<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>MU and organisational change again </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana">I thought this might be of interest in the light of Rhyn and Holloway’s article.<BR>
<BR>
[<B>Subsidiarity</B>] was last restated in a papal encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, in 1941: ‘It is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a large and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies . . .’ Strong words. I translate them more simply – stealing people’s responsibilities is wrong. You could also define subsidiarity as ‘reverse delegation’ – the delegation by the parts to the centre. (Handy 1994:115)<BR>
<BR>
A message here for what’s gone wrong with the management of universities: we’ve shifted from what Handy refers to a ‘reverse delegation’ in the period 1975 – 1990 BC (Before Corporatisation), to having our responsibilities stolen (AD – After Disempowerment). In his chapter on subsidarity, Handy forcefully argues that it is the only way for a corporation to function efficiently, effectively and sustainably, but we now operate in a ‘delegated’ structure where management delegates to the academic units most of the services it used to provide to assist its core business (teaching and research), whilst keeping an ever higher percentage of the University’s income for its ‘corporate’ activities such as monitoring compliance with the strategies it has imposed for the delivery of teaching, learning and research.<BR>
<BR>
Handy, C. (1994) <I>The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future</I>. London: Hutchinson.<BR>
</FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT COLOR="#950095"><FONT FACE="Arial"><B>-- <BR>
Dr David Tripp, Associate Professor in Education<BR>
Phone: +61 (0)8 9360 6647<BR>
Fax: +61 (0)8 9360 6296<BR>
Room 4-14 Education and Humanities Building<BR>
[Use west entrance and visitors’ end of carpark 4]<BR>
Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150<BR>
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/ <BR>
</B></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana">
</FONT>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana"><B>From: </B>"Robert Leeson" <R.Leeson@murdoch.edu.au><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:35:51 +0800<BR>
<B>To: </B>"All Division of Arts Staff" <divartsall@murdoch.edu.au><BR>
<B>Cc: </B>"Teresa Borwick" <T.Borwick@murdoch.edu.au><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>how not to do change management in MBS<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">In ‘How Not To Do Change Management</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Verdana">:</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana"> The Birth of a Murdoch University School’ Dianne van Rhyn and David A Holloway <FONT COLOR="#000080">(2004) </FONT>argued that “The creation of Murdoch University’s Business S<FONT COLOR="#000080">chool</FONT> was a textbook case-study in how not to do change management. The result was a barely-averted disaster … The saga of the School is evidence that even in a bureaucracy and a public sector agency like a university the best approach to change management is one that actively involves all staff. This approach allows full ownership of, and engagement in, the process and outcomes and minimises the need to overcome resistance to change so often prevalent in traditional change literature. The utilisation of an action learning/action research framework has ensured that the lessons hard won during this long organisational story will mean that there is less likelihood of ‘management’ history repeating itself within Murdoch University, at least whilst current corporate memory<FONT COLOR="#000080"> remains</FONT>”. <BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#4D4D4D"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S R E V I E W </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana">vol 47, How Not to Do Change Management, Dianne van Rhyn and David A Holloway 7, no 1, 2004<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT>
<P>
<FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>