility as indicated by the doctoral degree. and the not-innocuous semantic of such a degree as "terminal" (for some it is "terminal" in terms of degrees; for others. in terms of growth). Clearly the interface between HEA and OD at this point is congruent in theory and rhetoric though tenuous in practice. WM Wed The literature of OD is generally in agreement that organiza- 1Z‘lons are fundamentally goal-directed. Beckhard (1969) contended that "Organizations. subunits of organizations. and individuals continuously Manage their affairs against goals. Controls are interim measurements “01: the basis of managerial strategy" (p. 27). Hence. the vitality and effectiveness of an organization are directly related to the values th at system's members place in the goals of the organization. The or‘ganization's goals form the glue which holds it together. 116 The literature of HEA. on the other hand. is anything but consistent in this regard. To some of the more philosophical (Trueblood. 1959; Whitehead. 1968; etc.). the goals of higher education are clear though ideological. To others (Cohen et al.. 1972; Weick. 1976; Hedberg et al.. 1976). the organization of higher education is characterized by diverse. pluralistic. idiosyncratic. and ambiguous goals and goal structures. Cohen et a1. (1972) described the "organized anarchy" of higher education as characterized by "problematic preferences": In the organization it is difficult to impute a set of preferences to the decision situation that satisfies the standard consistency requirements for a theory of choice. The organization operates on the basis of a variety of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences. It can be described better as a loose collection of ideas than as a coherent structure; it discovers preferences through action more than it acts on the basis of preferences. (p. 1) P1 ainly put. the goals of colleges and universities are vague and Provide little direction for clear decision making. Weick (1976) argued that higher education is a "loosely COUpled" system insofar as its goals. technologies. and decision-making Processes are unclear. Hedberg et a1. (1976). acknowledging the ambi- guity of organizational goals in higher education. argued for a "Camping on the Seesaws" of minimal consensus. They wrote: "An organization can extract advantage from both consensus and dissension $1l'nultaneously. Balance implies that consensus does not become regi- meI'Itation. and dissension does not become warfare" (p. 56). In short. goals can be vague. even conflicting. A minimal consensus is all that 13 needed for cooperation. 117 The literature. then. and the reality of higher education c1 early place stronger support on the side of goal vagueness and ;>1 t1r~alism. The "glue" of higher education is then not its goals; ranittier. it seems to be its myth. Ecker (1979) wrote: The loose coupling of structure to activity to the results of this activity [higher education] is provided by "logics of ~confidence." Education becomes an appropriately credentialed faculty member teaching a subject legitimated as part of the curriculum in an accredited institution. Therefore it must work. Those involved in higher education rely on a series of assumptions. The board of trustees has confidence in the president who has confidence in the faculty. etc. None of these parties "can see what the other does but the plausibility of their activity requires that they have confidence in each other" (Meyer & Rowan. 1975. p. 28). Meyer and Rowan argue that the "myth of professionalism" is the most visible aspect of the logics of confidence binding "schooling" to instruction and to learning in educational organizations. The task of educational leaders then is to see to it that confidence is justified-~or restored. This is no easy task. (pp. 26-27) Amid a pluralism of goals. then. the organization of higher education is not goal-directed. At best. it is goals-directed and thi s. only to the extent that its myth keeps the goals viable. Funda- "fltaritally. then. the organization of higher education is myth-directed. FWJt‘ther. HEA is faced with the challenge of either revitalizing the _ "'Yth or--in facing a pragmatic society that is less enamored with Piieatoric and more demanding of result--clarifying a clear goal. ReaQardless. the application of OD to HEA at this point is tenuous. Wins Wm A second basic premise of 00's view of the organization is that they are open systems. Fagen (1956) defined system as a "set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between 118 their attributes" (pp. 18-28). Bertalanffy (1968) referred to a system as a set of "elements standing in interaction" q» 34). Kast and Rosenzweig (1974) defined it as "an organized. unitary whole composed of two or more interdependent parts. components. or subsystems. and delineated by identifiable boundaries from its environmental suprasystem" (p. 101). In summary. French and Bell (1978) contended that the system concept of an organization denotes interdependency or interaction of components or parts. and an identifiable wholeness or gestart . . . Systems in operation (active systems). such as organizations. can be viewed as a linkage of input flows (energy. material. information) from sources in the external environment. a transforming mechanism (a machine or a technical-human organization) and flows of outputs or outcomes. provided to users. (pp. 38-39) This perspective of the organization as an open system recognizes it as a field of interaction forces and transformation processes rather than as a two-dimensional battlefield of forces for change and forces for resistance. Indeed. changes in any one subsystem (social. technologi- cal. or managerial) will affect and be influenced by other subsystems (Plovnick et al.. 1982; Huse. 1975; Katz 8. Kahn. 1966). Further. as Plovnick et a1. (1982) contended. Improved performance stemming from organization development [OD] efforts needs to be sustained by appropriate changes in the appraisal. compensation. training. staffing. and task- specialization subsystem--in short. in the total personnel system. (p. 182) Changes in individual and system functioning (knowledge. attitude. procedure) must be accompanied by change in the organizational constraint and/or contingencies that shape behavior. In short. the 119 welfare and quality of work life of all systems and all system members are valued. To do otherwise is to ignore the wisdom of "the weakest link" metaphor. Giving focus and summary to the perspective of HEA. Ecker (1979) wrote that the systems approach to understanding organizations focuses on the organization's exchange of energy with its environment (Katz 8. Kahn. 1966). Organizations viewed as systems are tightly coupled when goals and technologies are clear. and participant involvement in decision-making is predictable and substantial. By contrast. educational organizations are loosely coupled systems (Weick. 1976; Meyer 8 Rowan. 1975). (p. 25) By "loose coupling." Weick's (1976) viewpoint conveyed the image that coupled events are responsive but that each event also preserves its own identity and some evidence of its physical or logical separateness.... . Loose coupling also carries connota- tions of impermanence. dissolvability and tacitness. all of which are potentially crucial properties of the "glue" that holds organi- zations together.. . . Loose coupling lowers the probability that the organization will have to—-or be able to--respond to each little change in the environment that occurs. Huh 3-6) To refer again to the "weakest link" metaphor. in OD the organizational chain is tight and each link depends on the strength and placement of each other link; in HEA the organizational chain is loose and each link has some degree of freedom of movement in it; A "weak link" in the OD organizational chain affects the entire organization. whereas a "weak link" in the HEA organizational chain may not affect-- nor be as readily detected in--the organization. This looseness maintains the characteristic responsiveness of an open system while offering the advantage of permitting organizational innovation in one part without risking the whole. As Fredrickson (1978) wrote: 120 Institutions of higher education must be responsive . . . need to move with the changing interests of students. the shift in employ- ment supply and demand. and the growth and decline in disciplines and professions [not to mention the input of legislatures. federal agencies. foundations. parents. alumni. community groups. etc.]. We need a kind of fiscal gyroscope that somehow keeps the institu- tion balanced between sundry demands for responsiveness and long range demands for stability. (p. 15) On the other hand. such looseness does limit the capability of the organization to achieve standardization where standardization might be desirable for educational democracy (Weick. 1976. pp. 6-8). Further. loose coupling may offer a more sensitive mechanism for responding to environmental change while at the same time it may prevent the diffusion of useful adaptations from one part of the organization to the rest of the organization. As Weick (1976) wrote. "While the system may contain novel solutions for new problems of adaptation. the very structure that allows these mutations to flourish may prevent their diffusion" (p. TL The interface. then. between OD and HEA at this point is tenuous. Both view organizations as open systems; however. HEA must contend with an organization that is loosely coupled. Wm W115 A third premise in 00's perspective of organizations is that they are transactional. Insofar as organizations are systems of interdepending and interacting components. the collaborative nature of transactions within and among the components is critical to organizational effectiveness. if not existence. Beckhard (1969) wrote that "an always relevant change goal is the reduction of inappropriate competition between parts of the organization and the development of a 121 more collaborative condition" (p. 26). Herein. organizations can become more adaptable. self-renewing. and effective through improved transactional or collaborative dynamics (trust. support. cooperation. conflict resolution. win—win strategies. communication. inter-team relations. team building. problem solving. leadership. eth (Schmuck et al.. 1977). | The literature of HEA. on the other hand. characterizes higher education organizations as having low task interdependence among groups and between individuals and being essentially a pluralistic set of subsystems with diverse goals and goal linkages. .As Boyer and Crockett (1973) wrote: Departments and colleges tend to go about their activities in relative isolation from other units except on issues related to budget and schedule. Individual faculty design. conduct. and evaluate their teaching without extensive consultation with col- leagues. fostering an organizational pattern which is more like a collection of individuals than an integrated team working toward a common set of educational goals. (p. 343) Organizationally. then. higher education--while valuing a collegial climate in theory--is in reality less than transactional. Indeed. as presently functioning. the lack of a clear goal in higher education minimizes the accountability process which supports the need for transactions. Hence. the interface between OD and HEA at the juncture of internal transactions between individuals and units is tenuous. However. it should be noted that the rhetoric of higher education in terms of integration is clearly congruent with a more transactional climate. Furthermore. with the rise of consumerism among students. the deepening concern for retention on most campuses (Smith 122 et at. 1981). and the growing focus upon the student (with his/her competencies) as product. the various facets of higher education may well be forced into a greater accountability which will support/ necessitate effective transactions. For integration to happen and result in an integrated student. the heretofore autonomous/independent aspects of higher education must develop the scope and process of their interdependence. Wallis (1975) wrote: What really unites members of the academic profession is not an interest in one another's scholarship; it is our common participa- tion in the mechanism of intellectual heredity: we are the ana- logues of chromosomes in physical heredity; Our duty is to perpetuate the stability of tradition coupled with the potential for changing tradition; to transmit a corpus of orthodoxy coupled with a technique for constructive dissent from orthodoxy. (p. 75) If the power of such rhetoric does not inspire interdependence. then the growing pragmatic need for "unity within to whip the competition without" will (Nichols. 