Inspired by the naming conventions of “the management scholar Clempitt,”
it is time for my weekly type and gripe. Please feel free to analyze and criticize as you see fit.
Chapter 12
The strength of the models presented in Chapter 12 is that the step of
communicating the message of organizational change is in the middle of the model. Before any communication regarding
change is rolled out, it is important for leaders to set a context. Whether
termed as developing a sense of urgency or as underscoring organizational needs,
if employees and other stakeholders are not oriented to the changes by the
presentation of the context from which the changes are coming, disaster ensues.
Working in education, I have witnessed how difficult it is to
communicate organizational change and how easy it is to mismanage it. If only my
principals and deans of jobs past had employed any of the communicative models
presented by Cornelissen in Chapter 12. The difficulty in education might be
because of the diverse interests of a wide range of stakeholder groups, but, sometimes,
it is made difficult by poor strategy.
When I worked at a local high school a few years back, the principal
called an all-faculty meeting to announce the school’s plan to implement a
one-to-one technology program in which every student would be required to own and
use an iPad. The backlash from faculty was swift and intense, but it was not
unified. Those members of the faculty who would be excited about such an
initiative were upset that they had no say in how this would happen and which
devices would be used as a part of the program. Others, whom I might call “old-school”
in their pedagogical approach, were upset because they did not feel like they
could adapt their styles to suit the iPad revolution. Others just hated Apple
and all iProducts. The resulting backlash led to a one year delay in the
roll out of the one-to-one program, but the iPad remained as the mandated
device.
Had the school’s leadership better created a sense of urgency to update
and improve instruction through implementing new technology, it is likely that
the roll out would have happened one year sooner.
Chapter 13
I am pleased that Cornelissen devotes an entire chapter to corporate
social responsibility and community relations. I am not surprised that how he
frames the discussion is a disappointment, and I am left feeling the same way I
did after reading his discussion of issue and crisis management. That is, CSR and
community relations are presented as marketing and image management rather than
as the sound practices of a responsible organization.
This chapter strengthens the argument (one advanced by Dr. Bridgeford
and others) that Cornelissen presents a biased, free-market/laissez-faire
perspective cloaked in the “neutral” tone of scholarly distance. Even when he writes of a "moral contract" (p. 243), "economic development" is given primacy over improving the lives of employees and the community at large.
From my perspective, CSR and corporations driven solely (Britich Airways, Kraftby desire for profit
are incompatible. If Cornelissen were not writing from such a biased
perspective, he would address this idea, and perhaps, mention the success of
public-private partnerships like the Tennessee Valley Authority (a New Deal
initiative which still operates today!) that made CSR its guiding principle by
taking a holistic, broad view of the consequences of its actions in carrying out its corporate mission.
I wonder how your former principal could have better implemented the iPad change. Since it ended up taking a year to happen anyway, that all-faculty assembly could have been better used to announce the change as a future initiative, and solicit feedback on how best to make it happen. I imagine the deal with Apple had already been inked, and you were all going to have to swallow it anyway. What teaspoon of sugar would've made the medicine go down? Cornelissen does mention which change strategies are best. It doesn't sound like the principal went with any of the methods that involved a dialogue before the decision was made, but he clearly got feedback anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe example you gave of your school's one-to-one initiative is a great learning opportunity for organizational leaders who want to bring about dramatic change. Especially in education where the employees are professionals who bring a lot of expertise to the table, a badly communicated top-down initiative can be downright insulting. I teach in a one-to-one school where I use both Chromebooks and iPads in my classroom, and I would never want to go back to teaching without them. However, since I have gained a lot of experience using and managing a classroom environment with these tools, I would expect to at least be part of the discussion if my administration wanted to make major changes.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTeachers are so frequently totally adverse to any amount of change. It's almost humorous when staff meetings come to watch the reactions of the staff to the announcements of new initiatives. Be it tweeks to attendance taking, discipline, or testing, there can be more certainty that teachers will complain than there can be that the sun will come up the next day. I'm sure communication and consulting staff is a good way to soften that blow, but I firmly believe it will not be one that can e eliminated. This entry is a good assessment of teaching though.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are correct in assuming that economic interests drive CSR. Economic interests are really tied to any CSR both for profit and non. Yes corporate entities rely on CSR because it is a part of their responsible citizenship in society, but also because CSR often leads to good PR and builds brand reputation. Universities also do CSR for citizenship, but also to promote their school to prospective recruits, because recruits pay bills. Since CSR has somewhat become a requirement for all organizations alike these days, why not make it work to their benefit, while at the same time helping to benefit others?
ReplyDelete