[Muanet] MU and organisational change again

[David Tripp]

I thought this might be of interest in the light of Rhyn and Holloway¹s
article.

[Subsidiarity] was last restated in a papal encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno,
in 1941: ŒIt 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 . . .¹ Strong
words.  I translate them more simply ­ stealing people¹s responsibilities is
wrong.  You could also define subsidiarity as Œreverse delegation¹ ­ the
delegation by the parts to the centre.    (Handy 1994:115)

A message here for what¹s gone wrong with the management of universities:
we¹ve shifted from what Handy refers to a Œreverse delegation¹ 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
Œdelegated¹ 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 University¹s
income for its Œcorporate¹ activities such as monitoring compliance with the
strategies it has imposed for the delivery of teaching, learning and
research.

Handy, C. (1994) The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future. London:
Hutchinson.

-- 
Dr David Tripp, Associate Professor in Education
Phone: +61 (0)8 9360 6647
Fax: +61 (0)8 9360 6296
Room 4-14 Education and Humanities Building
[Use west entrance and visitors¹ end of carpark 4]
Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/


> From: "Robert Leeson" <R.Leeson at murdoch.edu.au>
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:35:51 +0800
> To: "All Division of Arts Staff" <divartsall at murdoch.edu.au>
> Cc: "Teresa Borwick" <T.Borwick at murdoch.edu.au>
> Subject: how not to do change management in MBS
> 

> In ŒHow Not To Do Change Management: The Birth of a Murdoch University School¹
> Dianne van Rhyn and David A Holloway (2004) argued that ³The creation of
> Murdoch University¹s Business School was a textbook case-study in how not to
> do change management. The result was a barely-averted disaster Š 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 Œmanagement¹ history repeating itself within Murdoch University,
> at least whilst current corporate memory remains².
> 
> 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 vol 47, How Not to
> Do Change Management, Dianne van Rhyn and David A Holloway 7, no 1, 2004





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.murdoch.edu.au/pipermail/muanet/attachments/20051024/e0fae1f5/attachment.html