Presentationens titel

14/10/151In search of change agencyCormac McGrathDirector, Unit for Medical Education Erik G SvenssonCormac McGrath

Click to ad textIn sociology and philosophy, agency is the capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in any given environment. The capacity to act does not at first imply a specific moral dimension to the ability to make the choice to act, and moral agency is therefore a distinct concept. In sociology, an agent is an individual engaging with the social structure. Notably, though, the primacy of social structure vs. individual capacity with regard to persons' actions is debated within sociology. This debate concerns, at least partly, the level of reflexivity an agent may possess.[citation needed]

1

OutlineWho are we anyway?The expert-novice paradox Why do change initiatives fail?What kind of changes do we encounter?Four discourses of change agencyDeveloping a capacity for changePossible strategy for change14/10/15Cormac McGrath2

14/10/153Who are we anyway, and what do we do? Name fotographCormac McGrath

Linda Lindell

Click to ad text3

14/10/15Cormac McGrath4

The expert-novice paradox

Amateur selection processDisciplinary habitusNovice knowledge of change processes and educational governanceGood intentionsPre-reflective experience(McGrath et al, 2015)

A) Generally, the different boards of the university are appointed through a quasi-competitive selection process, where staff vote for the most merited person. Often entire boards are replaced every three-four years. This provides a pseudo-guarantee that the members of the board are experts and to some degree fit for the job at hand. The selection process is based on an idea of competency and expertise and an expectation of a good academic track record. At best, however, it is a guarantee that the members are experts within a given specific academic field and so in terms of academic leadership they may be experts only by association. Further for many their stay in the role of leader is temporary one. B) A second but related concern pertains to the leaders level of expertise and knowledge in the new field of leadership and education. Questions may be raised as to whether they have the time and ability to engage in profound discussions about education and leadership. Instead of engaging in informed critical discussion there is a concern that they may be unable to make completely rational decisions due to a lack of time, information and information processing capacity (Simon in Alevsson et al, 2012) or also that they have merely pseudo-knowledge (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012) in relation to the new field of expertise and will not be able to make well informed decision.C) A third concern relates to their academic habitus. In some universities the board members predominantly represent one discipline or profession. Making a transition to a leadership position with responsibility for educational issues involves a shift in focus to dealing with more hermeneutic data and questions which may create problems for scholars/leaders schooled in other paradigms. This may involve a change of paradigm awareness (Guba & Lincoln, 1982) and require radically new ways of thinking about knowledge as new concepts are introduced and epistemological assumptions are challenged. This raises the question of whether or not the members of the board have sufficient knowledge and information for making relevant decisions that have long-term implications. D) A fourth concern is raised by Stensaker (1999) who discusses the demands put on university leadership in terms of balancing between implementing top down policy and also adhering to calls for change from within the organization (Stensaker, 1999). Among these demands are the demands of society on efficient governance, demands to implement lean and efficient ways of working (Hargreaves, 2009), demands to implement trans-European policy (McGrath & Bolander-Laksov, 2012) and demands to keep the university an open domain with respect for collegiality (R. Bolden et al., 2009). The situation that members of different committees in academia may find themselves is best described as a complex one.

4

70% internally embedded practices that act and interact to erode change, slow structural processes that are internally contradictory, decision-making, review and accountability processes are also non-aligned, patchiness in delivery of core activities, prioritization does not happen, there are unformed, inappropriate and changing implementation strategies and tactics,change is conceptualised as training not development there is much talk but little action, plenty of strategic discussion, but business as usual (Fullan & Scott, 2009). Case in point: Generella kursenkt .2014

14/10/15Cormac McGrath5Why do change initiatives fail?

If you dont find someone to collaborate with then,,5

Do you recognize any of the causes of failure, give examples, what happened, why?Share with your partner. 10 min total 14/10/15Cormac McGrath6Ok, lets talk

(1) Small-scale bottom-up initiatives or projects led and driven by a small number of enthusiastic and committed individuals: Digitalising lectures (2) Larger-scale organizational (top-down) initiatives involving wider institutional support, staffing and/or resources: Global Master (3) Integrated whole-institutional (top-down) initiatives with significant institutional support linking multiple sustainability activities, often with an added dimension involving wider cultural change: Bologna (Paul Trowler, Hopkinson, & Comerford Boyes, 2013). 14/10/15Cormac McGrath7What kind of changes do we encounter?

