managing educational change
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
1/22
http://ema.sagepub.com/Administration & Leadership
Educational Management
http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0263211X030311002
2003 31: 9Educational Management Administration & LeadershipMike Wallace
Managing the Unmanageable? : Coping with Complex Educational Change
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society
can be found at:Educational Management Administration & Leadershipdditional services and information for
http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jan 1, 2003Version of Record>>
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.belmas.org.uk/http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.full.pdfhttp://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.full.pdfhttp://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.belmas.org.uk/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/content/31/1/9http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
2/22
Managing the Unmanageable?
Coping with Complex Educational Change
Mike Wallace
Managing the Unmanageable?
E ducational change is self-evidently not w hat it used to be, a nd there is no shortage of itaround. In wealthy countries especially, time was when educational change included a
focus on the intrinsic worth of being an educated person. But globalization and the
collapse of communism have increased pressure on politicians in governments everywhere
to intervene in state education through major reform programmes involving marketiza-
tion, multiple manda tes and even, in the U K, a n at tempt to modernize the culture of
teachers and academics. Now the thrust is to realize the instrumental goal of building a
skilled and acq uiescent w orkforce capable of competing in a global ma rketplace. Accord-
ingly, managers in educational organizations across many western countries have been
recast a s centra l government change agents. Their political ma sters have become increas-
ingly greedy to turn them into reliable servants in pursuit of this instrumental goal(G ronn, 2002). Mana gers are now caught as piggies in the middle betw een government
politicians, whose education reforms they are now responsible for implementing, and
other members of their organizations and communities.
These piggies are in the middle of an ever-diversifying ra nge of stakeholders, since the
administrative framework of many national educational systems is becoming more
layered. Some 95 percent of democratically governed countries have elected regional or
local governments (World B ank, 2000). Ma ny devolved go vernments contribute to sta te
education policies and the changes for practice that fl ow from them. E ducational change
is undoubtedly becoming more complex to ma nage, a nd w hether it is manageab le or not
does matter. For education represents a major investment in our societies future pros-perity, a means tow ards the instrumental end of generating w ealth, the ba sis of capitalism.
In a global economic marketplace, government politicians are increasingly worried that
toda ys educational fa ilure will herald tomorrows na tional economic disaster.
So the pressure is on to increase manageria l contro l over educationa l change on beha lf
of government politicians. H owever the a rgument w ill be developed that this ambition is
unrealizable because complex educational change, intrinsically, is relatively unmanage-
able. It is probably beyond human capacity for a ny mana ger to a chieve fully predictable,
directive control over the change process. Managing complex educational change effec-
tively is the humble, largely backstage business of coping with complexity over which
control is inherently limited. B ut there a re modest possibilities for maximizing control
within these limits and attempts to improve manageability should focus on them.
9Educational M anagement & A dministration0263-211X (200301) 31:1SAG E Publications (London, Thousand Oa ks and New D elhi)
C opyrigh t 2003 B E LM AS Vol 31(1) 929; 029865
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
3/22
Unmanageability in Action: A Dispute over Computers
Just how unmanagea ble complex educational change can be is illustrated by t he follow-
ing example from my recent research (Wallace and Pocklington, 2002) focusing on large-
scale initia tives to reorga nize local provision of sta te schools in E ngland . These initiat ives
were designed to ta ke out surplus capa city resulting from a long-term decline in the localschool-age population. I n respect of schools, the sta te educa tion system consists of three
main a dministrative levelscentral government, local education authorities (LE As) a nd
schools under LEA jurisdiction. Reorganization was an LEA initiative, undertaken in
response to central government pressure, and implemented by closing and merging
schools or changing the a ge range of students for which they cat ered. Centra l government
legislation ha d been ena cted to d evolve school budgets from L E A level to schools, so little
money for running schools was retained in the LE A.
A central plank of LEA officials reorganization strategy in one LEA was to replace
their three-tier fi rstmiddlehigh school system with a two-tier primarysecondary system.
Spare capa city in the fi rst schools and high schools would be fi lled a s they expanded to
become prima ry and seconda ry schools respectively. All middle schools would close, their
student capacity being removed from the school system in the LEA. Reorganization of
these schools was scheduled to take place over two years (Figure 1).
In pa rt 1 of reorganization, the oldest students in the first schools sta yed on a nd fi lled
surplus capacity there. A year later, in part 2, they stayed on again, so that their schools
now catered for the full primary age range. All students in the three year-groups remain-
ing in the middle schools transferred to w hat had been a high school, now catering for the
full secondary age range. Note that middle schools had lost the youngest year-groupa
qua rter of their studentsfor their fi nal yea r of existence during part 1 of reorganization.
This year-group was housed in the expanding fi rst schools.
G eneralist class teachers taught fi rst school student s. E ach classroom wa s furnished
with one o r occasionally two computers, which only a few students could use at any time.
Teachers in the middle schools were semi-specialists, taking whole or half classes of
students for particular areas of the curriculum. Every middle school featured a computer
suite where a semi-specialist teacher taught half classes. The suite contained enough
10 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
age of students
arrange-ment 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18
Pre- 3-9 first school 9-13 middle school 13-18 high school
Part 3-10 first school 10-13 13-18 high school 1 middle school
Part 3-11primary school 11-18 secondary school 2
Figure 1.Two-part arra ngement for reorga nizing the firstmiddlehigh school system in one LE A
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
4/22
networked computers for each student. Fundraising among parents of students in both
types of school had enabled ma ny of these computers to b e purchased.
The dispute over computers arose during part 1 of reorganization, when the oldest
students in the fi rst schools stayed o n. Their headteachers anticipated that a q uarter of the
middle school computers would be passed on to them from the middle schools. All the
stakeholders involved had agreed on the principle that resources should follow thestudents. So furniture and equipment no longer in use in middle schools would therefo re
be redistributed to the fi rst schools where they w ere now needed.
B ut middle school head tea chers argued t hat all their computers were still required for
half classes to use their suite, albeit for only three-quarters of the week. They referred
to the principle also agreed by all stakeholders that students educational entitlement
should not be compromised because of reorganization. Most of the computers legally
belonged to t he middle schools anyw ay since they had b een purchased through fundra is-
ing, not t he devolved o perating budget . The middle school head tea chers initially refused
to ha nd over a ny computers, then sent a few of their oldest machines across to the fi rst
schools.Conflict ensued. The first school headteachers felt they had been unfairly fobbed off
with the lowest quality equipment. Several wrote to the chief education officer (CEO),
complaining that the educationa l entitlement of their oldest students wa s being compro-
mised because they were being denied access to up-to-date computers. The first school
operating budgets were insufficiently generous to allow extra computers to be purchased
from this source. Their headteachers expected LE A offi cials to a rbitrate on their behalf.
But central government reforms to reduce LEA authority over schools had left officials
without authority to order middle school headteachers to hand over their computers.
Budgetary devolution had left little money in the LEA for purchasing more machines,
which would be required fo r only one yea r before t he middle schools closed. Then all thecomputers in the middle schools would be redistributed to the primary and secondary
schools created. I n the mea n time, stalemate.