1982. p. 72). WW Wu The fourth basic premise regarding organizations that emerges from the OD literature is that they are fundamentally participative. Beckhard (1969) contended that the basic building blocks of an organi- zation are groups (teams). Therefore. the basic units of change--the focus of OD--are groups. not individuals. Herein. the composite work of an organization is characterized by overlapping. interdependent work groups--"linked" in the function of supervision. Leadership and decision making. on the other hand. are viewed as functional within each group. Plovnick et a1. (1982) wrote: 123 For a group to optimize its effectiveness. the formal leader cannot perform all of the leadership functions in all circumstances at all times. and all grouplnembers must assist each other with effective leadership and member behavior. (p. 182) The participative nature of leadership is further supported by the contention that the most effective decision making is that which is located where the information sources are. rather than in a particular role or level of hierarchy (Beckhard. 1969). The literature of HEA is clearly supportive of a participative view of the organization. Indeed. as Nichols (1982) wrote. "no organization in America makes more use of committees than the college or university" (p. 72). However. according to Nichols (1982). there are five obstacles to real participation: 1. Although higher education management appears to be highly participatory. it is not. The appearances are deceptive. Much of what passes for democratic management is simply disorganization; 2. [There is] a lack of participatory-leadership models in higher education. Academe seems either to suffer from very indecisive leaders or. like the business world. to employ chief executives who see themselves as "Lone Ranger" bosses who are paid to make the tough. quick decisions; 3. [Higher education] is not used to group decision making. Deci- sion by majority vote is the pattern in faculty organizations [mixing] the authoritarianism of the Lone Ranger with the "majoritarianism" of the faculty. Voting tends. by its very nature. to focus on academic interest groups rather than pro- duce an environment in which people's best ideas are heard and valued. 4. There is confusion over who is responsible for quality control in academe. Most faculty members prefer that the responsi- bility rest in the hands of the individual professor. linked to academic freedom. which is antithetical to the group-centered processes of participatory management. Academic departments . . . tend to represent vested interests of faculty disciplines rather than the educational product delivered to students. Therefore. they usually function as advocates for competing interests rather than advocates for quality; and 124 5. There is the problem of "product." There is little agreement on what our product is. Some identify it with major programs. others with disciplinary research. others with a particular kind of graduate. still others with a type of teaching pro- cess. a learning environment. or something peculiar to a particular institution. (p. 72) Obstacles notwithstanding. the literature of HEA is clearly supportive of a participatory (collegial) organization. The support is philosophical (Veblen. 1968; Flexner. 1968. eth. ideological (Trueblood. 1959). as well as practical (Smith et al.. 1981). To the latter. Smith et a1. (1981) wrote: On the subject of participation. there is a loud chorus of consen- sus. Accepting accountability includes meaningful participation in decisions that directly or indirectly affect that accountability. Invitations to . . . and opportunities for . . . participation can be expected to be met with active and sustained involvement and are essential to effective student retention. (p. 9) W W The final basic premise that completes OD's perspective of organizations is that they are improvable. It is fundamental to DD tniat organizations can do better and that the lives of those who irihabit organizations can be better. Plovnick et a1. (1982) asserted that "synergistic solutions can be achieved with a much higher frequency than is actually the case in most organizations" (p. 182). Huse (1975) and French and Bell (1978) contended that organizational members are capable of taking on more responsibility for their own actions and desire to make--and are capable of making--a higher level of cxantribution to the attainment of organizational goals than is Permitted in most organizational environments. Therefore. the job 125 design. managerial assumptions. organizational structures. practices. leadership. reward systems. etc”. frequently "demotivate" individuals in formal organizations. Indeed. the culture of most organizations tends to suppress the expression of feelings and attitudes that people have about each other and about where they and their organizations are heading. Huse (1975) warned that "when feelings are suppressed. problem-solving. job satisfaction. performance. and personal growth are adversely affected" (p. 23). Plovnick et a1. (1982) added. Viewing feelings as data important to the organization tends to open up many avenues for improved goal-setting. leadership. communication. problem-solving. intergroup collaboration. and morale. (p. 182) In addition to the contention that organizations can be improved in the area of member contribution. OD also contends that the very structure or design of an organization is improvable. Huse (1975) wrote. Many "personality clashes" between individuals or groups are functions of organizational design rather than of the individuals involved [and] organizational structure and the design of jobs can be modified to more effectively meet the needs of the individual. the group. and the organization. (p. 23) To OD. the organization is always improvable. The literature of HEA maintains a similar perspective on higher education organizations. Rhetoric regarding the "pursuit of excellence" and "improving quality" is numerous and articulate. HEA does seek to maintain--while improving-~the quality and efficiency of organizations of higher education. At least the language of such a goal exists in the literature (Bowen. 1982; Gardner. 1961; Corson. 1975; Trueblood. 1959). As Stoke (1966) wrote. "The responsibility is 126 not merely one of maintaining but of improving quality. for inherent in the very concept of education is the notion of improving everything. including itself" (p. 31). Such are the assumptive bases upon which OD and HEA stand in relation to organizations and their members. Their interface is congruent at best and tenuous at worst. Figure 4.1 clarifies the comparison further. W A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally. socially. or organizationally preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. A value system is an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance (Rokeach. 1973. p. 5). In short. the question of values is: "Given OD (and HEA) what is important or preferred in the organization?" Discussion of value issues involved in organizational theory and the practice of administration have been addressed in the literature from time to time (Frost. 1980; Nord. 1978; Scott. 1978). But many. if not most. researchers have contended that there is something illegitimate about mixing value.judgments with social science. Efforts to avoid normative prescriptions seem to presuppose that administrative science can and should be value-free. Simon (1957) stated that "an administrative science. like any science. is 127 BASIC PREMISES OD a. -peOple are basi- {\\; E cally good and ‘\\E bad; rational and . . 'Deoplc (faculty) irrational. I are basically good and rational. l ,f’za /' l," ./1}. , j ) é / I y. ‘I I N :9" “I. !4!la / // -people are valuing. 4 f ~pe0ple (faculty) are valuing. ‘ 3% r-p / -people are holis- t1c--including both affective and cognitive parts. 'pcople (faculty) 3 are cognitive/ intellectual. ~97’lr w .24 ‘1 U- a / l r7 .2 ”1.7;, , /W’/ .47/ ’/" r I. n ~0rganizations are goal-directed. \ . -organizations are “ 1 K\‘ myth-directed. -organizations are :5\ open systems ‘. (tightly coupltd)- -organizations are open systems (loosely coupled). -people are social \ beings in need of ‘3l‘, -people (faculty) reference groups. (m are individual and 5 . independent in need of freedom -organizations are 9"" autonomy. ‘ characterized by critically trans- _ . -organizations are acting units. characterized by basically autono- ' I . n 75/, i “Q mous units. 6 x -pe0ple are r participative. i ;\ -people (faculty) are participative (collegial). r. .‘E/B‘IZ/{Z‘ \D p ”,v' I . ’ ,1 A; -organizations are participative. -organizations are participative (collegial). /‘ ,/ 7 a 57 /’/ °people are growth- prone within sup- portive environ- ments. '0 .r// r / / }/{ ., , ll 4‘ -pe0ple (faculty) are growth-prone as a matter of self-responsi- bility. fl ‘ 4" ’7’. _l' ~/ I ./ x U ; / -organizations are improvable. /q!%%% {.I -organizations are improvable. _- _- l I 1 1‘ ' I/I' , ’l/ /:/.'4./t Figure 4.1.--Comparison of basic premises of OD and HEA (T = tenuous; C = congruent). 128 concerned purely with factual statements. There is no place for ethical assertions in the body of a science" (p. 253). Such an ideal of non-normative science might be maintained if researchers merely collected factual statements in a random manner. However. facts are sought in an organized manner. And it is this organizing of facts that entails a normative orientation (Taylor. 1969). In this section. the investigator contends that both OD and HEA are val ue-laden. OD by its very name seeks to "develop" the organiza- tion toward some desirable point. It is "a process of applying knowl- edge from the behavioral sciences toward changes in an organization's culture so that individual needs and organizational goals can be inte- grated more effectively" (Burke in Michael et al.. 1981. p. 190). Such di rection is clearly normative. Bennis. in his OD text flaming mange (1969). wrote: "Value orientations color almost every Statement in the book. The best we can hope to do is make our values as explicit as we can" (p. 7). Burke (1982) wrote upon discussion of a nrmative versus contingent approach to OD: For me to assume that I can act as a val ue-free consultant. however. is pure nonsense. It is most important for me to work toward as much clarity of my values as possible and to declare these values relatively early in the consultant/client relationship. (p. 102) . 1Clearly this value propensity presents a dilemma for OD. There are those who argue for OD to be contingent. "to merely facilitate change. not focus it" (Burke. 1982. p. 98). In such a view OD becomes the "jack of all trades. or rather. changes" and as the tf‘uism continues. "...the master of none." If such were the case OD's 1:11: with HEA would be We established. However. it is the n<>rmative aspect of OD that is here explored and examined in relation to HEA. It is the very existence of its norms--in relation to those of HEA--that raises the question of "fit." In short. OD does not merely 129 HEA is also normative in that it seeks to coordinate and organize the enterprise of higher education by translating purposes and resources into mission fulfillment (see Chapter II). This view of both OD and HEA as value laden is not considered to be an indictment. Rather. values are considered integral to human existence wherein one does not become a more pure scientist or educator cn~ administrator or consultant by refusing to examine them (Hesse. 1978). Instead. knowledge is advanced by carefully weighing the choices. The premise of empi ricism that values are arbitrary is not we‘l l-founded. Some values arguably are better than others. Awareness crf ‘them and their interrelationships--in this case between OD and HEA-- is critical to bringing them within the scope of rational choice. 