University Senate Bylaws & Governing Concepts
Committee
Report on Teaching & Learning: Lee Gillis
November 9, 2005
Dimension of Capacity Building
Argyris and Schön (1974)
initially looked to three elements of theory-in-use:
1.
Governing variables:
those dimensions that people are trying to keep within acceptable limits. Any
action is likely to impact upon a number of such variables – thus any situation
can trigger a trade-off among governing variables.
2.
Action strategies:
the moves and plans used by people to keep their governing values within the
acceptable range.
3.
Consequences:
what happens as a result of an action. These can be both intended - those actor
believe will result - and unintended. In addition those consequences can be for
the self, and/or for others. (Anderson 1997)
What
Works?/ What Does Not Work?
Chris Argyris’ intervention research has been to explore how organizations may
increase their capacity for double-loop learning. He argues that double-loop
learning is necessary if practitioners and organizations are to make informed
decisions in rapidly changing and often uncertain contexts
|
Model I (single loop)
theory-in-use characteristics
(Does
not work/is typical of skilled professionals) |
Model II (double loop)
characteristics
(Higher
likelihood of working)
|
|
Governing Values
of Model I are:
-
Achieve the purpose as the actor defines
it
-
Win, do not lose
-
Suppress negative feelings
o
Emphasize
rationality
Primary Strategies
are:
-
Control environment and task unilaterally
-
Protect self and others unilaterally
Operationalized
by:
-
Unillustrated attributions and evaluations
e.g.. "You seem unmotivated"
-
Advocating courses of action which
discourage inquiry e.g.. "Lets not talk about the past, that's over."
-
Treating ones' own views as obviously
correct
-
Making covert attributions and evaluations
-
Face-saving moves such as leaving
potentially embarrassing facts unstated
Consequences
include:
-
Defensive relationships
-
Low freedom of choice
-
Reduced production of valid information
-
Little public testing of ideas
|
Governing values
Model II include:
-
Valid information
-
Free and informed choice
o
Internal
commitment
Strategies
include:
-
Sharing control
-
Participation in design and implementation
of action
Operationalized
by:
-
Attribution and evaluation illustrated
with relatively direct observable data
-
Surfacing conflicting view
-
Encouraging public testing of evaluations
Consequences
should include:
-
Minimally defensive relationships
-
High freedom of choice
-
Increased likelihood of double-loop
learning
|
“Be distrustful of bipolar models like Model I
and Model II. They tend to set up an ‘either-or’ orientation. They are useful as
teaching or sensitizing devices, alerting us to different and important aspects
of organizational life, but the area between the models (and beyond them) might
well yield interesting alternatives”
Implications for US Bylaws
From Lee’s observation:
- There is an assumption
of those who value shared governance that other administrators/faculty/staff
understand what shared governance entails.
- There is an assumption
that administrators/faculty/staff will do their homework regarding background
on any issue up for discussion: Experience has shown that many do not explore
existing local policy, BOR policy, or policy at other institutions
- Reality is that
administrators/faculty/staff rarely ask questions about shared governance;
perhaps to avoid embarrassment; or will make statements about “this is BOR
policy” without citing chapter/verse (e.g., web link) – leads to reduction of
questions.
-
Administrators/faculty/staff do not behave in a way that communicates their
understanding (or value) of Robert’s Rules of Order and thus they do not know
how to effectively participate in a governance meeting.
Outcomes (What’s the point)
- Modeling of, attention
to, and verbalization of shared governance process from the top, down through
the middle, into the faculty/staff level will increase belief and
understanding in the process and the outcome.
- Slow and positive change
at GC&SU has occurred in the “FDW model” (e.g., Autumn Grubb) where a “carrot”
(laptop/PDA) has been attached to “classes” that required investment and hard
work, but did not invoke defensiveness; on the contrary, there is the
appearance of “double loop” learning.
- Having several
contentious “issues” (storming) work their way completely and transparently
through the shared governance process will increase trust in the system (norming)
and perhaps foster “double loop” learning among administrators/faculty/staff
(performing)