Before reporting what ensued, I will first consider what rendered this aspect of
reorganization so unmanageab le. I suggest tha t it w as fa r from a freak occurrence, indica-
tive of the mana gement heada ches brought by complex educational change. Second, I will
consider why so many popular prescriptions for improving the mana gement of educationa l
change have limited potential to guide practice. Third, I will suggest that understanding
the extent a nd limits of huma n a gencythe a bility t o choose between alternative courses
of a ctionprovides a strong founda tion fo r realistic prescriptions. This understanding can
help us grasp why complex educat ional change is rather unmana geable a nd how we ca ncope with it, within limits. Fourth, by conceiving the computer dispute as an instance of
the w ider phenomenon of complex educational change t hat reorganization represents, I
will extrapolate from it to add ress the fundamenta l question: what makes such change so
complex to ma nage? If we ca n understand the chara cteristics of this complexity a nd their
mana gement implications, we w ill have a platform fo r considering the practical q uestion
that follows: how can w e cope effectively w ith complex educat ional change? Fifth, I will
discuss some tentative practical themes for managing complex educational change
emerging from t he reorganization study. I will link them to t he story of how the computer
dispute turned out. I n conclusion, I w ill put forwa rd a n a genda for future research, theory,
policy and practical guidance.
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 11
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
5/22
Sources of Ambiguity that Constrain Manageability
A lengthy tradition of research and theorizing underlies the claim that ambiguity is
endemic to organizational life (Hoyle, 1986). People in organizations have to work hard
at making sense (Weick, 2001) of wha t t hey live as a disjointed and o ften confusing experi-
ence, marked by uncertainty, unpredicta bility and dilemmas tha t w ill not go aw ay. Ma rchand Olsen (1976) defined internal organizational ambiguity in terms of experienced
opaqueness connected with internal decision-making. Complex educational change
includes but also reaches beyond individual orga nizations, and it spans different levels of
the education system. So one certainty about such change is that the endemic organiz-
at ional ambiguity experienced by those who ha ve to ma nage it will be increased. C hange
implies new experiences and new learning. It challenges habitual practices and beliefs of
people in and around the organizations affected. It raises the potential for unintended
consequences of managers actions among stakeholders in different organizations across
different system levels. It increases the unpredictability of achieving intended outcomes
until they have ha ppened.Three generic sources of ambiguity connected with the complexity of reorganization
constrained its manageability, as illustrated by the computer dispute. The first source is
individuals variable but always limited control over other stakeholders and their
responses. No one can exert absolute control over anyone else. Authority connected with
reorganization wa s distributed w ithin and between L E A and school system levels. LE A
officials could no more insist that middle school headteachers hand over their computers
tha n fi rst school head tea chers could insist on offi cials responding to their complaints. Since
reorganization was initiated at LEA level for implementation in schools, officials were
heavily dependent on stakeholders based at school level. The cooperation of all head-
tea chers, and t he acq uiescence, if not endorsement, of their school sta ff colleagues, schoolgovernors and parents were essential for implementation.
The second source is individuals equally varia ble but a lwa ys limited awarenessof what
is happening. No one knew what was happening in every organization caught up in
reorganization. Senior LEA officials had an overview of their initiative across over a
hundred schools, but were far less aware of school-level experiences than those on the
ground. The fi rst t hey knew a bout t he computer dispute wa s when the fi rst school head-
teachers letter of complaint landed on the C E O s desk.
But there was more than the first school headteachers side to the story. Neither first
school nor middle school headteachers were fully aware of each others problem over
delivering students entitlement during part 1 of reorganization. First school headtea cherswere preoccupied with the urgent need to procure suffi cient resources for their new group
of student s. They perceived tha t the middle school head tea chers were insensitive in fa iling
to a cknowledge the priority in fi rst schools of getting the new classes off to a good sta rt.
Middle school headteachers were preoccupied with helping their colleagues to find jobs
in other schools when the middle school closed. They perceived tha t the fi rst school head-
teachers were insensitive in putting pressure on them over a few computers. The matter
appea red trivial compared w ith the urgent need to secure jobs for their staff . Neither fi rst
nor middle school headteachers could see why their counterparts could not resolve the
dispute, by handing over the computers, making do temporarily with old ones or buying
more machines.
The third source of a mbiguity is the prevalence of contradi ctory beli efs and valuesheld
12 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
6/22
by individual stakeholders and distributed among different groups. Actions according to
contradictory beliefs and va lues often coexist harmoniously by being kept separa te. B ut
the change process may bring actions according to incompatible beliefs and values
together in the same situation, generating conflict.
If reorga nizat ion had not entailed the part 1 arrangement, belief amo ng fi rst school sta ff
that computers should be allocated to classes taught by generalist teachers would havecontinued to coexist happily with the belief among middle school sta ff tha t they should be
orga nized in suites, with ha lf classes taught by a semi-specialist. B oth fi rst and midd le
school hea dtea chers believed in the principles that resources should follow the students
and students educat ional entitlement should not be compromised b ecause of reorganiz-
ation. But members of each group applied the same principles to alternative ways of
orga nizing computers for the ir student s educat ion (Table 1). B eliefs and va lues clashed
in the novel situation brought by the part 1 arrangement. Their incompatibility was
brought to the surface when first school headteachers tried to apply these principles to
their way of organizing provision of computers for students education, assuming that
computers in the middle schools could and should be ma de availab le. Middle school head -teachers applied the same principles to their way of organizing computer education,
assuming that all the computers in their suite w ere still required.
The research tha t highlighted this conflict, my reading of t he mana gement and change
literatures and my professiona l experience suggest tha t the more complex the change, the
great er the a mbiguity experienced by t hose caught up in it. Yet very complex changes do
get implemented. Even in extreme cases ambiguity has its limits. These limits are struc-
tural, determined by wha t is not do-ab le (the first school headt eachers would never have
dreamt of ra iding the middle schools to grab the computers), and almost unthinkable in
a context o f globa l capitalism (they automa tically a ssumed tha t a dditional public sector
funds were not available for purchasing more computers).Ambiguity sets limits on t he ma nagea bility of complex educational change, but does
not render it wholly unmanageable. Managers may cope more or less effectively with
ambiguity, but can never eliminate it. Indeed, a n unintended consequence of U K central
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 13
Tabl e 1. Application of the same principles to a lternative arrangements for computer use inteaching
Reorganization H eadteachers assumptions principles
First school M iddle school classroom-based suite-based ind ividua ls a nd sma ll groups ha lf cla sses of students genera list class teacher semi-specia list teacher
resources should computers previously used by 910 computers previously used by 910follow the students year olds in middle schools now year olds in middle schools still
required all week in classrooms for required in suite used by remaining910 year o lds in fi r st schools students for 3/4 o f the week
students educational 910 year olds in fi rst schools should remaining students should still haveentitlement should have access to computers, as they same access to computers as theynot be compromised would have had if still being taught had prior to part 1 of
in middle schools reorganiza tion
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
7/22
government education policies designed to eliminate ambiguitythrough rational
planning, target setting, performance management, an imposed curriculum, inspection
and the likehas been to increase ambiguity through the change process required for
implementa tion. Yet a mbiguity a nd the limits of ma nagea bility scarcely fea ture in most
practically orientated research, theory and prescription for those with responsibility for
mana ging educational change.
Why Popular Prescriptions for Managing Educational ChangeUnderplay Ambiguity
There are at least three reasons behind this conspicuous absence. First, the very notion
of managing change connotes beguilingly the assumption that managers, as change
agents, can and should achieve tight control over the change process. If they have a
control problem, do not know what is happening or cannot resolve their managerial
dilemmas, they must be doing something wrong which they could put right if they only
knew how. Plenty o f aca demics, consultants and t rainers are w illing to tell them. B ut theenduring phenomena of management gurus, improvement consultancies and airport
bookstall handbooks testify to the fact that managerial control problems are perennial.
So managers perennially seek new solutions promising them greater control and the
certainty it implies. Id eas like a mbiguity t hat explain w hy tha t q uest is futile are unlikely
to sell so w ell.
Second, which ideas get to be popular prescriptions for practice will depend on what
popular prescription consumers (education managers) want, and who says (government
politicians) what the consumers want. Huczynskis (1993) analogy of a filter funnel helps
to explain why a mbiguity and ma ny other potential ideas for mana ging educational change
in the sta te sector fail to a tta in popularity sta tus. To reach tra ining programmes or hand-boo ks, management idea s must survive a series of fi lters (Figure 2):
managers needsidea s must ma tch government politicians perception of educa tion
managers needs (e.g. to ensure smooth implementation of government politicians
education reforms);
idea benefitsideas must possess ingredients consistent with education managers
perception of their immediat e need to control the cha nge process so as to implement
imposed reforms (e.g. advice on how to generat e staff ownership of t hem);
timelinessideas must address widely perceived practical problems in this context
(e.g. how to maximize shared capacity in educational organizations to implementreforms);
promotionidea s must be actively dissemina ted (e.g. t hrough government -commis-
sioned research projects and government-sponsored training programmes, consul-
tancies and websites);
presentationideas must be engagingly presentable (e.g. reducible to one side of
paper or a web-page, implying the quick fix of straightforward application to
managers diverse organizational contexts).
Since education mana gers and government politicians operate these filters, mana gement
ideas tha t ill suit their interests are unlikely to become a vailab le for popular consumption.Such unpopular ideas include those that are:
14 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
8/22
unacceptable to government politicians, who w ill perceive them not to meet
managers needsit is the former who pay for much training and dissemination on
taxpayers behalf (e.g. ideas about ambiguity implying endemic limits to managerial
control);
complex, as managers will not perceive them to give the immediate idea benefits(e.g.
ideas focusing on how to live with the ambiguity of unresolvable dilemmas);
inimical to the capitalist economic thrust of education reformsvery untimely(e.g.how to offer minimal compliance with enterprise education initiatives);
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 15
All ideas for managing
educational change
Managers needs
Idea benefits
Timeliness
Promotion
Presentation
Popular prescriptions formanaging educational change
Figure 2. Filtering out popular prescriptions for mana ging educational change
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
9/22
restricted to academic texts, since without further promotionthey will not reach
consumers (e.g. this a rticle);
tentative and ungeneralized, because they will not be presentableas guaranteeing
universa l success (e.g. hunches whose application to specific contexts ma nagers a lone
can judge, offering a slow fi x at b est).
Third, the production of management ideas depends on what kinds of knowledge
aca demic producers are t rying to generate and why. (See R ibbins and G unter, 2002;
G unter and R ibbins, 2002; for a sophisticated ma p of t he fi eld of educat ional leadership
covering knowledge doma ins, area s of practice and positions adopted by a cademic know-
ledge producers. This large field partially overlaps with my smaller patch encompassing
educational change.) The answers you get in any fi eld of enq uiry depend on t he q uestions
you ask through different sorts of intellectual project (Wallace and Poulson, 2003), a
scheme of enquiry to genera te the kinds of knowledge that will achieve specified purposes.
E xtending B olams (1999) typo logy, five intellectual projects may b e distinguished (Tab le
2).The field of educational change is dominated by two closely associated intellectual
projects generating most popular prescriptions for practice. They attract funding as they
directly support government politicians and ma nagers working at their behest. One is the
knowledge-for-actionintellectua l project: developing theoretical and research knowledge
with practical application from a positive standpoint towards current practice and policy,
to inform improvement effo rts inside the prevailing ideology (or set of a ssumptions abo ut
good practice). The second, typically informed directly by the first, is the intellectual
project of instrumentalism: imparting practice knowledge and skills through training and
consulta ncy, directly to improve practice inside the prevailing ideology.
Ideas derived from the other intellectual projects may also inform practice, but areriskier for government politicians attempt to determine educational managers needs.
The reflexive action intellectual project entails developing and sharing practitioners
knowledge from a constructively self-critical standpoint towards their own work, so as to
16 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
Tabl e 2. Five intellectual projects pursued in the field of educat ional change
I ntel lectual project rationale value stance typical question
knowledge-for- understand through disinterested w hat ha ppens a nd why?understanding theory and research
knowledge-for- evaluate through critical what is wrong with whatcritical evaluation theory and research happens?
knowledge-for-action inform policy-makers positive tow ards how effective are actions tothrough research and policy and improve practice?evaluation improving practice
instrumentalism improve practice posit ive towards how may this programmethrough training and policy and improving improve practice?consultancy practice
reflexive action improve own practice critical of practice, how effective is mythrough evaluation positive abo ut practice, how may I
and action improving improve it?
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
10/22
improve their practice. It may operate within the prevailing ideology, and so be deemed
fundable by government politicians. But, more threateningly for them, reflexive action
may inform attempts to challenge policy and practice a ccording to a n a lternative ideology,
as in emancipatory f orms of a ction research.
The intellectual project of developing knowledge-for-understandingis a loose cannon.
Its a dherents adopt a relat ively disinterested standpoint tow ards the social world, in orderto understa ndrather than improvepolicy and practice and their underlying ideologies.
The tradition of organization theory a nd research has generated ideas on a mbiguity a nd
its sourcesorganizat ional micropolitics (H oyle, 1999), cognitive limits of o rganiza tiona l
awareness (March and Simon, 1958) and unresolvable dilemmas born of equally valued
alternatives (Ogaw a et a l., 1999). In the fi eld of ed ucational change, such ideas ha ve so far
fa iled to get past the fi lters determining popularity. They a re downbea t, focusing on limits
to manageability and managerial empowerment, and on the unintended contribution to
these limits made by government politicians effo rts to enhance ma nagerial control in the
service of their reforms.
U nsurprisingly, government politicians marginalize theoret ical and research knowledgederived from the knowledge-for -cri tical evaluationintellectual project. It is undertaken
from a n explicitly negat ive sta ndpoint towards existing policy and practice. The a im is to
expose and criticize the prevailing ideology and a rgue why it should be rejected (e.g. B all,
1994; G ewirtz et al., 1995), sometimes advoca ting improvement a ccording to a n a lterna-
tive ideology such as the ra dical professionality a dvoca ted by G unter (2001).