39.9.me Wis The "overarching and fundamental value" of DD is the matter of Choice (Schein 8 Bennis. 1965. p. 35). Bennis. in his text _Qmanjza; Wm: (1969). concluded that the basic value underlying all organization development theory and practice is that of choice. Through focused attention and through the collection and feedback of relevant data to relevant people. more choices become available and hence better decisions are made. That is essentially what organization development is: an educa- tional strategy employing the widest possible means of experience- based behavior in order to achieve more and better organizational choices in a highly turbulent world. “L 17) \ facilitate change. but rather. does so in a manner which prescribes V31 ues onto an organization and hopefully--ultimately—-within an o"ganization. 130 This critical regard for choice emanates from the view of humankind as good and bad whereupon conditions of fair treatment and respect-- "equality-fairness and equity-merit" (Burke. 1982. p. lOl)--it (choice) will be used for the "good." In short. the value of "choice" presup- poses a fundamental concern for human dignity and nonexploitation (Burke. 1971. p. 573). HEA. on the other hand. presumes "good" and "right" choices as a matter of rational deduction. It is a given that people are rational; therefore. the focus is on the clear presentation of knowl- edge and facts. Concern regarding "treatment" of people is subjugated to concern for "treatment" of data. 01 mosk's table (Table 4.1) elabo- rates this difference in the two orientations as they address change. Clearly the literature of HEA does not oppose concepts of choice. human dignity. and nonexploitation. It rather assumes them while devoting most of its attention to the rational management of information. Thus. for OD to be integrated within HEA. it will neces- sarily need to support itself with logic and facts in order to enable HEA to consider (rather than assume) issues of choice and human dignity within the organization. W WES“: mama: Consonant with its high regard for human dignity and "choice— fulness." OD holds the "explicitness of values as a value in itself" (Burke. 1971. p. 573). Herein. the clarification. examination. and integration of individual and organizational values is viewed as 131 .AN>m_o xmoe_o Hooc30m .mco_u_moo menum :_ o_aooa mmcoe_mu3o «oom3 on mu_3moc c.305m 30: emu—3moc u30£~ _ooc _ 0o 30: .mc_E3m:oo neck .mucoooc some to co_ucouum >ma 0u o_aouo mc_uuow .>mcoco mc_~___nox .mmc_cc_m m:_ucoeo_oe_ .co_umecowc_ ucm>o_oc m:_ucomoce .mom3mu mc_cc_u .>u__mco_umc ccm >20c0u3< .oocomumc ccm _mo_u>_mc< .om_ucooxo ocm omen—zocx o0N__m_ooom :0 comma .muumm ocm omoo_30cx mo :o_mmomm0o co comma .omcmco __~3 >onu .o_oooo ou moon» :m30co ucomoco 30> m. ._mco_umc 0cm o_oooa mucmu_3mcoo oo "mucou_3mcoo mco_um_oc :mE3: «mc_0o ocm 30> awn: zanx >__moc 30> oo ~u_ on :>__matz _ e.gosm so: :.>;mm3i>;m_3: mc_cmooam uoz .c00umcuoc3 c.0mu_ mc_xmz .o_n_mm0o mm co_umsc0cc_ :u3e mm mc_m= .:o_umcmouc_ _m3uoo__uuc_ ucm _mco_uoEu .oocoucoo co_um3u_m H35 umuuo_om .Emcu uoocmm p—mz mcommmuvfl m5“ sumfiz Ou become 0;» can coco—302x c0 comma .o_n_mm0a mm oouuocmm om05u mo >cmE mm m:_o3_uc_ co oommm .coc_3o0c >__m3m3 m_ monom0coam m0 co_umc_neoo < .uoc_scouuoco>o can xo_aeou ucm mem—note umoz >m cum: zmhmo hmo: ommmmxmmom mzo_hmm:d mzmumoxo u_zo¢:u h< oooo moumz u<:mm ou.umm< .omcmgo com mo_muumcum " coni._.: 0.3m» 132 relevant and important in considering organizational effectiveness as well as employee job satisfaction. Drawing on Theory Y assumptions that people are valuing beings and will exercise self-direction and sel f-control toward an organization's goals if they value said goals (McGregor. 1960). DD values the valuing process. i.e.. loyalty. goal- identification. commitment. etc. Indeed. OD holds that at the base of any human organization is a set of values which defines. or at one time defined. the reason for the existence of the organization. Further. to the degree that both consensus exists regarding those values and avenues are provided for employees to integrate personal values with those values. the work activity is likely to be marked with coopera- tion. coordination. and motivation. However. when these values are not held in common. the lack of consensus creates a tension that can preclude organizational effectiveness. Managers. organizational personnel may engage in empire building in order to further their careers at the expense of the coordinated functioning of the entire system. (Jones. 1981. p. 155) The value of values is then its role as interface in both individual effectiveness and organizational effectiveness. For the individual. values are that which distinguish humanity as a species; for the organization. values--articulated into goals--are the W. OD is committed to both. It maintains both a humanistic value orientation and a commitment to the achievement of an organization's objectives. The either-or dualism that pits the individual against the organization is not accepted as unalterable. but rather. is considered to be manageable at the critical values interface. For the individua1--a valuing being--knowing and acting on 133 his/her own values is the key to motivation. self-direction. job- satisfaction. and effective performance. For the organization--a goal- directed entity--such motivation. self-direction. GtCuvanSt be managed and measured against the accomplishment of organizational goals.(opera- tional statements of organizational values) in order for effective organizational performance to be attained. The practice of OD is based on this dynamic tension. It values values in and of themselves on the one hand and on the other. values the organization's goal attainment. Herein. the focus of values is restricted to those related to the achievement of organizational goals (Argyris. 1962. p. 43). With the exception of some of the smaller private institutions. HEA has all but abdicated its leadership in the area of institutional values (Sanford. 1962). Even as the development of curriculum is subsumed--for the most part--within the hiring of faculty. so also the values of an institution are--for the most part--1eft to result from the hiring. firing. tenuring. and retiring of faculty (Katz 8 Kahn. 1966; Levine. 1979). Indeed. such practices are the primary. if not the only methodology for implementing mission statements. However. this scenario may be changing. With an increasing crisis of confidence regarding the nature of the university in general and the values of its product in particular. many institutions are rediscovering. revitalizing. and reapplying their statements of mission. Chait (1976). describing the scramble of institutions amid economic decline in the late 1970s. wrote that many 134 "colleges [were] on the verge of mission madness" (p. 36). Perkins (1973) described the situation as universities have a "bad case of organizational indigestion because they have swallowed multiple and conflicting missions" (p. 247). The resolve to this "madness" and "indigestion" is a clarification. development. and utilization of organizational values and. necessarily. integrating them with the values of the faculty. 'The literature of HEA has historically valued the values of the faculty. and there was a time in the 1960s and 1970s when it was outspoken in terms of valuing the values of students. Little. however. has been written to clarify a process for integrating either or both within the organizational values (mission). In recent times there appears to be a move toward more than exalted yet vague educational platitudes. expressions of moral indigna- tion. statements of personal conviction. testimonials of student suc- cess. frantic overreactions to unanticipated crises. and the continual administration-faculty infighting in the area of values. Presently. there seems to be a serious probing regarding the purpose. function. and viability of higher education (Bok. 1982; Bowen. 1982). This focus on purpose undoubtedly will affect the "glue" of higher education. For either it will replenish the "myth of profes- sionalism" (Meyer 8 Rowan. 1975) which maintains some degree of cohesiveness amid goal diversity. or it will reduce the pluralism of goals. In any event. it seems clear that rhetoric alone will not appease the demands for accountability nor the need for restored 135 confidence. This time the myth will need to evidence itself in more tangible outcomes as well as processes. A pragmatic society will accept no less. ‘The movement from a focus almost solely on individual faculty values and individual faculty goal-attainment toward a concern for the organizational values. culture. and tangible mission is clearly in the direction of DO. W W From its holistic/humanistic base. OD views the organizational member as a whole being (thinking. feeling. valuing. growing. acting. interacting. self-actualizing. etcd. Specifically. the literature of DO argues for the valid and legitimate role of the affective domain as part of the whole. This is not to suggest that OD values the affective at the expense of. or instead of. the cognitive domain. Rather. with its roots in western culture. OD--by valuing the affective--seeks to balance the cultural bias toward the cognitive. thereby pressing for a more holistic understanding of man and his organizations. Burke (1981). in discussing the evolution of OD's values from roots in sensitivity training. wrote that people's feelings are just as important a source of data for diagnosis and have as much implication for change as do facts or so-called hard data and people's thoughts and opinions. and that these feelings should be considered as legitimate for expression in the organization as any thought. fact. or opinion. (p. 89) Numerous other OD authors have supported Burke's contention. For example. Argyris (1962) argued for the importance of owning one's attitudes. values. and feelings and helping others to own (experience) 136 theirs. Tannenbaum and Davis (1970) contended that OD's social con- tract supports a move "away from suppressing the expression of feelings and toward making their expression appropriate and their use effective" (p. 134). Work and life. then. are envisioned as being capable of becoming richer and more meaningful-~even as organized effort is cap- able of becoming more effective and enjoyable--if feelings. attitudes. and values are permitted to be a more legitimate part of the organization's culture (French in Plovnick. 1982; French 8 Bell. 1978). As explored earlier in this chapter. HEA views organizational members as cognitive. rational. and intellectual. It follows. then. that it values rationalism (order. predictability. stability. eth. Indeed. Rogers (1969) suggested that administrators tend to find it most difficult to reveal their feelings and attitudes as persons. college faculty come a close second. and students are further down the ranking therefore being more open to new experiences. Rogers indicated that the more prestige. status. and intellectual expertise a person has to defend. the more difficult it is for him to come into a real basic encounter with other persons. Certainly at a theoretical level HEA would accept the OD premise of holism (including the affective); however. to act on it. to integrate it into the functioning of administrative practice. is quite another matter. Hence. the integration process of 00 within HEA will need to move slowly in this area and with intervention processes designed to carefully negotiate academic pride. As Boyer and Crockett (1973) wrote: 137 If practitioners are correct in their notion that long-term. broad scale organization change can not occur without support of key administrators and influential faculty. then a major problem for the field is the invention of processes designed to gain their active support and involvement for experimentation and modeling of new behaviors. (p. 345) W IntegmuensuLEJsxibflJn W In viewing organizations as open systems. OD makes figural four distinguishing properties. Such organizations exist and develop through (1) an energy/information exchange_cygle importing matter-energy and information from their environment. converting that input into products. services and symbols. and exporting some of that throughput back to the environment to exchange either directly or indirectly for further inputs. (Cummings in Sherwood. 1983. p. 13) The (2) boundary of an open system is discriminating yet permeable. It serves to differentiate the system and its components from the external world. to buffer the system from external disturbances. and to manage exchanges with its environment. Open systems are also capable of (3) WWW while performing work. Cummings (in Sherwood. 1983) wrote: This dynamic form of equilibrium is referred to as a steady state. and systems maintain steady states by regulating their behaviors within limits considered necessary for survival and growth. . . . Organization systems. like all other systems. maintain their steady states through a cybernetic process of regulation and control. (p. 15) And (4) open systems are capable of reaching particular "steady states" from a variety of initial conditions and in varying ways. Referred to as "W. " 138 this property enables open systems to maintain a certain stability and constancy of direction despite changes in the environment. By moving from one steady state to another in a variety of ways. systems can continually adapt to environmental conditions while keeping their basic form or integrity intact.... . Equifinality suggests that there is no one-best-way to design organizations but that organizations should be designed so that they can alter themselves in different ways depending on the circumstances at hand. (Cummings in Sherwood. 1983. p. 17) Such concepts of open systems as "exchange." "discriminating yet permeable." "dynamic equilibrium." "cybernetic process." and "continually adapting" mandate a value of W. The "flexibility" enables the system to be open; the "integrity" enables the system to be a system. OD values such flexibility with integrity. In the organization it enables "development"; in the employee it enables "growth." For HEA. the organization's open yet "loosely coupled" system mandates as well a value of flexibility with integrity; however. the dynamics of both the flexibility and the integrity are qualitatively unique. The flexibility of higher education enables the organization to be responsive to changes in its environment without risking the whole. 64}. a curricular innovation can be tested in one part of the institution rather than throughout. The integrity of higher educa- tion. on the other hand. is in all probability a distinguishing trait of the institution. It emanates from the critical change-resistant structure of higher education. As Chamberlain (1979) wrote: This [change resistance] stems from a responsibility for pro- tecting a constituent sanctioned program from interference by unauthorized groups (i.e.. education for the professions). Failure to understand this trait at the onset of an attempt to improve organizational performance is to minimize the chance of success. (p. 234) 139 Indeed. the literature of HEA does not view universities as formal organizations as such (Riesman. 1958; Knapp 8 Goodrich. 1952; Barton. 1961; Woodburne. 1958; Corson. 1975). Rather their "integrity" emerges from their being viewed from one or both of two major perspectives: (l) as institutions. that is as being concerned with performing something essential for the society. such as educating the youth. passing on the cultural heritage. providing lines of upward mobility. and the like; [and] (2) as communities. that is. as providing "homes" or "atmospheres" in which persons may set their own goals. such as self-fulfillment. the pursuit of truth. the dialogue at the two ends of the log. and other traditional ivory- tower values. (Gross in Baldridge. 1971. p. 22) The value of flexibility with integrity. then. is that as a system higher education is able both to respond to its environment as a "sensitive sensing mechanism" while at the same time lowering "the probability that the organization will have to--or be able to--respond to each little change in the environment that occurs" (Weick. 1976. p. 6). Hence. "flexibility with integrity" mirrors the dynamic tension between responsiveness and stability that faces HEA (Frederickson. 1978). WWW Wm MW Insofar as 00 views people as social beings and the organiza- tion as comprised of critically transacting units. it follows that it values the competencies that enhance interpersonal effectiveness. Berrien (in Dunnette. 1976) wrote: 140 An organization is an integrated system of interdependent structures and functions. An organization is constituted of groups and a group consists of persons who must work in harmony. Each person must know what the others are doing. Each one must be capable of receiving messages and must be sufficiently disciplined to obey. (p. 43) Successful organizational functioning. then.--to the extent that it is contingent upon integration. interdependence. harmony. 6th"1S con— tingent upon interpersonal competence between organizational members and subgroups. In fact. the nature of the interpersonal process of transactions is a critical variable in organizational effectiveness. French (in Plovnick. 1982). in referring to this variable as both an 00 value and belief. wrote that "improved competency in interpersonal and intergroup relations will result in more effective organizations" (p. 183). And Tannenbaum and Davis (in Schmidt. 1970) saw it as a value that seeks to move the organization "away from a view of inter- personal and intergroup processes as being non-relevant. and toward seeing them as essential to effective performance" n» 143). This admittedly broad concept--interpersonal competence--can be clarified more specifically from the OD literature into three defining characteristics: (1) trust. (2) openness. and (3) conflict utilization/resolution. Trust. or what Argyris (1962) termed "interpersonal trust" (p. 43). is the quality of interpersonal competence that moves organi- zations and their members "away from distrusting people. and toward trusting them" (Tannenbaum 8 Davis in Schmidt. 1970. p. 40). Gibb (1978) referred to trust as "the key catalytic process in organiza- tions" (p. 15). 141 Openness is the quality of interpersonal competence that brings authenticity to interpersonal relations--the receiving and giving of nonevaluative descriptive feedback about self and others. Tannenbaum and Davis (in Schmidt. 1970) referred to it as that which moves the organization and its members away from maskmanship and game-playing. and toward greater mutual authenticity [and includes moving] away from avoidance. or nega- tive evaluation. of individuals. and toward confirming them as human beings--this does not refer "to the excessively neurotic needs of some persons for attention and response. but rather to the much more pervasive and basic need to know that one's exist- ence makes a difference to others.... ." Confirmation can lead to personal release. confidence and enhancement. (pp. 138. 133) In addition to the quality of authenticity. openness also involves the easy flow of information across the organization wherein "organizational members are kept informed or at least have access to information. especially concerning matters that directly affect their jobs or them personally" (Burke. 1982. p. 101). As Beckhard (1969) described in his list of characteristics of an effective organization. An effective organization is one in which communication laterally and vertically is relatively undistorted. People are generally open and confronting. They share all the relevant facts including feelings [and] the organization and its members operate in an "action-research" way. General practice is to build in feedback mechanisms so that individuals and groups can learn from their own experience. (p. 11) Openness is. then. a matter of candid self-disclosure. free-flowing communication. and action-research feedback as well as receptivity to "new attitudes. values and feelings" (Argyris. 1962. p. 43). Conflict utilization/resolution emerges from the view that conflict is inevitable and endemic within human social systems. is 142 neither good nor bad. and has positive potential. Further. it involves feelings and attitudes as well as substance. and its manage- ment involves acknowledgment and discussion of both. Burke (1982) wrote that whether the conflict is interpersonal or intergroup it "should be brought to the surface and dealt with directly. rather than ignored. avoided or manipulated" (p. 89). Beckhard's (1969) description of an effective organization supported this view. He wrote that such an organization is one in which there is a minimum amount of inappropriate win/lose activities between individuals and groups. Constant effort exists at all levels to treat conflict and conflict situations as problems subject to problem-solving methods [and in which] there is high "conflict" (clash of ideas) about tasks and projects. and rela- tively little energy spent in clashing over interpersonal diffi- culties because they have been generally worked through. (p. 11) Clearly the underlying premise to this view of conflict is that a win- win orientation (collaboration) is more effective than is a win-lose orientation (competition). Tannenbaum and Davis (in Schmidt. 1970) referred to this as a movement away from a primary emphasis on competitive or distributive strategies and toward a growing emphasis on collaborative or integrative strategies (p. 144). The 00 value of interpersonal competence is then characterized by trust. open communication. and a view of conflict that maximizes collaboration and minimizes competition. Implicit is a valuing of diversity. a moving "away from resisting and fearing individual differences. and toward accepting and utilizing them" (in Schmidt. 1970. p. 135). Clearly this valuing of interpersonal competence 01‘ CO ta pe 11C th th of ch '6 fr EF nC Of 143 emanates from the critical nature of task interdependence in most organizations. Successful interdependence--aided by interpersonal competence--is integral to task accomplishment. For higher education. the situation is quite different. Cer- tainly no one in higher education would minimize the value of inter- personal competence; however. the nature of the "work" to be accomplished. at least at present. does not require interpersonal competence. Faculty domains are characterized by autonomy. relative isolation. and personal specialization and are protected by the value of academic freedom. 1J%. the sanctity of the classroom. Where in most organizations interpersonal effectiveness can be mandated through the authority of management in terms of task accomplishment. for HEA the "bottom line" of task accomplishment in higher education does not offer the firm base upon which to ground such a mandate. As stated earlier. the situation of higher education may be changing. The pressures for tangible results and accountable processes as well as greater faculty identification with one's institution may well be balancing the individualistic values of autonomy and academic freedom with interpersonal values of unity (to beat the competition) and integration (to ensure a more effective "product"L These trends notwithstanding. the application of 00 to HEA must not assume the value of interpersonal competence. Careful negotiation will be necessary to clarify and elevate the nature of task interdependence without unduly compromising academic freedom. 'Thereafter. interpersonal competence can be mandated on stronger than altruistic grounds. k‘ 144 One further note in support of interpersonal competence for administration itself came from Stoke (1966). In exploring the role and authority of HEA. Stoke argued that successful administration is characterized by working through persuasion rather than by the use of power [is] nine-tenths explanation. [is] determined more by the manner in which it is carried on than by any other factor. [has the] basic responsibility of being clear. brief and precise in conveying information [in such a way] that it will penetrate the defenses of those to whom it is addressed. [and grows in effectiveness] not through knowledge of organization and by-laws so much as through experience and skill in the intangible factors of human relations. (pp. 23-28) Won Wm .EanI1c1aat1on_LWitbout.Besnonslbilit¥l The literature of DD is replete with support for a democratic participation of employees throughout the organization. In general. this support emanates from the following four perspectives: First. participation is valued because people and organizations are by their very nature participative. French and Bell (1975) contended that "the needs and aspirations of human beings are the reasons for organized effort in society" (p. 35). That is. an organization exists by. with. from. and for its members and therefore. the organization is theirs. or rather. should be theirs. Herein. participation is valued as providing organizational members with avenues for influencing--or reclaiming--organizations instead of being victims of them. It has been said of architecture that man designs his buildings whereafter his buildings design him. This is also the case with 145 organizations: manhs needs and aspirations determine organized effort whereafter the organized effort determines man's needs and aspirations. Participation is viewed as a means of minimizing the latter aspect of the equation while maximizing the former. .As Gibb (1978) wrote. "the key catalytic process in organizations is trust.. . . It is enhanced primarily through valued and substantive participation" (p. 15). Second. participation is valued because it is consonant with democratic values. OD--particularly in its normative rol e--rests on humanistic and democratic values of collaboration. shared power. and participatory decision making. It presses for participation and employee involvement as safeguards against autocratic and unchecked bureaucratic authority. Indeed. authority is exercised "more partici- patively than unilaterally and arbitrarily and . . . is associated more with knowledge and competence than with role or status" (Burke. 1982. p. 100). As Tannenbaum and Davis (in Schmidt. 1970) wrote. such a view of authority is a move away from the use of status for maintaining power and personal prestige. and toward the use of status for organizationally- relevant purposes. such as intervening when lower levels are in conflict as to a course of action. (pp. 139-40) Participation. then. confronts authority toward a balance between restraint and autonomy and supports the democratic value of "equal opportunity and fairness for people in the organization" (Burke. 1982. p. 100). French and Bell (1978) summarized: A value frequently attributed to [DD] is a presumed value placed on democratization of organizations or on "power equalization." While most [OD theorists and practitioners] would probably place high value on humanizing the work place and on a democratic- participative way of life. our distinct impression is that most are 146 not on an excursion to reduce or neutralize the power of owners or managers. The goal they have is to utilize human resources more effectively and thus to increase the power to everybody including the boss. (p. 36) Third. participation is valued as a critical source of employee motivation and commitment and thereby. organizational goal attainment. Burke (1982) supported such a view when he wrote that the direction of change [for normative OD] would be toward an organizational culture [whereJInembers feel a sense of ownership of the organization's mission and objectives [and] organization mem- bers are given as much autonomy and freedom to do their respective jobs as possible. to insure a high degree of individual motivation and accomplishment of organizational objectives. q» 101) Clearly goals will be achieved if perceived rewards are valued. Com- tnitment to objectives is a function of rewards associated with their achievement. And the most effective means to ensure valued rewards is participation. Michael (1981). in his text lechnlques_9£_9£ganiza: .Ilnnal_9hnnge. reported that experiments in work planning have indi- cated that "participation is a powerful motivating force in produc- tivity" (pp. 310-11). And fourth. participation is valued for providing a source of critical information. 00 contends that the experience of organiza- tional members is an important source of information regarding organi- zational functioning. In training designs. for example. learning is derived from direct participation in doing so as to utilize the experience of learners which in reality is what they take with them back to the job. Hence. if experience is a critical source of information regarding "what is actually going on" in the organization. it stands to reason that such information is important when decisions 147 are being made. Herein. the "keepers" of such information--of such experience--need to be involved. This is participation. OD. then. values "broadening the decision-making process to include the affected employees so they can influence what happens to them and their organization (Greiner in Burke 8 Goodstein. 1980. p. 328). Beckhard (1969) supported such a "value" when he described an effective organization as one in which "decisions are made by and near the sources of information regardless of where these sources are located on the organization chart" (p. 11). It was Millet (1962) who wrote that The academic community abhors absolute power. It is committed to freedom through a sharing of power. Consensus in action is the test of both freedom and responsibility. Such consensus is essen- tial to make the American college and university the exciting. indispensable force it is for the preservation of growth and crea- tivity in our western civilization. (p. 260) And so. HEA also values participation. Corson (1975) argued for the value of participation on three grounds: (1) the faculty are experts whose contribution is valuable; (2) the faculty are intellectuals whose inquiry and reasoning minds are an asset; and (3) the faculty are professionals and the "hallmark of professionalism is the right of self-direction" (pp. 237-38). Further. he wrote: The "efficiency of an organization." i.e.. its effectiveness in carrying out the function for which it was created. is directly related to its effectiveness in securing the complementary personal contributions of all those who make up the organization. (p. 282) Participation is valued as a critical means for securing such contribution. However. even though HEA does value participation even as 00 does. there may be a qualitative difference. Bennis (1973). a 148 noted OD authority. wrote during his tenure as president of the Univer- sity of Cincinnati that "universities are notoriously slow. notoriously irresponsible in requiring participation without responsibility" (p. 393). Certainly the rhetoric of collegiality supports participa- tion while the lack of results and all-too-common existence of faculty cynicism and lethargy seems to support Bennis's claim. Here the inte- gration of OD within HEA will need to clarify the full nature of the value of participation. i.eu. participation with responsibility (OD) versus participation without responsibility (HEA). The rationale and projected benefits of collegial participation clearly presuppose a participation with responsibility. WOW Wm W The last major value of 00 is that of increased effectiveness. It is without question a trap to give change a value in and of itself. Changes. then. are only valuable if they contribute to increased effectiveness. be it individual (growth) or organizational (develop- ment). Effectiveness is a neutral term involving goal clarity. will- ingness (decision making). and ability (skills). Emanating from the basic assumptions that people are growth- prone and organizations are improvable. OD. through its practitioners (called "change agents"). values change for its potential in increasing effectiveness. Implicit in this value is an optimism that people and organizations can do a better job of goal setting and goal accomplish- ing as well as facing and solving problems. It has been noted that 149 this optimism is not one that says the number of problems is dimin- ishing (French in Plovnick et al.. 1982. p. 183). At the individual level. OD's value of increased effectiveness is supported by the belief that it is worthwhile for people to have the opportunity throughout their lives to learn and develop personally toward a full realization and actualization of their individual potentials. (Burke. 1982. p. 89) Herein. OD values a move away from a view of individuals as fixed. and toward seeing them as in the process of becoming .. . and away from the avoidance of risk-taking. and toward a greater willingness to risk. (Tannenbaum 8 Davis in Schmidt. 1970. pp. 134. 142) With people viewed as growth-prone and "in process." the organization becomes an arena where growth (increased effectiveness) can be either obstructed (leading to demotivation. burnout. absenteeism. eth or encouraged (leading to job enrichment. career development. motivation. eth. Work. then. has the potential to be as natural as play if "workers" associate rewards (growth) with working. Furthermore. motivation to do work is contingent upon the opportunity within the organization to increase individual effectiveness. ‘The view is that the average "worker" 1earns-eunden_pngpen_gond1t19ns--not only to accept but also to seek responsibility. Increased individual effectiveness is then contingent (at least in part) upon the organization. The inverse is also true--increased effectiveness of the organization is contingent (at least in part) upon the individual. For the individual. the barometer of increased effectiveness is growth; for 150 the organization. it is ultimately the results of work of which a significant part is in the hands of the workers. Hence. the dual focus of 00 is integrally related. Indeed. "the growth and development of organization members is just as important as making a profit or meeting a budget" (Burke. 1982. p. 100). Certainly increased organizational effectiveness is contingent upon a number of factors; however. not the least of these is its human dimension. Patten and Vaill (in Craig. 1976) contended that 00's basic values include acceptance of the organization's need to fulfill its responsibility to.its various communities for interdependency and continuity. for increasing effectiveness in performance. and for development of an internal climate in which personal growth is supported . . . the inculcation of values and means for fostering individual growth comes first. (p. 20-11) Beckhard (1969) supported the viability of this OD value of increased effectiveness as he described the effective organization as one in which the reward system is such that managers and supervisors are rewarded (and punished) comparably for short-term profit or production performance. growth and development of their subordinates. [and] creating a viable working group. (p. 10) Indeed. once increased effectiveness is attained in any particular state or time--be it for an individual or for an organization--it can always be "increased" yet again. Certainly the rhetoric of HEA regarding the pursuit of excel- lence and improving quality is consonant with the OD value of increas- ing‘effectiveness. Indeed. the entire enterprise of education is Premised on the presupposition that through learning. studying. and 151 discovering. individual and collective life can be better (Dressel. 1976; Chickering et al.. 1981). The challenge facing the integration of 00 and HEA. then. is the extent to which the value of increasing effectiveness in higher education is self-inclusive. Gardner (1965) clarified this when he wrote: The same flexibility and adaptiveness that we seek for the society as a whole are essential for the organizations within the society. A society made up of arteriosclerotic organizations cannot renew itself.. . . Perhaps what every corporation (and every other organization) needs is a department of continuous renewal that would view the whole organization as a system in need of continuing innovation. [This is the role of OD.] The same incomplete approach to innovation may be seen in our universities. Much innovation goes on at any first-rate univer- sity--but it is almost never conscious innovation in the structure or practices of the university itself. University people love to innovate away from home. (pp. 75-76) OD values both the rhetoric and the results of increased effectiveness. To integrate it within HEA is to bring the innovation of increasing effectiveness "home." Further. OD elevates the focus of increasing effectiveness beyond the realm of organizational rhetoric (which aims to activate the individual's responsibility for increasing effectiveness) to a shared individual/organizational responsibility for increasing effectiveness (which mandates accountability). On the face of it. the values may well be congruent; however. insofar as the major responsibility for increasing effectiveness has fallen heretofore within the purview of individual--academically free and autonomous-- faculty. the move to shared responsibility with the organization will need to proceed cautiously. 