Perspectives on Change

In 'Perspectives on Change' Jim Grieves (2010) presents four different 20th century perspectives on change, and the various theories that inform them. These four perspectives are referred to as 'Structural-Functional', 'Multiple-Constituencies', 'Organisational Development' (OD), and 'Creativity and Volition: a critical theory of change' (Grieves, 2010, pp. 4-5). In 'Organizational Change', Mats Alvesson (2008) likewise identifies two key approaches to change, being Planned Change, and Processual Change. Each one is divided into distinct theoretical groups, Planned being divided between the 'Group Dynamics' school and the 'Open Systems' school, while Processual Change is separated by the metaphors of 'Diffusion' and 'Translation' as ways of representing the process of change (Alvesson, 2008, p. 29). These resulting four approaches represent some of the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of Grieves distinct perspectives. While both of these texts present their key concepts in an abstract form, though with some examples and case studies, it is the intention of this essay to evaluate each of the four perspectives in relation to schools as organisations, and assess the suitability of each perspective in terms of application to change in a school environment, particularly in relation to the students within a school system who can be seen simultaneously as part of, a client of, and the product of educational organisations.

Grieves' Structural-Functional perspective incorporates Open Systems thinking, which views an organisation as a series of interrelated systems that work together to transform inputs into outputs in a continuous flow of 'inputs, transformations and outputs' (Grieves, 2010, p. 10), Alvesson, in positioning the Open Systems approach as one of the two forms of planned change, similarly describes an organisation "as being composed of a set of various interconnected sub-systems that together constitute the whole organisation" (2008, p. 21). This systems view of an organisation relies heavily on the analogy of an organisation as a living organism, a single entity made up of multiple complex systems working towards a common goal, and Grieves quotes Selznick as stating that such systems are usually driven by five essential imperatives of Security, Stability, Self-Interest, Continuity and Homogeneity of Outlook (2010, pp. 9-10). From this perspective, a school as educational system can be seen as a complex entity comprised of many systems containing further sub-systems, such as the teaching staff and the faculties within them, and particularly incorporating the unit that comprises of a class of students and their teacher. Appendix 1 shows Bowen's general systems theory perspective (Bowen, 2007, p. 64), in which schools consist of additional layers of management with relationships to various stakeholders such as the local community and state wide management structures, all of which exist to produce the effect of 'educating' the students at the centre or base of the organisation.

One of the advantages of the structural-functional perspective is that it "does not seek to reduce complexity by breaking it down into its component parts. Systems theory seeks to understand phenomena as wholes and consequently the term 'holism' is sometimes used to illustrate that a system needs to be seen in its entirety" (Grieves, 2010, p. 14). At first glance, such an analogy seems appropriate to describe schools which are "complex networks of interrelated and interconnected forces" (Fink, 1998, p. 312). This perspective is limited, however, by the organisations-as-organisms analogy which assumes that all systems are compelled to work towards a common goal (Grieves, 2010, p. 10).

When applied to a school, this model requires an understanding of what constitutes the 'output' of a school or educational system. Fink (1998) identifies the trend of focussing on 'conventional outputs' that fit the "'bottom line" mentality of market ideology" (p. 315). Such outputs manifest as student test scores and value-added scores, as seen in Australia in the form of the MySchool website, and published ranking tables of HSC exam marks. Such a method of measuring output requires an assumption that students are one of the systems within the whole, and therefore compelled to work towards the desired output of improved test scores or value added results. This expectation of students-as-subsystem being compelled to work towards desired results is unrealistic and does not match the reality of some students' attitudes towards the goals of education. This approach also assumes a certain homogeneity not only of outlook, but of the individuals who make up the student-subsystem itself, another assumption which does not reflect the reality of widely varied abilities, experiences, interests and values toward education that can be found within the student body of one school. As Grieves notes, "the structural-functional perspective presents a reified and over-rational picture of social systems" (Grieves, 2010, p. 19), which relates to Evans criticisms of what he terms the Rational-Structural paradigm when he quotes Bolman and Deal in saying that the perspective "may be very good at explaining how organisations ought to work, but it is very poor at explaining why they often don't" (Evans, 1996, p. 9).

Multiple-Constituencies, Grieves second perspective, criticises the above limitations of the Structural-Functional perspective, recognising instead that "organisations do not exist independently from the people who work for them or interact with them." (Grieves, 2010, p. 19). This view of organisations defines them as "webs of fluid interactions between different groups of people who interests keep changing. The multiple constituencies approach is therefore a means to identify the actions and motivations of people," (Grieves, 2010, p. 20). In this perspective, students are a stakeholder group within the organisation whose self-interests and must be engaged with and negotiated around in order to achieve effective change. The perspective suggests that students as stakeholders can be influenced towards organisational goals, and Grieves references Mitroff in identifying a number of strategies for managing such influence. They are:

* Simply exercise power and authority by commanding the stakeholder to comply.

* Appeal to reason and therefore attempt to persuade the stakeholder.

* Engage in tactical bargaining with a stakeholder

* Negotiate in order to reach