1

Systemic Organizational Change DPLS 719 – Fall 2012

Table of Contents

Course Information...... 2 Description & Format...... 2 Objectives...... 3 Reading Materials...... 4 Assignments and Grading...... 5 Schedule of Class Topics and Reading Assignments...... 7 Other Readings and References...... 8

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 2

Course Information

Course Name: Systemic Organizational Change Course Number: DPLS 719 Credits: 3 Day of the Week/Time: Thursday 6pm-10pm Dates: Sept 6, 20; Oct 4, 18; Nov 1, 15, 29; Dec 6 Location: TIL 117 Instructor: Chris Francovich, Ed.D. Email: [email protected] Phone: 509-323-3592 Office Hours: Please call for an appointment

Description & Format

This course is composed of reading, writing, class discussion, lecture, and group activities. We will form small working groups during the first class that will remain intact throughout the course. These groups or cohorts will serve multiple functions. Among them are: Content & process support - group participants will have an opportunity to discuss readings, past discussions, and class assignments. Project and activity work – A central part of the course is a critical analysis of the text Adaptive Leadership. Each group will be responsible for reading, synthesizing, and presenting their critique. More information about this assignment will be posted on Blackboard along with group assignments and dates. Most 4 hour classes will open with individual check-ins followed by an overview of the readings. Small group discussions of course notes and readings will typically follow. We will generally take a 20-30 minute break. Following the break we will work on projects, conduct full class debriefs, continue class discussion, or review readings. It is also my habit to prepare interpretive notes of selected readings and make them available on Blackboard prior to class. I use these notes to frame my ideas for dialogue when we meet. I also hope that my interpretations inspire students to interpret and analyze the readings from their own perspectives. I then prepare a number of slides based on my notes to stimulate discussion and/or communicate concepts and ideas. There will also be additional readings posted on Blackboard.

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 3

Objectives

The course explores theories and ideas related to organizational change looking at both rational substantialist perspectives on change where change itself is seen in the foreground and strategies based on a process perspective where change is seen as the background for temporary stable organizational structures. The use of the word “systemic” in the title of this course is meant to capture structure/change phenomena in organizations holistically and comprehensively. The term does not necessarily imply rational, planned, or even fully describable organizational phenomena. The first readings in the course are more philosophical and broad an will frame ensuing readings as we converge on key ideas in both institutional and organizational studies. The book on Adaptive Leadership will be deconstructed through the various lenses offered in the course as your primary writing project. This course will be conducted in a seminar format. Please come prepared for discussion & dialogue, lots of thinking and lots of engagement. Hopes and Aims

 We will develop a working knowledge of current thinking around organizational structures and processes as they relate to coherence and community in organizational settings.  We will develop an understanding and appreciation of the role and scope language and conversation plays in organizations and in organizational change initiatives.  We will develop a vocabulary and conceptual framework for integrating technical definitions of communication, subjectivity, motivation, and beliefs into a coherent image of collective activity.  We will learn about & practice strategies, models, and methods for adapting to and affecting change at interpersonal and group levels. We will connect knowledge of organizational change to leadership behaviors and principles.

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 4

Reading Materials

Required Texts Scott, R.W., (2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA ISBN: 978-1-4129-5090-9 Strauss, A. (1993/2009). Continual Permutations of Action. Aldine Transaction. Piscataway, N.J. ISBN-13: 978-0202362458 Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M., & Grashow, A. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership : Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press. ISBN: 978-1422105764 Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations : A complexity approach to change. London ; New York: Routledge. 978-0415249140

Required Readings (Available on Blackboard) Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281-317; 281. Cooper, R. 2007. Organs of Process: Rethinking Human Organization. Organization Studies. 29(10), pp. 1547-1573 Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519. Jaques, E. (1990). In praise of hierarchy. Harvard Business Review, 68(1), 127-133. Other Readings will be provided as assigned via hardcopy and on Blackboard.

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 5

Assignments and Grading

Expectations and Assessment Assessment of doctoral work in leadership studies is challenging. Interdisciplinary work dealing with complex and sometimes contested theories and concepts requires (from my perspective) a tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and contingency. I am also struck by the need for a high degree of self-directed behavior on the part of doctoral students and candidates. I would like my teaching style, assessment policy, and rubrics to support and facilitate self-direction. The DPLS is an interdisciplinary program and students come with a variety of experiences, different types of expertise, and different professional and scholarly needs. It is my intention to honor, help cultivate, and support these differences. However, behind my philosophical questions about assessment and uncertainty in evaluating anyone in an absolute manner there does reside (in my view) a set of skills that serve to hold and shape work with language in a complex world. I believe we need a grammar, syntax, and semantics of clarity, coherence, depth, and breadth. My assumption at the beginning of the term is that all of the students in this class possess the requisite skills, talents, and propensities needed to be clear, cogent, and complete. I admit that the standards I refer to are objectively stated and subjectively enacted. My assessment will be based on the quality and content of expressed thought as exhibited in both written assignments and classroom presentations and participation. Grading Criteria for Written Work (adapted from the DPLS Academic papers rubric) Content Criteria: The content of papers should reflect the level and style of content in readings and discussions. There is an expectation that doctoral students will reach outside of their comfort zone in terms of appropriation of ideas, concepts, and frameworks. The substance of papers and other writings will be weighed against the general level of discourse in class meetings and the style and density of expression of the readings. Thought and Expression Criteria Student writing should raise vital questions or issues, formulating them clearly and precisely. I will be looking for evidence of breadth and depth and the insightful, in-depth analysis of complex ideas. Main points should be developed and supported with relevant information and references that are appropriately incorporated. The organization and logic of your writing is critical. The expectation is for well focused, well organized, and well reasoned conclusions. The writing should flow with the reader not getting lost or having to work to determine what you are saying. There is also an expectation that your writing/thinking has an open and inclusive character when exploring alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as appropriate, their assumptions, implications, and/or practical consequences.

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 6

Technical Criteria Your writing should be clear and demonstrate a high level of vocabulary through careful word choice. Sentences should be constructed skillfully and purposefully. Transitions between paragraphs and sections are important and will evaluated for their efficacy in weaving your concepts, themes, and purposes together. Summaries and conclusions are also vital elements of good writing and will be evaluated based on their appropriateness and effectiveness. Of course grammar, punctuation, and spelling are expected to be flawless. Careful proof reading of your paper is a basic expectation. Papers, unless otherwise noted are to be completed in APA style. References should be cited properly within the text and a complete reference list must be provided. Appropriate use of headings will also be noted. All papers to be sent via email to [email protected] All writing should conform to DPLS Red Book and APA 6th Edition

 Read all materials and attend all classes and participate with all your attention. Please let me know if you intend to miss any classes. (15% of grade)  Pre Class assignment – (15% of grade) due on first Class. See Blackboard > Assignments area for description  Group Assignment – (30% of grade) See Blackboard > Assignments  Final paper – Please see Blackboard > Assignments area for Final Assignment (40% of grade).

Point/Grade correspondence: 95-100% = A 90-94.99% = A- 85-90% = B 80-84.99% = B-

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 7

Schedule of Class Topics and Reading Assignments

Session Topic Assignment # 0 Pre-Reading Scott: pp: ix – 45 Jaques: In Praise of Hierarchy (on Blackboard - BB) Hayek: The Use of Knowledge in Society (on BB) Pre-class writing due (send via email) on or before 1st mtg

1 What is an institution? 9/6 Class Covenant Dialogue & the DPLS Overview of Readings Group Work

2 Check in Readings for 2nd Meeting: 9/20 Group Work Scott: pp. 47 – 119 Discussion Strauss: pp. 1 - 46

3 Check in Readings for 3rd Meeting 10/4 Group Work Scott: pp. 121- 180 Discussion Strauss: pp. 47 - 72

4 Check in Readings for 4th Meeting 10/18 Group Work Scott: pp. 181 - 220 Discussion Strauss: pp. 75 – 147 Reading TBA

5 Check in Readings for 5th Meeting 11/1 Group Work Strauss: pp. 149 – 208 Discussion Shaw: pp. ix - 71

6 Check in Readings for 6th Meeting 11/15 Group Work Strauss: pp. 209 – 262 Discussion Shaw: pp. 72 – 139 Emirbayer: Manifesto for a Relational Sociology (on BB)

7 Check in Readings for 7th Meeting 11/29 Group Work Shaw: pp. 140 - 173 Discussion

8 Check in 12/6 Presentations

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 8

12/14 Course Paper/Project Due: December 14th

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 9

Other Readings and References

Other Reading that may help in developing an understanding of change in organizations: Activity theory and social practice. (1999) (S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen, Eds.). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhaus University Press. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environmnet of human behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Standford University Press. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Bowker, G. C., Leigh-Starr, S., Turner, W., Gasser Les, & Eds. (1997). Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the great divide. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen Knowledge. Educational Technology, 33(3), 10-15. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organizational Science, 2(1), 40-57. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Editors). (1993). Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context [Cambridge, UK]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cognition and communication at work. (1996) (Y. Engestrom & D. Middleton, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Darrah, C., N. (1996). Learning and work: An exploration in industrial ethnography. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 10

Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species; The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Regency. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: The Free Press. Engestrom, Y., & Middleton, D. (1996). Studying work as mindful practice. In Y. Engestrom & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fuhrer, U. (1996). Behavior setting analysis of situated learning: The case of newcomers. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 179-215). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Habermas, J. (1981, 1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol 1 & 2) (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Hall, D., & Moss, J. (1997). Helping organizations and employees adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 26(3), 311-332. Harker, R. K. (1984). On reproduction, habitus, and education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(2), 117-127. Ho, M.-W. (1991). The role of action in evolution: Evolution by process and the ecological approach to perception. Cultural Dynamics, 4(3), 336-354. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger Etienne. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge; The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Nardi, B., A., & O'Day, V., L. (1999). Information Ecologies. Cambridge: MIT Press. Nonaka, I. (1997). A new organizational structure. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in Organizations (pp. 99-135). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995 2nd Ed.). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018 11

Salomon, G. (. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schein, E. (1997). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning in the 21st century. WWW (Cambridge, MA), http://learning.mit.edu/res/wp/three.html. Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide: Sense and nonsense about culture change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems. (2004) (J. Minger & L. Willcocks, Eds.). Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Spinosa, C., Flores, F., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1997). Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Tobach, E. (1995). The uniqueness of human labor. In L. Martin, K. Nelson & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 43-63). New York: Cambridge University Press. Umpleby, S. (1997). Cybernetics of Conceptual Systems. Cybernetics and Systems, 28(8), 635- 652. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization's internal growth and profitability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice; Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology (D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, Eds.) (Corrected Edition). New York: The Free Press. Winograd, T., & Flores Fernando. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Property of Gonzaga University and DPLS January 9, 2018