Equally understandably, many academics in the field wishing to make a difference to
practice are drawn towards the knowledge-for-action and instrumentalism intellectual
projects, bolstered by the prospect of funding from government politicians and
educational ma nagers. B ut the populist orientat ion of t his movement has led to unrealis-
tic optimism about the manageability of complex educational change. There is heavyreliance on popular prescriptions originating elsewhere whose application to the field is
rarely questioned. Popularity is bought at the expense of practicality through:
building normative theories that ha ve outstripped empirical research on the
complexity of educational change (e.g. conceiving educational organizations as
learning organizations after Senge (1990), assuming that different interests and
struggles for control can be elimina ted a nd belying the inevitab ility of limited aware-
ness within and between organizations);
relying on overstretched metaphors drawn from the natural world, such as theories
of chao s and complexity, where constituent concepts origina lly applied to t he naturalworld have to be shoehorned to ma ke them fit the social world (e.g. the idea o f self-
orga nization [Morrison, 2002], where o rganiza tiona l members are to be freed-up to
take initiatives in conditions of some uncertainty, belying the possibility that they
may take initiatives according to beliefs and values that contradict those of
managers);
embracing an exclusively cultural orientat ion implying that organizationa l culture
can be universally shared and directly manipulated by managers (e.g. underplaying
power and different interests, differential levels of awareness and contradictory
beliefs and va lues);
conceiving organizat ional activity as distinct from and semi-independent of theexternal policy context, rather tha n viewing organizationa l activity a s an integral part
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 17
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
11/22
of the policy development and implementation process (e.g. the idea that it is
possible to take charge of change in educational organizations by creating a new
ethos of innovation, thereby pre-empting the imposition of change from outside
(Fullan, 1991: 353), where choices for a ction w ould a ctually rema in constrained by
various government policies);
reifying social phenomena, a form of conceptual shorthand where the product ofcombined individual human activity is treated as if it wa s a t hing with independent
existence (e.g. conceiving organizations as entities capable of corporate action, so
losing focus on which people are behind this actionSenge (1990: 6) makes the
implausible reifi catory claim tha t w hole organizations (not the people in them! ) can
learn and enhance their capacity to achieve their highest aspirations);
sloga nizingoffering simplistic ea sy-listening prescriptions (e.g. lessons or
pract ical tips tha t promise unrealistic certa inty and belie the significa nce of contin-
gent factors in the diverse contexts where they are to be applied);
overplaying the extent of education managers agency, or choice over their actions
(e.g. implying the potential for high managerial or community control) and under-playing its limits (e.g. pressure from government politicians, and the structural
economic pressures on t hem).
The verdict ha s to be that aca demic producers of ma nagement idea s could do better
but how ? O ne wa y ma y be to conceive different intellectual projects as complementary
rather than separate and incompatible endeavours. My own effort is directed towards
developing knowledge-for-understanding which acknowledges both the potential and
limits of mana geability (wha t G unter and R ibbins refer to a s academic producers position
of d oing intellectual work). The a im is to harness this knowledge-for-understand ing as a
start ing point fo r developing knowledge-for-act ion and instrumenta lism. (The position ofintellectual work is therefore the superordinate basis for subsequent subordinate know-
ledge production within all three of the ot her positions G unter and R ibbins propose of
expertise, consultancy a nd tra ining.) E ducation ma nagers may then be o ffered realis-
tic ideas to inform their practice in diverse contexts. The ideas being generated carry a
high risk of being fi ltered out a nd so never becoming popular prescriptions. B ut if we a re
to fi nd more effective ways of mana ging complex educational change, we must surely first
understand in much more depth w hat makes it so complex to ma nage a nd then consider
how to cope effectively with it inside the limits of manageability. Let me illustrate how
this intellectua l project is being pursued.
Agency and its Structural Limits as a Foundation forUnderstanding Complexity
The research on large-scale reorganization of schools from which the computer dispute
saga wa s taken ena bled reorganization to be conceptualized inductively a s a single case of
complex educational change. The theoretical orientation was pluralistic, based on the
expression of human agency as individuals and members of different groups involved in
educational change interact (e.g. where the fi rst a nd middle school headt eachers sought
respectively to obta in or to retain some of the middle school computers). On the one ha nd,
they use their own agency to try a nd channel others agencyin their favoured direction byencouraging them to act in a particular way, the stuff of mutual trust and collaboration
18 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
12/22
(the first and middle school headteachers agreed on the principles governing redistri-
bution of resources and protection of students education w hile reorganization w as being
implemented). On the other hand, they also try to delimi t others agencyif the latter
threaten to step outside the comfort zone of the former, the stuff of monitoring and
corrective action (first school headt eachers wrote to the C E O in the hope that LE A offi -
cials would act for them in forcing middle school headteachers to hand over their up-to-date computers).
H owever, informed b y early theoretical wo rk by H argrea ves (1983) to reconcile plural-
ism with neo-Marxism, interaction w as viewed a s taking place inside very broa d structural
limitsbounding all human agency. Structural limits are of tw o kinds: economic, manifested
in resource constraints (the not-do-able); and ideological, manifested in unquestioned
assumptions about t he legitimacy of the existing social and economic order (the unthink-
ab le). This orienta tion provided the conceptual a ppara tus for sensitivity to the possibility
of structural limits being approached, indicat ed w here agency became directed towa rds
seeking compromise solutions because of economic constra ints that remained very largely
accepted. While endemic ambiguity was a product of human agency, structural limits puta ceiling on it b y ruling out possibilities which were never even ent erta ined. Throughout
reorganization, the legitimacy, inevitability and resource parameters of the process went
virtually unchallenged.
What Makes Complex Educational Change so Complex toManage?
Patterns with management implications were identified in the complexity of reorganiz-
ation. A single case is an inadequate basis for generalization, so my hunch that the
patt erns I fo und may a pply to ot her changes at a high level of abstraction is only a hunch.I crea ted a typology of fi ve characteristics, each with tw o or mo re constituents (Tab le 3).
Ano ther hunch is tha t the more complex the change, the more likely it is to fea ture all
five characteristics. The computer dispute illustrates how these characteristics were
expressed.
First, complex educationa l change is typically large-scale, impinging on the lives of many
people who w ill perceive it different ly according to their varying circumsta nces. A multi-
tude of stakeholders wi th an extensive range of specialist knowledge and pri or itieswill
proba bly be involved or affected , by design. Sta ff from the eleven schools in the computer
dispute were among t housands whose work and career were affected by reorganization.
Middle school headteachers priority was to secure jobs for their staff when their schoolsclosed. First school headteachers priority was to secure computers for their additional
classes of students.
The large number of sta keholders will proba bly hold allegiance to a plu rality of partially
incompatibl e beliefs and values, wi thin l im itsof the assumptions they hold about their
entitlement a nd constraints on a lternative courses of action. Middle school headt eachers
believed in suite-based computer provision. First school headteachers believed in class-
based provision. The two beliefs became incompatible in the exceptional circumstances
of the pa rt 1 reorganization arra ngement. Yet bot h groups of hea dtea chers assumed tha t
existing resource parameters must be followed. First school budgets could not bear the
cost of more computers, middle school budgets were for middle school students, and t herewa s no spare cash in the LE A.
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 19
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
13/22
Second, complex educational change is componential, an entity consisting of inter-
related and differentiated parts that vary over time. The content of the change will
probably consist of a diversity o f sequential and over lappi ng components affecting dif ferent
stakeholders at parti cular times, a striking feature of the LEA reorganization initiative.The schools in the computer dispute were a mong 21 being reorga nized in the last of fi ve
annual phases for reorganizing schools in different area s of the L E A. U ntil recently, LE A
offi cials supported ot her schools that ha d now been reorganized. Now they concentrated
on implementing the fi nal pha se in the rema ining 21 schools.
The variety of compo nents, and their cumulative impact over time, will dicta te a multi-
pl icity of d if ferentiated bu t interrelated management tasks. The two-part reorganization
arrangement for the first and middle schools in the computer dispute necessitated reallo-
cating staff and redistributing equipment associated with one year-group of students
during part 1. R eallocation of sta ff a nd eq uipment associated with three more yea r-groups
had to take place a year later.Third, complex educat ional change tends to be systemic, spanning administra tive levels
of an education system, which both shapes and constrains stakeholders interaction. A
cross-level change process will embody a mul tidi rectional flow of di rect and mediated i nter-
action w ith in and between system levels. Int eraction over the computer dispute took place
both inside a nd a cross school and L E A levels. The CE O mediated t he LE A response to
the fi rst school headt eachers letter, passing it to a n offi cial with pastora l responsibility for
the schools involved, toget her with a request tha t he resolve the dispute. The many people
caught up in complex educational change form an extensive network, ambiguity tending
to result from the unintended consequences of actions of which their perpetrato rs may be
unawa re. The offi cials and head teachers who had a greed on the two-part reorga nizat ionarrangement never predicted that it could trigger the computer dispute.
20 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
Tabl e 3. Characteristics of complex educational change with management implications
1. Large-sca le a multitude of stakeholders with an extensive range of specialist knowledge and priorities the allegiance of stakeholders to partially incompatible beliefs and values, within limits
2. Component ia l
a diversity of sequential and overlapping components affecting different stakeholders atparticular times
a multiplicity of differentiated but interrelated management tasks3. Syst emic
a multidirectional flow of direct and mediated interaction within and between system levels an unequal distribution of power between stakeholders within and between system levels
who a re nevertheless interdependent the centrality of cross-level management tasks
4. D if ferentially Impacting a variable shift in practice and learning required variable congruence with perceived interests and its associated emotive force, altering with
time
a variable reciprocal effect on other ongoing activities variable awa reness of the totality beyond those parts of immediate concern
5. Contextually Dependent interaction with an evolving profile of other planned and unplanned changes impact of the accretion of past changes affecting resource parameters
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
14/22
There w ill be an unequal di stri buti on o f power between stakeholders withi n and between
system levels, who are nevertheless interdependent. LEA officials depended on head-
teachers to cooperate in implementing reorganization. Headteachers in the computer
dispute depended on officials to resolve it, in a situation where no party possessed
sufficient authority to dictate what must happen. They all depended on each other to
ensure that t he reallocat ion of staff a nd tra nsfer of eq uipment wa s completed on time.The centr ali ty of management tasks across system levelsfollows from the aspirat ion of
policy-makers and their agents a t one level to change education practice at anot her. LE A
officials were responsible for many management tasks that necessitated action in schools,
including reallocating staff and redistributing equipment.
Fourth, complex educat ional change is dif ferentially impactingon the people involved or
affected, contributing to the diversity of management tasks. There will be a variable shif t
in practice and learn ing requi redof different individuals and groups according to the
novelty of what they have to do. The headteachers experienced a steep learning curve in
having to make an unprecedented variety of arrangements to implement reorganization.
While some of the ma in protagonists in the computer d ispute had experienced a previousreorganizat ion (ironically, to creat e the middle schools! ), the present situation wa s new for
them all. Last time, LE A o ffi cials held the budget for school equipment. Since then, central
government policies reducing LE A a uthority ha d devolved much of this budget t o schools.
Shifts in practice will have variab le congruence wi th perceived i nterests and associated
emotive force, alteri ng with time. O ffi cials interest in promoting LE A-wide reorganization
might or might not coincide with the narrower interest of headteachers in protecting
educational provision in their school. First school headteachers were pleased that their
schools were expanding (a s were their sala ries). Middle school hea dtea chers unanimously
condemned the demise of middle schools. When the computer dispute arose, they
expressed indignation at first school headteachers pressuring them over a few computerswhen middle school staff stood to lose their job. Once reorganization was over, the
computer dispute wo uld lose its emotive force for everyone affected. M eanwhile, for L E A
officials involved, this conflict was just one of many challenges. Yet they were concerned
that a resolution be found to pre-empt either group of headtea chers lobbying parents or
going to the press, which would be contrary to officials interest in promoting reorganiz-
ation across the LE A.
The change w ill have a variable recipr ocal eff ect on o ther ongoing activi ties. Reorga niz-
at ion ta sks were a minor concern for some offi cials and school sta ff while, for others, such
ta sks consumed most wo rking hours over many mont hs. When the computer dispute a rose
the fi rst school headtea chers were concerned with expansion, af fecting a minority o f staffand students, alongside the no rmal business of running their school. Middle school hea d-
teachers were concerned with closing their school, helping their staff to find jobs, and
running the institution with a reduced staff and complement of students for its fina l year.
There will be var iable awareness of the totali ty of the change beyond those par ts of
immediate concernto particular individuals and groups. Senior LEA officials had an
overview of the entire reorganization initiative, but little knowledge of the computer
dispute. The first and middle school staff concerned were acutely aware of this dispute,
but had only a sketchy understanding of what was happening in other schools and the
LEA.
Fifth, complex educat ional change is contextual ly dependent, facilita ted a nd constrainedby a spects of the wider political a nd historical milieu to w hich it relat es. The change w ill
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 21
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
15/22
in teract wi th an evolvi ng profile of o ther planned and unplanned changes. We have seen
how central government reforms to reduce LE A authority over schools delimited offi cials
agency, constraining their response over the computer dispute. Officials and school staff
had to implement reorganization a longside all the education reforms of the da y.
The impact of the accretion o f past changes aff ecting resource parameters for the change
may be fa cilita tive or inhibitory. Pressure to dow nsize provision in the LE As wa s an unin-tended consequence of past expansion when the school-age population was growing.
Surplus student ca pacity f ollowing popula tion decline since the 1980s had contributed to
a level of public expenditure tha t, in the harsher economic climate of globa l competition,
was now deemed excessive. Central government ministers had even passed legislation
entitling them to take over reorganizing LEA provision of schools if officials failed to
undertake initiatives of their own.
G iven tha t the reorganization initiat ive was completed, it wa s evidently not w holly
unmanageable, even if ambiguity reigned while it was happening. So how is it possible to
cope with complex educationa l change? A nd wha t did ha ppen to the computer dispute?
Unpopular Ideas for Coping: Complex Educational ChangeManagement Themes
In moving toward s knowledge-for-act ion, I ident ified fo ur hierarchically ordered practical
themes for ma naging complex educationa l change. Topping the hierarchy is the meta ta sk
of orchestration, narrowly distributed a mong senior forma l leaders within and between t he
different administrative levels of large education systems. The term is used figuratively
(hopefully as an under-stretched metaphor), consistent with the dictionary definition to
orga nise a situation o r event unobtrusively so that a desired effect or outcome is achieved
(Encarta, 2001: 1023). Orchestration implies steering the complex change process, oftenat some distance from the sharp end of implementa tion in organizations at the periphery
of a n education system. It enta ils instigating, organizing and ma intaining oversight of a n
intricate a rray of coordinated t asks as the change process unfolds, and coping with this
change alongside other work. Orchestration is unobtrusive, characterized by behind-the-
scenes string pulling. It is evolutiona ry, and it includes at tent ion to deta il. O rchestration
contrasts starkly with the public, visionary and charismatic behaviour widely popularized
as ha llmarks of lead ership (Leithwood et a l., 1999).
The current orthodoxy t hat visionary leadership of a transformat ional kind provides a key
to ma naging educational change (D ay et a l., 2000) seems misplaced, at least for the U K. The
emphasis on leadership overplays the extent o f designated leaders agency a nd underplaysfactors that set limits on what leaders can do. As piggies in the middle of other stake-
holders, leaders agency is channelled most significantly by government politicians in their
favoured direction. Leaders agency is also delimited by accountability mechanisms to
ensure compliance which entail extensive surveillance and the possibility of tough correc-
tive action. However, some agency remains because government politicians ultimately
depend on those they ho ld responsible for implementing their education policies. A shift of
conceptual emphasis from leadership to orchestration has greater potential for realistic
practical guidance; empowering practitioners make the most of their limited agency.
This conception o f orchestra tion mea ns both more a nd less than lea dership. The distinc-
tion to be d rawn between orchestrat ion, leadership and ma nagement ha s two dimensions(Figure 3):
22 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
16/22
the extent to which activity includes deciding the direction of change rather than
implementing ot hers decisions;
the extent to w hich activity is distributed within and between organizations.
Advocates of transformational leadership as a popular prescription increasingly distin-
guish it from mana gement, reinforced in the U K by government politicians preference
for the term. L ead ership is ta ken to imply making new things happen by tra nsforming the
staff culture through:
articulating an a ltruistic vision of a desirable future state for the organization that
reaches beyo nd a ny individuals self-interest;
garnering colleagues support for it;
empowering colleagues to realize this shared vision through developing management
structures and procedures emphasizing professional dialogue, team-working,
continuing professional development and mutual support.
Management is confined to keeping things going, getting routine tasks done inside the
para meters set by leadership. The distinction is well captured in B ennis and Na nuss
(1985) epithet managers do things right; lea ders do the right things. It is implicit in the
definitions offered by Louis and Miles (1990: 1920):
Lea ders set the course for the organisat ion; mana gers make sure the course is followed .
Lea ders make strategic plans; managers design operationa l systems for carrying out the
plans. Leaders stimulate and inspire; managers use their interpersonal influence and
authority to translate tha t energy into productive work.
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 23
Making new things happen
(broad focus:choosing direction for change,promoting organizationaltransformation)
Keeping new things going
(detailed focus: implementing change decisions, routinized activity)
widelydistributed
restricted toincumbentsof formalleadershippositions
leadership management recent focus on distribution
orchestration established focus on top managers
Figure 3. The contribution of leadership, management and o rchestration to the change process
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
17/22
Orchestration means more than leadership. The unobtrusive aspect of orchestration
entails delving into management territory through oversight of the multifarious activities
and a dministra tive minutiae necessary to keep new things going by continuing to do new
things right during the long haul of the change process. Orchestrators attend to main-
ta ining momentum a nd ma king sure the set course is followed. Ma ny novel mana gement
tasks embodied in the change soon become routinized. They must be sustained as thechange is gradually built into normal practice, often over several years. Orchestration
involves monito ring others practice relating to t he change, channelling their agency in the
desired direction through encouragement and incentives, and attempting to delimit their
agency through the threat of corrective a ction where their practice is deemed unaccept-
able.
O rchestra tion mea ns less tha n leadership. In B olman a nd D ea ls (1991: 408) apposite
phrase, things make leaders happen. Scope for selecting the content of a vision is more
restricted in the state ed ucation sphere than ad vocates of t ransformational lead ership tend
to assume. Q uestion: whose vision is it a nywa y? A nswer, in the U K: government poli-
ticians, and woe b etide any formal leader w hose vision does not comply. Consequentlythere is also limited scope for charisma. G iven the predictab le government-sponsored
content of their vision, leaders who behave like inspirational visionaries stand to be
received with cynicism either for promoting a party-political agenda or for being inau-
thentic. B ut the need for stimulat ing and steering a coherent change effort remains even
where visionary content is externally supplied. So significant, though delimited, scope
remains for doing the right things by setting the course for organizationsas long as it
aligns with go vernment politicians vision.
Second, orchestration also means less than the increasingly popular prescription of
distributed or shared leadership inside educational organizations. Making new things
happen, especially in large organizations, is seen to be unequally but widely shared(G ronn, 2000) amo ng senior and middle managers, and by individual tea chers in their
classrooms. Normatively, it is advoca ted that lea dership should be widely distributed , not
restricted to a privileged few in formal leadership positions. B ut orchestrat ion is the
exclusive province of a sma ll number of senior ma nagers in hierarchically ordered o rgan iz-
at ions who are in a position to steer the w ork of orga nizat ion members. It is more narrowly
dispersed inside any organization than distributed leadership implies. With complex
educational change, orchestration entails a coordinated thrust not only inside organiz-
ations but also between them, including those at different administrative levels. The
conceptual a nd explana tory pow er of o rchestration a s a concept derives from its compass
spanning part o f leadership and mana gement, avoiding the distinction they imply betw eenmaking new things happen and keeping new things on track, but not reaching to either of
their extremes. Orchestration excludes some choice over the content of a vision that
leadership implies, and is less potentia lly distributive. It also excludes the a ttent ion to very
specifi c and deta iled ta sks that mana gement implies.
The orchestrators embroiled in the computer dispute were the headteachers and the
C E O. The headt eachers instigated action on b ehalf of t heir staf f to protect their incom-
patible interests. The C E O steered the L E A response by d elegat ing the task of respond-
ing to a colleague offi cial. It wa s he who actua lly at tempted to break the stalemate.
O rchestra tion fra mes activity grouped under three themes. The fi rst isflexible planning
and coordination. It covers planning what needs to be done by managers at differentsystem levels, retaining short-term fl exibility through incremental planning and coherence
24 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
18/22
through longer planning cycles. P lans are coordinated and frequently updated informally
(and occasionally formally) as the change process evolves.
The official with pastoral responsibility for the first and middle schools adjusted his
programme of work, prioritizing a swift response. He checked out the overall budgetary
situa tion in each school and in the LE A, a nd planned his response accordingly. The head -
teachers had minimal knowledge either of other school budgets or of w hat wa s in the L E Acoffers. H e ma de his move in a coordinated ma nner by seeking the opportunity t o speak
in public to all headteachers concerned simultaneously, during a regular headteachers
meeting that offi cials facilitated.
The second theme is culture buil ding and communication. Since managers depend on
other stakeholders to a ccept and implement change, they must attempt to fo rge a culture
of acceptance for their vision (ultimately derived from that of government politicians).
While culture is not predictably and reliably amenable to deliberate efforts at shaping it,
mana gers cannot affo rd not to try. Forcing through a cha nge by o vercoming resistance
as opposed to trying to hea d off negative reactions by nurturing a culture of a cceptance
can never bring more tha n minimal compliance. E xpensive surveillance and sanctions a rerequired to police compliance under such conditions where resista nce must be suppressed.
Communication implies giving consistent messages, and gathering feedback to assist
coordination a nd t o pre-empt a ny resistance.
The fact that the first school headteachers complained to the CEO, with no authority
to intervene, testifies that officials had done their culture-building work well. Here it had
worked. Several officials, including the one who stood up to address the headteachers
involved in the computer dispute, had served in the LEA for many years. They had long
esta blished a reputa tion for even-handedness. O ffi cials had worked to gether to communi-
cate a consistent vision of the benefi ts of reorganization over almost a decade. B y this final
phase, most school staf f and parent s were positively disposed tow ards offi cials, convincedthat offi cials had their own diverse interests at heart. The legacy of t he recently eroded
structure of L E A authority lived on, headt eachers continuing to assume subliminally that
offi cials were a uthority fi gures, despite simultaneously being a wa re tha t central govern-
ment policies had put headteachers in the driving seat. When the official attending the
headtea chers meeting started t o speak, they were read y to listen.
The third theme is dif ferentiated suppor t. It entails carefully planned but also respon-
sive provision of whatever different people need, when they need it. Needs identification
procedures must be ongoing. Support to meet diverse needs may take equally diverse
formswhether expertise, time, finance, training, counselling, the offer of a job, an early
retirement arrangement, or opportunities to observe practice elsewhere.Here, the need was for new computers and therefore the money to buy them. What
happened? The official attempted to channel the agency of the headteachers towards
accepting a resolution tha t a ll would perceive to be in their best interests. H e thought the
hitherto unthinkab le. H e proposed that midd le school head tea chers should relinquish the
number of up-to-date computers requested by the first school headteachers. The middle
school headteachers should also purchase new machines to replace them, financed
through their devolved budget. He knew this proposal was do-able. All the computers
would be needed a fter reorganization in a years time, and he judged that the inroad the
purchases would make into the middle schools budgets would be minimal. He knew their
budgets were healthy and LE A resources were sufficient to underwrite any shortfa ll whenthe middle schools closed. It was a negligible price to pay for restoring harmonious
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 25
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
19/22
relationships between first and middle school staff during the stressful year leading up to
the part 2 reorganization arrangement. The official therefore resolved the computer
dispute by empowering members of both factions to continue separately with their
alternative traditions until the end of the year, in line with their existing professional
cultures.
Reorganization had directly generated ambiguity arising from lack of authoritativecontrol at school or L E A levels over the redistribution of computers, from limited a wa re-
ness of the possibilities for alternative courses of action, and from contradictory beliefs
and values about the fairness of alternative redistribution arrangements. The change
management themes indicate how the CEO possessed sufficient agency to delegate the
LEA response. The official possessed sufficient agency to broker a solution that amelio-
rated these sources of ambiguity. The computer dispute proved to be only relatively
unmanagea ble, thanks to stakeholders capacity to fi nd a w ay o f coping with it.
Implications for Research and Theory, Policy and Practice
The characteristics of complexity and these themes for managing complex educational
change are tentative. The contextual dependence of complex educational change implies
that any characteristic or theme could apply elsewhere only at some level of ab straction
from the concrete circumsta nces of a ny change. B ut the characteristics and themes have
enough face-validity t o suggest tha t t hey do have potential a s a b asis for further research
and t heory development w ithin a knowledge-for-understand ing to inform know ledge-for-
act ion intellectual project. The next item on the research and theory a genda is to investi-
gate other complex changes in education and elsewhere.
The characteristics and themes also of fer a framewo rk for planning practical action. B ut
it is doubtful tha t these ideas will become popular prescriptions, in the U K at least. Theyare likely to be t rapped by the fi rst filter (ma nagers needs), since centra l government poli-
ticians now comprehensively defi ne the needs of educat ion mana gers and fund the means
of meeting them. These politicians have already sunk too much investment in popular
prescriptions like transformational, visionary leadership. For education managers to
believe they possess more agency than they do may even be in government ministers
interest. An explicit aim of their endeavour to modernize the education profession is to
modernize the culture of educa tiona l professionals (D fE E , 1998). A know ledge-for-
critical eva luation conspiracy theorist might perceive the underlying aim as being to create
a self-regulating profession, where tea chers, lecturers and ma nagers delimit their a gency
for themselves. Envisioning courses of action lying outside government politicianscomfort zone w ould become unthinkable, so ta king them w ould become simply not do-
able.
B ut I subscribe to a cocked-up conspiracy theory of history. We proba bly canno t get
round the structural limits imposed on agency by globa l capita lism. B ut amb iguity cannot
be eliminated either. The three sources of organizational ambiguity apply equally to the
wider policy process of which orga nizationa l activity is an integra l part. D espite their best
efforts, central government politicians do have only l im ited control over education
professiona ls. Witness the chronic tea cher recruitment a nd retention crisis in this country
triggered in part by innova tion overkill and a lasting increase in teachers workloa dunin-
tended consequences of the well-intentioned reform eff orts of po liticians from successivegovernments. Yet politicians agency to express their reformist zeal is demonstrably
26 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
20/22
delimited by their dependence for implementa tion on the expertise and energy of the very
people who still possess enough agency to vote with their feet by avoiding or getting out
of the education profession.
G iven the widely accepted legitimacy of pursuing an ideologically driven reform
agenda , government politicians understa ndably t end to marginalize and so have limited
awareness of educational research that does not support their ideology, indicates thatother a pproa ches might w ork better or expresses alternative educationa l values. E ven the
current evidence-informed policy and practice initiative rests on a narrowly delimited
range o f evidence. Funding is not likely to be fo rthcoming for politically sensitive but prac-
tically informative topics for systematic reviews, such as the unintended contribution of
central government policies to perpetuating the problem of low standards they are
designed to a meliorate. The amount o f government-commissioned research is thankfully
on the increase, but the specification of topics and approaches is tightly focused on
immediate policy implementation concerns. Not much room for researchers to think the
unthinkable here. G overnment-sponsored evalua tions tend to be equa lly restricted in
scope. The current external evaluation of the national literacy and numeracy strategies(Earl et al., 2002) is confined to the change process adopted by government politicians.
They have thus avoided raising their awareness of whether the educationally contentious
content o f the strat egies (running counter to a considerable bod y of research) has proved
as educationally effective as the architects of the strategies claimed it would be.
G overnment politicians hold contradi ctory beli efs and values, seeking hyper-control
through education reforms that exacerbate endemic ambiguity through the change
process they enta il and promote conservative ma nagement a nd tea ching to the test in a
changing world. At the same time they wish to encourage the very experimentation they
inhibit, to develop new mana gerial coping strat egies and learning a nd tea ching approaches
that will be more effective in this evolving context.If politicians would only get real about the futility of trying to eliminate ambiguity
through hyper-control, then by easing back on their multiple control mechanisms the
agency of education professionals could be channelled towards more risk-taking and
experimenta tion. B eing realistic about complex educationa l change implies accepting tha t
it is beyond the agency of government politicians, their change a gent ma nagers or other
education professionals to eliminate ambiguity from the change process. Some ameliora-
tion is certa inly possible at the edges, and stra tegies like orchestration o f complex change
may help to reduce ambiguitybut only up to a point. So politicians would ha ve to accept
the risk of some loss of control for the sake of encouraging education professionals to
think the unthinkab le and make the presently not-do-able more do-ab le. U nfortunat ely,the na ture of politics and the structural economic conditions and assumptions driving poli-
ticians to act as they do both militate against greater acceptance of ambiguity. We are
probably not on the threshold of a new age of political enlightenment.
Finally, reaching across to other academic producers positions by pursuing the know-
ledge-for-action and instrumentalism intellectual projects means seeking more realistic
ways of supporting practitioners with managing complex educational change inside the
limits of huma n a gency. The most promising direction for know ledge-for-action tha t w ill
work lies in the humble realm of coping strategies, headed by orchestration, rather than
more grand iose notions like transforma tiona l leadership which treat a gency as potentially
unlimited. E ffective coping implies ameliorating a mbiguity where bo th fea sible and d esir-able. It also implies accepting a signifi cant mea sure of a mbiguity a s a fa ct of ma nagerial
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 27
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
21/22
life, not an ab erration. An importa nt goa l for the allied intellectual project of instrumen-
ta lism is to fi nd w ays of helping practitioners to cope with the relatively unmanagea ble by
learning to live with ambiguity, and so rendering it relatively manageable.
My hope is that the professional culture of a cademics and practitioners in the U K (and
elsewhere) remains sufficiently unmodernized for us to employ our agency in working
toget her on th is mildly subversive practica l agend a, ma king such unpopular prescriptionsmore thinkable and so potentially more do-able. It surely promises to contribute more
than todays hopeless political quest for hyper-control ever can towards tomorrows
educational success. But who knows what will happen?
Dedication
This is a slightly revised text o f a n inaugural lecture given at the U niversity o f B at h on 23 May
2002. It is dedicated t o the memory o f D r Valerie H all, who died o f cancer two da ys earlier.
Valerie wa s my mentor, research collab orat or, good friend a nd a key format ive influence on my
whole a pproach to research. We wo rked together on a study of secondary school senior
mana gement teams (Wallace and H all, 1994) when I wa s just starting out a s an a cademic
researcher. I w as very unsure whether I wa s up to the ta sk. Valerie a lready possessed extensive
qua litative research experience, but she never traded on it. I nstead she built up my confid ence,
and through her example she taught me the a rt of rigorous and probing interview and
observation. She helped me learn how to build tow ards a deeply contextualized understand ing of
social phenomena. The intellectual debt I owe Valerie pervades the topic of this lecture and my
approach to it.
References
B all, S. (1994) Educational Reform : A Cr itical and Post-Structural A pproach. B uckingham: O penU niversity Press.
B ennis, W. and Nanus, B . (1985) L eaders: The Strategies for Tak ing Charge. New York: Ha rper &
Row.
B olam, R . (1999) E ducational A dministration, Lea dership and M ana gement: Towa rds a R esearch
Agenda, in T. B ush, L. B ell, R. B olam, R . G latter and P . Ribbins (eds) Educational
M anagement: Redefining Theory, Poli cy and Practice, pp. 193205. London: P aul C hapma n.
B olman, L . and D eal, T. (1991) Reframing O rganisations: A rti stry, Choi ce and L eadership. San
Francisco: Jo ssey-B ass.
D ay, C ., Ha rris, A., Ha dfi eld, M., Tolley, H . and B eresford, J. (2000) L eading Schools in T imes of
Change. B uckingham: O pen U niversity P ress.
D epartment for E ducation and E mployment (1998) Teachers Meeting the Chall enge of Change.London: D fEE .
E arl, L., Levin, B ., Leithwo od, K ., Fullan, M. and Wat son, N. with Torrance, N., Ja ntzi, D . and
Mascall, B. (2002) Watching and L earning 2: OISE /UT Evaluation of the Implementation of the
National L iteracy and National N umeracy Strategies. Second A nnual Repor t. Toronto: O nta rio
Institute for Stud ies in Educa tion and U niversity of Toronto.
E ncarta (2001) Encarta Concise English D ictionary. London: B loomsbury.
Fullan, M. w ith St iegelba uer, S. (1991) The New M eaning of Educational Change. L ondon: C assell.
G ewirtz, S., B all, S. and B owe, R . (1995) M arkets, Choice and Equ ity in Education. B uckingham:
Open U niversity P ress.
G ronn, P. (2000) D istributed Properties: A New A rchitecture for Leadership, Educational
M anagement & A dmini stration 28(3): 31738.
28 E D U C A TI O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I S TR A TI O N 31( 1)
at Queens University Belfast on July 12, 2012ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 Managing Educational Change
22/22
G ronn, P. (2002) The New Wor k of Educational L eaders: Changing L eadership Practice in an A ge
of School Reform. London: Paul Chapman.
G unter, H . (2001) L eaders and L eadership in Education. London: Paul Chapman.
G unter, H. a nd R ibbins, P. (2002) Lea dership Studies in E ducat ion: Toward s a Map of the Field,
Educational M anagement & A dmini stration30(4): 387417.
H argrea ves, A. (1983) The Politics of A dministra tive C onvenience: The Case of Middle Schoo ls,
in J. Ahier and M. Flude (eds) Contemporary E ducation Policy, pp. 2357. London: Croom
Helm.
Hoyle, E. (1986) The Poli tics of School M anagement. London: H odder & Stoughton.
Hoyle, E. (1999) The Two Faces of Micropolitics, Schoo l L eadership and M anagement19(2):
21322.
H uczynski, A . (1993) M anagement Gur us: What M akes Them and H ow to B ecome One. London:
Routledge.
Leithwood , K., Ja ntzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999) Changing L eadership for Changing T imes.
B uckingham: O pen U niversity P ress.
Louis, K.S. and Miles, M. (1990) Improving the U rban H igh School: What Work s and Why. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Ma rch, J. a nd O lsen, P. (1976) Ambiguity and Choi ce in O rganisations. B ergen:
U niversitetsforlaget.
Ma rch, J. and Simon, H . (1958) Organisations. New York: John Wiley.
Morrison, K . (2002) School L eadership and Complexity Theory. Londo n: R outledgeFalmer.
Oga wa , R ., Crowson, R . and G oldring, E. (1999) E nduring D ilemmas of School Organisation, in
J. Murphy and K. Sea shore Louis (eds) H andbook of Research on Educational A dmini stration,
pp. 27795. San Fra ncisco: Jo ssey-B ass.
R ibbins, P. and G unter, H . (2002) Ma pping Lead ership Studies in Educa tion: Toward s a Typology
of Know ledge D omains, Educational M anagement & A dmini stration30(4): 35986.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fif th D iscipl ine: The A rt and Practice of the L earning Organisation. New
York: D oubleday.
Wallace, M. and H all, V. (1994) I nside the SM T: Teamwor k in Secondary School M anagement.
London: Paul Chapman.
Wallace, M. and Pocklington, K. (2002) M anaging Complex Educational Change: L arge-Scale
Reorganisation of Schools. Londo n: R outledgeFalmer.
Wallace, M. and Poulson, L., eds (2003) L earning to Read Cri ticall y in Educational L eadership and
M anagement. London: Sage.
Weick, K . (2001) M aking Sense of the O rganisation. Oxford: B lackwell.
World B ank (2000) Entering the 21st Century: Worl d D evelopment Repor t 1999/2000. Washington,
D C: O xford University Press.
Correspondence to:
P R O FE S SO R M IK E WA L LAC E , Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
WA L L A C E : M A NA G I N G TH E U N M A NA G E A B L E ? 29