152 Such then are the values within OD and HEA as they stand in relation to organizations and their members. Their interface is congruent at best and tenuous at worst. Figure 4.2 clarifies the comparison further. BMW From basic premises (assumptions) emerge values (that which is held as important) and from values are derived goals. Herein. to this point. the basic premises and resultant values of both OD and HEA have been explored and compared. What remains is the matter of direction. i.e.. given the assumptions and values of each. where are they headed? As indicated in Chapter I. a goal is an event or state of affairs which is preferred and sought after by the actor to other events or outcomes. In this study. the "actors" are 0D and HEA and the "preferred state of affairs" is the question of their goals and objectives. their purpose for being.1 W In general. 00 seeks to increase organizational members' options for choice. Insofar as organizational members are viewed as both "good and bad." OD seeks to enhance the variable of choice so as 1It is understood that the specific goals of 00 programs will vary according to the specific diagnosis of each organization's situation even as the specific goals of HEA will vary according to the purpose and situation of each institution. The goals. then. here examined and compared are the "typical" goals that are generic across the literature of OD and that of HEA. respectively. 153 VALUES OD -CHOICE (human §§\\ HEA dignity and non- SS§$ exploitation) -LOGIC (factS. information, knowledge, data. expertise). — IJI' ,' ‘ >532 v, / 3 26. 74. /’ D °VALUES -VALUES. N .. av; ‘14 It ‘ l I fry, v 5 /‘/ A! (a 2 z/ ‘the AFFECTIVE as part of the whole. -RATIONALISH. w /§y I . é§;%/ .%%2%% n nr-v 'ORGANlZATIONAL GOAL ATTAINHENT. ‘ORGANIZATlONAL HYTH ATTAINHENT. -FLEX|BIL1TV g. wiTw INTEGRITY. , \ -FLEXI81LITY 5 V9§§§ WITH INTEGRITY. t\\ e \\ t -INTERPERSONAL yX. coursrtuce (a. ‘ (trust. openness. \\Q> . - i a conflict resolu ;§\‘. -AUTONOHY and HM)“ Lfi ACADEMIC . r FREEDOM. 4 6/7 Egéiz 5. \ $?\R FIG 1 \\ \x “ -PART1CIPATION §$§§ (with respon- ,§\§ ’ sibility) Fh.‘ -PARTICIPATION 3 (without re- sponsibility). . an Kg 15 Nil -lNCREASED EFFEC- TIVENESS as a shared responsi - . bility (individ- ual and organiza- tional). L/.' .4 y asvpnf/I ’3 W .- u 29 .a? -INCREASED EFFEC- TIVENESS as more an individual-- than organiza- a tional--respon- sibility. (fig 5.1 d V I). %’ finKLQKY . . a/ I lO/ll 4 t :1 411% 4”” I /I/..' J/K Figure h.2.--Comparison of values of 00 and HEA (T = tenuous; C = congruent). 154 make more "good" available. With this "choicefulness" comes responsi- bility and with responsibility. "good" choices. Friedlander (in Adams. 1974) explained that 00 provides for the organizational member the opportunity for exploration and choice-~of his values. of the structures in which he is living. and of the tasks upon which he is working. I am personally far more concerned with providing people with an awareness of who they are. of what they are doing with who they are. and of the choices they have in these areas--than I am with changing them in some way. (p. 95) Clearly this emphasis on choice emanates from what Weisbord (in Burke. 1978) called the "right" goal of OD. which is to redress the imbalance between freedom and constraint in organi- zations. ‘These polarities always create tension. which makes the dilemma essentially unresolvable. Thus. [OD helps] people to reduce or to create structures to insure the optimal social cohe- sion consistent with individual wishes for freedom. creativity. and so on. (p. 14) OD. then. in seeking to increase "choicefulness" of organiza- tional members. strives toward conditions of increased autonomy. free- dom. self-control. self-direction. and respect for the individual within the organization (Burke. 1982; Bennis. 1969; Beckhard. 1969; Blake 8 Mouton. 1970; Zawacki. 1976). On the other hand. insofar as HEA presupposes faculty to be rational (good). it seeks to educate them and manage resources and programs in such a manner as to not obstruct their "basically good" orientation. Selznick (1957) captured this "educational" role of HEA when he wrote. The inbuilding of purpose is a challenge to creativity because it involves transforming men and groups from neutral technical units into participants who have a peculiar stamp. sensitivity. and commitment. This is ultimately an educational process. It has been said that the effective leader must know the meaning and 155 master the techniques of the educator. . . . The leader as educator requires an ability to interpret the role and character of the enterprise. to perceive and develop models for thought and behav: ior. and to find modes of communication that will inculcate general rather than merely partial perspectives. (p. 150) Stoke (1967) argued for a similar goal in administration when he contended that the most important qualification an administrator can bring to his job is a philosophy of education. 14%. some clear ideas as to why the institution exists. for whom it is trying to provide education. and what kind of education it is trying to provide. (p. 21) HEA. then. strives to educate organizational members and manage resources and support services in a logical manner so as to enable the accomplishment of organizational objectives. Consistent with the premise of rationality and the value of logical deduction. Stoke (1967) contended that HEA is "nine-tenths explanation" (p. 23). Here the goals of OD and HEA are complimentary in form. In substance. OD's goal of increasing "choicefulness" includes education and management (goals of HEA) but is not limited to these. Counseling. training. organiza- tional restructuring. job redesign. etc.. are also employed. (See Appendix A for an overview of typical OD interventionsJ W WW5 In striving for the balance point between the individual and the organization. 00 seeks to integrate individual goals and values with organizational goals and values (Bennis. 1969; Beckhard. 1969; Blake 8 Mouton. 1970). Such integration and/or values congruence is critical to organizational as well as individual effectiveness. As Jones (1981) wrote. 156 Organizational values affect purpose and management philosophy. When these values are not held in common. the lack of consensus creates a tension that can preclude organizational effective- ness. . . . Managers need to be aware of the status of the value system underlying the operation of the organization in order to ensure that at least a moderate amount of consensus exists regard- ing the basic purpose of the organization. (pp. 155-56) The literature of HEA documents the need of HEA to seek and be responsive to the values of faculty. students. constituents. as well as of the institutional mission. As Wallis (1975) wrote. "the criterion to apply in issues of university governance must be contribution to the university's effectiveness in accomplishing its mission" (p. 69). However. all too often the critical balance and/or dialogue between these various values perspectives proves difficult to maintain. The temptation for administrators to yield to pressures of uniformity and conformity is strong. And. usually amid the pressure. the missionks values are the first casualty. 00 in business and industry has been typically employed to redress the balance issue in the direction of the individual. In HEA. it may be more critical to redress the balance issue in the direction of the institution and its mission and away from the clamoring political subgroups inherent in the organization (Baldridge. 1971). Regardless. the goals of OD and HEA are in general congruence at this point. HEA seeks balance of values; 00 seeks also integration of values. 157 W12 WW Emanating from the premise that people are whole. 00 seeks to integrate the affective domain as pertinent to organizational effectiveness. Here. by increasing the awareness of feelings and reactions and their impact on self. others. and the organization as a whole. OD seeks to facilitate a "shift in values in the organization so that human factors and feelings come to be considered legitimate" (Bennis. 1969. p. 15). HEA. on the other hand. in viewing people as rational and in valuing the cognitive over--if not to the exclusion of--the affective. seeks to develop expertise. i.e.. a possession of specialized knowledge and facts through detached analysis. The result is a kind of "tongue-in-cheek" resolve about the nature of the enterprise. Phrases such as "organized anarchy" (Cohen et al.. 1972). "making the most of ambiguity" (Ecker. 1979). and "camping on seesaws" (Hedberg et al.. 1976) propound an imagery that is disconcerting to a humanistic concern for people. Hedberg's "seesaws" themselves suggest a rationalistic process for administration that is somehow divorced from the reality of human functioning. He and his co-authors argued for six minimums or "fulcra" on which organizational processes should balance and toward which administrators should strive: (1) a minimal consensus in order to get cooperation; (2) a minimal contentment in order to get satisfac- tion; (3) a minimal affluence in order to get wealth; (4) a minimal faith in order to create goals; (5) a minimal consistency in order to get improvement; and (6) a minimal rationality in order to get wisdom. 158 As long as HEA is rationalistically seeking minimums and DD is holistically seeking maximums. the interface between them will at best be tenuous. It is the view of this investigator that current socio- cultural trends (Houston. 1980; Yankelovitch. 1981; Ferguson. 1980; Naisbitt. 1982; Lauderdale. 1982) are mandating and will continue to mandate more than "minimums." Surely with the most educated work force of any industry. higher education might set an example. .QL9an1zations:_Io_Eacilitate_Goal AttalmneiniecsusJLMainmJiL W A fourth goal of 00 is that it seeks to facilitate the organization toward greater goal attainment. As an organizational intervention. DD is committed to improving the manner in which an organization achieves its goals and objectives. To this end. it strives to facilitate more effective planning and clarification of organizational goals. to develop reward systems that relate to organizational missions and the growth of people. and to increase awareness of organizational and change dynamics in general as they relate to goal attainment (Bennis. 1969; Beckhard. 1969; Blake 8 Mouton. 1970; French in Plovnick et al.. 1982). Contrary to the misconceptions that OD results in tough-minded tnanagers becoming soft or in a group consensus that reduces accounta- taility of the organization in meeting its task objectives. DD is com- nnitted to the organization doing its work. Indeed. the first priority c>f any 00 intervention is to secure its relationship to organizational 159 priorities. management support and involvement. and organizationally relevant objectives (Zawacki. 1975; Bennis. 1969). Selznick (1957). in exploring the role of HEA in regard to the organizational myth. wrote. To create an institution we rely on many techniques for infusing day-to-day behavior with long-run meaning and purpose. One of the most important of these techniques is the elaboration of socially integrating myths. These are efforts to state . . . what is distinctive about the aims and methods of the enterprise. . . . For creative leadership it is not the communication of a myth alone that counts; rather. creativity depends on having the will and the insight to see the necessity of the myth. to discover a successful formulation. and above all. to create the organizational conditions that will sustain the ideals expressed. (p. 151) It is then the role of HEA to maintain and safeguard the myth--the shared beliefs. attitudes. and values of the enterprise. As Corson (1975) wrote. The college has been held together less by structure and authority and more by shared beliefs. attitudes. and values: beliefs about the importance of learning; attitudes on the responsibility of the scholar to his discipline. his peers. and his students; and values concerning the worthiness of academic life. devoted to the conser- vation and discovery of knowledge and to the development of youth. (p. 59) Clearly this focus on the organizational myth falls within the domain of leadership. It presupposes an administrative perspective that sees the academic community as a whole. as a sum greater than its component parts. and as responsible to fulfill its social and mission obligations. OD focuses on goals and utilizes them as the source of power upon which to mandate accountability; higher education. with its obscure and/or pluralistic goals. offers HEA no such measure for aaccountability unless it possesses the insight and courage of 160 leadership to delineate accountability in terms of the myth. Certainly our present and increasingly pragmatic society is less and less enamored with the myth alone. Either HEA will need to define the myth in more accountable terms or it will need to reduce the pluralism and obscurity of higher education to realizable and measurable goals. If the former--myth accountability-~00 will need to be adapted toward facilitating such accountability amid goal diversity; if the latter--goal measurability--OD will need to proceed cautiously to minimize the reductionism that accompanies goal clarity. Regardless. at this juncture. the goals of HEA and OD are tenuous. MW We WW): The fifth goal of DD is increased organizational adaptability. Insofar as organizations are "open." they are critically affected by change; and. insofar as they are "systems." they have a propensity for rigidity. The result is a dynamic tension that 00 seeks to facilitate toward a planned and constructive adaptation to change. Schmuck et a1. (1977) clarified such an adaptation as not merely adjusting or acquiescing to externally imposed change. By adaptable. we mean what Gardner (1963) means by self-renewing. what Buckley (1967) calls morphogenetic. what Williamson (1974) calls inquiring. and what Hedberg. Nystrom. and Starbuck (1976) call self-diagnosing. To measure an organization's adaptability. we use four criteria: (1) problem-solving. (2) maintaining access to resources. (3) responsiveness. and (4) assessing movement. (pp. 9-10) Through increasing organizational adaptability. OD seeks to help the organization learn (Roeber. 1973) and to be responsive to its 161 environment-~economic. technological. and socio-cultural (Lippitt in Burke. 1972). The following composite list of typical sub-objectives amplifies further OD's goal of facilitating the interface between the organization and change: -to develop a willingness-to—learn attitude; -to deal with growth and decay; -to increase innovation and experimentation; -to facilitate flexibility in leadership to suit the situation; -to expand receptivity to changes induced by the environment; and -to help the organization escape rigidities and fixed procedures that obstruct sound decision-making. (Bennis. 1969; Beckhard. 1969; Blake 8 Mouton. 1970) HEA seeks as well to increase organizational adaptability. to sufficiently coordinate. synchronize. and supervise the many facets of the enterprise to maintain both responsible stability and responsive flexibility. Dressel (1981) depicted the role of administration when he wrote. Fragmented by specialization. egotism. and idiosyncrasies. a college or university faculty is unable to agree on purposes. goals. and policies and to demonstrate accountability in the use of resources unless some form of central administration succeeds in bringing harmony and unity out of the prevailing discord and fragmentation. (pp. 2-3) Hence. HEA seeks to integrate the numerous factions of higher education into a relationship coordinated enough to accomplish the mission and flexible enough to be adaptable. Willey (1979) viewed this latter goal of maintaining flexibility of organization as the central problem in the art of administration. In this regard. he elaborated two "perti- nent and preliminary truisms": As any social grouping grows in numbers (both of individuals and functions). the need for organization develops and the organization becomes more intricate. ‘The other truism is that organization 162 patterns tend to become fixed. and rigidity of the pattern develops. It is this inflexibility that precludes necessary change or makes it difficult. (p. 559) The challenge. then. is a matter of balance--to organize with- out rigidifying and to maintain flexibility without splintering--to facilitate both on-going organizational adaptation and dynamic stabil- ity. Dressel (1981) summarized this "balance" goal when he wrote that. The proper balancing of institutional autonomy and academic freedom with social expectations and responsibilities constitutes a major continuing concern and obligation of administrators. Individuals who are uninterested or who regard these concepts as abstractions devoid of practical significance have no place in higher education administration. (p. 13) Generally. the goals of OD and HEA are congruent at this point; however. one caveat does exist in the nature of flexibility or adapta- bility in higher education. Specifically. higher education is an institution and as such is a social organization that exists to serve and service value-referenced goals (Chamberlain. 1979). Change in such organizations must then be carefully negotiated in relation to such goals or unwittingly the viability of both the change and the institu- tion will be compromised. W W .tLEcesenxLAumnomLand AcademiLELaedom Emanating from the social and transactional nature of people and organizations. OD seeks to improve interpersonal competence. Bennis (1969) contended that OD is concerned primarily with the development of the organic rather than the mechanical aspect of 163 organizations. Specifically. he compared the two perspectives in the following table (Table 4.2). Table 4.2.--Bennis's comparison of mechanical and organic systems. Mechanical Systems Organic Systems Exclusive individual emphasis Relationships between and within groups emphasized Authority-obedience relationships Mutual confidence and trust Delegated and divided responsi- Interdependence and shared bility rigidly adhered to responsibility Strict division of labor and Multigroup membership and hierarchical supervision responsibility Centralized decision-making Wide sharing of responsibility and control Conflict resolution through Conflict resolution through suppression. arbitration. bargaining or problem-solving and/or warfare Source: Bennis (1969. p. 15). This concern for multi-faceted interaction includes a commit- ment to improving understanding and skill in handling the dynamics of interpersonal and group action toward more productive and satisfying relationships. Herein. the majority of 00 interventions involve an interactive focus that seeks to facilitate "changed attitudes toward self. others. and groups. i.e.. more respect for. tolerance of. and faith in self. others. and groups" (French in Plovnick et al.. 1982. p. 187). 164 OD. then. through developing interpersonal competence in the organization. strives to improve the interfacing processes of the organization so that the maximum of human energy expended can be focused on specific organizational goals. The greater the mutual trust. the openness in communication. and the candor in problem solving and conflict resolution. the more free the organization is to act in accomplishing its goals. Through its focus on trust. 0D seeks to increase the level of support and collaboration among organizational members. Ih so doing. work relationships within and among teams are strengthened to enhance the functional effectiveness of teams and to maximize collaborative efforts (Bennis. 1969; Beckhard. 1969; Blake 8 Mouton. 1970). Dysfunctional competition is reduced and/or managed in terms of its relevance to organizational goals. French (in Plovnick et al.. 1982). citing Schein and Bennis (1966. p. 37). included the following objective for DO: Changed attitudes toward own role. role of others. and organiza- tional relationships. 1.8" inore respect for and willingness to deal with others with whom one is interdependent. greater willing- ness to achieve collaborative relationships with others based on mutual trust.(p.187) Through its focus on openness. OD seeks to create an open. problem-solving climate throughout the organization that finds syner- gistic solutions to problems with greater frequency (French. 1969). Such a climate includes the "opening" of communication laterally. vertically. and diagonally within the organization as well as the on- 165 going improvement of organizational members' skills in receiving. understanding. and transmitting information reliably and validly. And. last. through its focus on problem solving and conflict resolution. OD seeks to reduce wasted energy and effort by creating conditions where conflict among people can be managed openly and creatively rather than handled indirectly and unilaterally. Bennis (1969) elaborated this objective when he wrote. "Rather than the usual bureaucratic methods which rely mainly on suppression. compromise. and unprincipled power. more rational and open methods of conflict resolu- tion are sought" (p. 15). Similarly. Burke (1982) suggested that one of the directions for change that DO offers is toward an organizational culture where "conflict is dealt with openly and systematically. rather than ignored. avoided. or handled in a typical win-lose fashion" (p. 101). OD. then. seeks to increase organizational problem-solving capacities by increasing the incidence of confrontation of organiza- tional problems and conflicts. both within and between groups. in contrast to sweeping them under the rug (Zawacki. 1976. p. 3). With the substantive lack of both task clarity and task interrelatedness in higher education. HEA is less concerned with interpersonal competencies than it is with issues of nonrelatedness. i.e.. autonomy and academic freedom. In fact. to some degree. inter- personal issues are presumed to be both "beneath" faculty concern as well as relatively unrelated to the accomplishing of institutional goals. If. and when. such issues do merit attention. it is presumably HEA's role (not the faculty's) to "pour oil on the water"—-to 166 facilitate harmony when the "pluralistic nature of the university makes it almost impossible for faculties to resolve priority issues" (Dressel. 1981. p.15). It is then the greater role of HEA as it is presently under- stood to preserve the autonomy of faculty so as to safeguard their academic freedom. Interrelatedness. and consequently interpersonal competence. is a lesser concern. As Corson (1975) wrote. The organizational problem is how to grant the [organizational members] enough autonomy that they may perform their functions well and then bring them under enough control by a central administra- tion that the whole institution may remain viable. (p. 280) Here again. HEA is faced with the challenge of balance: autonomy (academic freedom) versus community (organizational viability). The concern is one of making sure that "salaries. teaching assignments. perquisites and privileges always reflect the contribution that the person involved is making [both] to his own profession or discipline [and] to the functioning of the university" (Gross in Baldridge. 