7

What do we knowThey do not have conceptual nor theoretical ideas about change agency?Lack a systematic approach to change They are usually stuck in doing things here and now

(Trowler et al., 2013, McGrath et al., forthcoming)15/10/15Cormac McGrath8Change agents in higher education

What kind of change initiatives do you work with? Share with a new partner, 10 min14/10/15Cormac McGrath9Ok, so lets talk

Rationalist, Contextualist, Dispersalist Constructionist (Caldwell, 2006).

Rationalist ---------------------------------------Dispersalistcentred-------------------------------------------decentred(Barman, et al, 2014)14/10/1510Four discourses of change agency Name fotographCormac McGrath

Erik Cronberg

Overall, these four discoursescan be defined as forms of language, meaning and interpretation represent-ing and shaping relatively coherent social, cultural or disciplinary fields ofknowledge and practice that embody contextual rules about what can besaid, by whom, where, how and why.

poststructuralism andpostmodernism

Rationalist discourses tend to give priority to centred agency,concepts of planned change and the possibilities of strategic action. Contex-tualist discourses focus on processes of emergent change and the boundednature of centred agency in organizations. Dispersalist discourses focuspredominantly on systemic or self-organizing processes of learning inorganizations, while giving autonomy to new forms conjoint agency,sensemaking, distributed leadership and communities of practice (Gronn,2002; Weick, 2001; Wenger, 1998). Constructionist discourses decentrehuman agency within discursive practices over which human actors appearto have little rational or intentional control. Overall, these four discoursescan be defined as forms of language, meaning and interpretation represent-ing and shaping relatively coherent social, cultural or disciplinary fields ofknowledge and practice that embody contextual rules about what can besaid, by whom, where, how and why

10

Do the notions of different discourses of change agency resonate with you? 14/10/15Cormac McGrath11Ok, so lets talk

the capability to maintain daily operations, the capability to implement a single change and, the capability to implement subsequent changestraining contra development (Meyer & Stensaker, 2006).

14/10/15Cormac McGrath12Developing a capacity for changehttps://imanikingblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/freedom-friday-on-a-saturday-change/

This course has been a lot about adating a capacity for change. Meyer and Stensaker define change capacity in terms of three inter-connected capabilities;

12

How do these ideas on change capacity building resonate with you? 14/10/15Cormac McGrath13Ok, so lets talk

framing - identifying and communicating what is to be done participation - allowing the members of the organisation to be involved in planning pacing and sequencing - pacing the rate of change routinizing and recruiting - recruiting people to take part and routinizing the new elements with on-going operations (ibid). These prescriptions constitute one approach to change agency.

14/10/15Cormac McGrath14Possible strategy for change

CPP Change process perscription14

Which of the change process prescriptions resonate with you, why? Give an example!

14/10/15Cormac McGrath15Again, lets talk

Training without a development focus is almost uselessDevelopment needs to be contextual and relevant and fill a purpose

14/10/15Cormac McGrath16conclusion

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194-1220. doi:Doi 10.1111/J.1467-6486.2012.01072.XBarman, Linda, Charlotte Siln, and Klara Bolander Laksov. "Outcome based education enacted: teachers tensions in balancing between student learning and bureaucracy." Advances in Health Sciences Education 19.5 (2014): 629-643.Caldwell, R. (2006). Agency and change : rethinking change agency in organizations. London ; New York: Routledge.Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.McGrath, C., Barman, L., Rox, T., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Bolander-Laksov, K., Siln, C (2015): The ebb and flow of educational change SubmittedMcGrath, C., & Barman, L., (2015) When good intentions arent good enough. ForthcomingMeyer, C. B., & Stensaker, I. G. (2006). Developing capacity for change. Journal of Change Management, 6(2), 217-231. doi:10.1080/14697010600693731Trowler, P., Hopkinson, P., & Comerford Boyes, L. (2013). Institutional Change towards a Sustainability Agenda: How far can theory assist? Tertiary Education and Management, 19(3), 267-279. doi:10.1080/13583883.2013.798349

14/10/15Cormac McGrath17References: