Malcolm agrees with my suggestion that the university has the
organizational form usually proposed for a learning organization, but
asserts that the resulting "conservatism" happens for reasons I've
neglected:
> It seems to me you've neglected one of the critical components for
> organizational transformation in a decentralised system: not only
> that power and authority be devolved, but that all members of the
> resulting sub-systems, and most especially those in leadership,
> value and practise approaches to learning and quality. These
> would include, for openers, things like collaborative decision-
> making, involvement of people at all levels in both decision making
> and thinking about improvement, willingness to suspend
> assumptions, etc.
I'm going to ask Malcom if he's able to suspend his assumption that
"things like collaborative decision making" will result in the kind of
innovation he hopes for.
Remember, Malcom, Parkinson's counterproposal. He suggested that if you
consulted widely enough, insured that all concerned were involved in the
decision making, you could see to it that even the best proposals died of
old age.
And as far as I know all the relevant research on those innovations in
education that actually flourished, like "general education" at Chicago,
the coop movement at Antioch, service learning, contract learning---you
name your favorite--all could be traced in origin to the doing of a
powerful or crafty president or leader who was able to coopt or thwart the
collective decision making apparatus of the faculty. (See, for example,
Burton Clark's research in his 1970 THE DISTINCTIVE COLLEGE.)
Sadly for those who believe that democratic decision making will typically
result in the kind of progress they hope for, "shared governance" is as
likely to result in delay, the status quo, and stand pattism.
The typical college or university faculty department, I submit, has all of
the characteristics you propose: and the curriculum looks much as it did
when I first started teaching English as a young instructor: indeed, I
think English 101 is still required as a first semester requirement, and
it's still 3 "credits," whatever "credits" mean, and it still requires
"themes" that the instructor corrects, and I believe I could return to
teaching English 101 as if no years had intervened.
And who controls the curriculum of the English department at any college
if not those who teach it?
Steve Eskow
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>