1971. p. 28). The focus is. and has been. primarily on the side of autonomy with the community. ldi. interpersonal. aspect either assumed or not highly valued. This scenario. however. may well be changing. As Bennis (1973) wrote. . Today the faculty once unified by a comnmuidefinition of the nature and purpose of scholarship. is fragmented into competing profes- sional citadels. Many have shifted their concern from the intel- lectual and moral content of education to privilege and ritual. (p. 44) Clearly. the point of current internal jeopardy for higher education 167 may well be more in its interrelatedness. or lack thereof. than in its autonomy. The challenge for 0D within HEA. then. is one of exploring the interface between the value and goal of interpersonal competence and the value and goal of autonomy/academic freedom. Either OD will need to determine a new type of interpersonal competence given low inter- relatedness or it will be utilized to both enhance and facilitate greater interrelatedness in organizations of higher education. In the meantime. the process of integration at this point is. and will be. tenuous. The seventh major goal area for 00 and HEA evolves from the participative nature of both individuals and organizations. Both seek to develop an organizational climate of involvement. ownership. and responsibility. Numerous authors (Burke. 1982; Bennis. 1969; Zawacki. 1976; McLean et aL» 1982; Beckhard. 1969; Blake 8 Mouton. 1970) have contended that 00 seeks to increase the effectiveness of the organization by creating a sense of ownership of the organization's mission and objectives. McLean et a1. (1982) also argued for the OD objective of creating an ownership of change throughout the organization. 168 To facilitate this sense of "ownership"—-be it of mission. objectives. or change--OD seeks a decision-making process characterized by equality and fairness (Burke. 1982); the augmentation of role and status authority with knowledge and competence authority (Bennis. 1969; Beckhard. 1969; Blake 8 Mouton. 1970); and localization of the process as close to the information sources as possible (Bennis. 1969). Burke (1982) characterized such an organization as one where -Equal opportunity and fairness for people in the organization is commonplace; it is the rule rather than the exception; -Managers exercise their authority more participatively than unilaterally and arbitrarily. and authority is associated more with knowledge and competence than with role or status; [and] -Organization members are kept informed or at least have access to information. especially concerning matters that directly affect their jobs or them personally. (pp. 100-101) HEA concurs. Dressel (1981). in outlining administrative responsibil- ity. H rote. In the nature of the university organization. with its various semiautonomous units. a major responsibility is that of determina- tion of priorities. . . . Frequently they are difficult items upon which to get agreement since each of the units within the univer- sity has its own goals and its own priorities growing out of those. Yet determination of priorities is meaningless unless there is wide involvement of faculty. clientele. board. and influential fund sources. 'Thus the administrative responsibility for determination of priorities must be a shared one. and it must. in great part. be related to the governance pattern. . . . It is essential that . . . policy preparation be shared with and modified by the views of those affected. Only when there is general acceptance can the administrator move to the management of resources. involving people. money. materials. time. and authority to support the poli- cies agreed upon. (pp. 85-86) And Gross (in Baldridge. 1971) contended in his list of management goals for HEA that it should seek to "involve faculty in the government of the university." "involve students in the government of the 169 university." and "make sure the university is run democratically inso- far as that is feasibl e" (p. 28). From the ideological vantage point of collegiality to the more practical realities of participative management. it is a goal of HEA to develop a climate of involvement. ownership. and responsibility. Dif- ficulty with such a goal often emanates from tension between responsi- bility and autonomy. e.g.. Who has responsibility? How much? Does it minimize faculty and/or institutional autonomy? etc. Corson (1975). arguing in favor of participation. explained and cautioned that. As responsibility for the decisions that determine the essential character of an institution has been moved effectively out of the institution [e.g.. legislators. community pressure. funding sources. etc.] administrators. faculty members. and students have lost some part of the basis upon which loyalty to and identifica- tion with the university was founded. (p. 59) The goals of OD and HEA are then congruent in seeking the substantive participation of all organization players. W .QnganizationalLIndeJduaLEfiectueness W W Finally. 00 seeks to increase organizational/individual effec- tiveness. The primary and overarching objective of OD is "to optimize the effective utilization and development of the human resources in the organization" (Lippitt in Burke. 1972. p. 91). In so doing. it endeav- ors to integrate the organization's objectives with the individual's goals by developing systems which support the achievement of both the organization's mission as well as the individual's efforts toward 170 personal development and achievement. As Burke (1982) wrote. "The growth and development of organization members is.just as important as making a profit or meeting the budget" (p. 100). In fact. in OD's perspective. increased organizational effectiveness necessitates increased individual effectiveness and increased individual effective- ness readily affects increased organizational effectiveness. It is a "both-and" relationship but with greater weight given ultimately to the organizational side. Increased effectiveness. then. be it individual or organiza- tional. is essentially a matter of on-going maturation. It is a goal to strive after yet never reach--with the value in the striving. OD. in facilitating this striving. seeks to develop processes for con- tinuing organizational self-renewal. to decrease resistance to change and increase acceptance of proposed change. and to enable management to bring to bear more consciousness of renewal and revitalization so that new and more innovative responses can be developed by organizations facing extraordinary turbulence in the decade ahead. (Bennis. 1969. p. 19) HEA also seeks to increase/improve the effectiveness of the organization. Selznick (1957) wrote that. If one of the great functions of administration is the exertion of cohesive force in the direction of institutional security. another great function is the creation of conditions that will make pos- sible in the future what is excluded in the present. (p. 154) And Thompson (in Kertesz. 1971). in commenting on the present crisis in higher education. described the role (goal) of administration as one of facing an endless struggle to create new equilibria on which to base social advancement. This is the grubby side of imagination. There 171 is no higher task for living leaders . . . whatever the odds of failure. than to undertake this noble task. It is the practical side of idealism so often ignored by those who stand on the sidelines and cheer or condemn. (p. 30) Hence. HEA also seeks to preserve and improve the effectiveness and viability of the enterprise of higher education. The goals of DO and HEA then may well be congruent; however. the prescription includes. for the most part. critical presuppositional differences. For OD. improvement is primarily organizational and secondarily individual. For HEA. with its labor-intensive nature. improvement is presumed to be primarily a matter of improving the individual. the semi-autonomous faculty member. ‘Thereafter. the organization is presumed to improve as a consequence. To a degree this presumed evolution of change is valid; however. where OD focuses on interrelationships between parts of the organization in order to increase effectiveness. HEA tends to see only or primarily the parts. The ends of both may be congruent with one another; the means are at best tenuous. Furthermore. it is difficult in higher education to determine effectiveness. let alone increased effectiveness. without clear goals upon which to make an assessment. For OD. the existence of such goals offers the measure upon which to determine. motivate. and "strategize" improvement. Without them. as is the case in higher education. state- ments of increased effectiveness by HEA are viewed more as adminis- trative rhetoric than institutional strategy. The "pursuit of excellence" may well be kept as a "pursuit" both for the sake of idealism as well as for the sake of avoiding accountability. 172 Such then are the goals of OD and HEA as they stand in relation “to organizations and their members. ‘Their interface is congruent at best and tenuous at worst. Figure 4.3 clarifies the comparison further. Ebnclusinn Figure 4.4 illustrates both a summary and a synthesis of the foregoing comparative analysis of basic premises. values. and goals for both 00 and HEA. It clarifies the relationship both from basic premises to values to goals for each of OD and HEA and between OD and HEA. Careful consideration of both the synthesis and the analysis of this chapter yields three critical and concluding observations. First. out of particular assumptions (basic premises) emerge values. and out of articulated values emerge goals. Herein. the process of this analysis has yielded not only the material for comparison but also a type of evolution from assumptions to goals for both OD and HEA. Second. in areas of tenuousness between OD and HEA. the integration of OD within HEA will have to involve adapting OD and/or proceed with meticulous regard for the premises. values. and goals of HEA which may themselves need to change. .And third. in areas of tenuousness there is substantive literature to suggest that society itself may be moving (and hence. helping HEA move) in the direction of OD's premises. values. and goals (Houston. 1980; Yankelovitch. 1981; Ferguson. 1980; Naisbitt. 1982; Lauderdale. 1982). 173 OD GOALS -to increase organizational mem- bers' options for choice. -to integrate individual and organizational values. -to integrate the affective domain as pertinent to organizational effectiveness. 3 -to facilitate the organization toward greater goal attainment. h -to increase organizational goal-directed adaptability. °to improve inter- personal compe- tence (trust. b openness. cen- flict resolution. problem-solving). 6/7 -to develop an organizational climate of involvement. Ownership, and responsibility. b 8/9 O, ApV/vdlv "' // -to increase organizational/ individual effectiveness. b lO/ll Figure 4.3.--Comparison of goals of OD and HEA (T = tenuous; C , .7,‘ I/, ’- .4 1 e a / I . I. 1 I .3 r (.l,. .I/ n,- i 4‘// I ‘ e'I" ’. :54 V ’1 06% ;/,- .nsf ’2] ‘ 2?. ,4/7 1 i? Q h I / I .»’// ,_/ ,/ d5 /0/ . I / ’ ’ [f/ 42:; I/ HEA -to educate or- ganizational mem- bers and to man- age resources SSSQ (management). A .Q\:‘ 9an ~to be responsive ‘Q to and balance :. ‘S values (faculty. (§\\ students. mission. 339 \j etc.) . 8 ‘ -to develop ex- pertise (facts. knowledge. de- tached analysis). C -to maintain and safeguard the organizational myth (leadership). 0 -to balance organizational adaptability with stability (gov- ernance). /’,’. f -to preserve and safeguard auton- omy and academic freedom while facilitating organizational commitment. F/G -to develop an organizational climate of involvement. ownr ership and collegi- ality. H/l .l .47 l/. LI. -to preserve and improve the organization as a viable enter- prise. J/K congruent). 174 m_mom 0cm I}. .. =3. 0.." /~ .. 10.00 0.00.. 0 00 002020008 . v w 0‘. 000... . 000 3.0.0.0 0.. 20000200... , .003300. 20002030008 0.0080. 0.. .3 A .220 40020010003050 .8. 300.0700. .00.:3000000. .0 0.00 .. 0.0 0.0.88.0 .00020.. .0 , . 300000—000. + -0200 20000.0. £00..- o ‘00 00000050 00- c 002.00 {0.0- 000... 0.. u 40280.0 w is. 5:8: e. 00.00.. 0.. .0 0 .. .0002... ‘ I: .0. 0: . .3 £000.10... .. .00020..ee0.0 .. 828...... ; _ . 0.1.8.828. 0. .0. 0000"..." ....020.0.0. 2... 0.0.0000 0.0 p .000 .00000000 A e... .5338.- .. . . .32....3... . Luann.“ 0000.3 0.. .00020..000.0 .3883... 5... 20020....008 Mn, ,. 00. 2000.00. . 0 405.020 .000 000 0.0.0.00 0.- 3.00.. 00000. 01.00.0008 .0. 0.0.2.... 0.. .....0.000 08.00. .00 3000.800; “ C. . .20... 3:... . / a .53.. “H ...0 00. . 0.- . 0. 2802.00 .0 . . 7 0.! 00:00:. I .s...-. .Ookuu 1 ’6 00.0....- 0.. .3200: .00... n. _ u ..00 00 0.8.00 0... 0. M 30020.. .0 8.2.8... I 8. .. .8 .823... 0 8.00.8... . 08...... 0.- .2 , .0800... .0. ,/ ii .0 I 00’ _ - .00 .10 .80 2.8.3:... . .0. 000.0. 000‘ Le 80.00. 0.. . , 0.0 2.020....808 C. 0.0.0:. .0- .mo3_m> .mum_Eoca u_mmm "