Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue1.1997:
Knowledge Work Supervision: transforming school
systems into high performing learning organizations
Francis M . Duffy
Pre side nt o f The F.M. Duffy Gro up, Highland, Maryland, USA
Asks the question: what if the
focus of educational supervision was to shift from
inspecting individual teacherbehaviour to examining and
improving three sets of key
organizational variables –
work processes, social architecture, and environmental
relationships? What if supervision could be transformed
from performance evaluation
into a process for designing
high performing schools?
Presents the paradigm of
Knowledge Work Supervision,
an innovative model of educational supervision designed to
achieve what is alluded to in
the above questions. It is a
systemic and systematic
model for redesigning the
anatomy (structures), physiology (fl ow of information and
webs of relationships) and
psychology (beliefs, values) of
an entire school system.
Explains that the paradigm is
cyclical having four phases
each with several activities,
and it was constructed by
reviewing real-world practices
in several interrelated areas:
socio-technical systems
design, knowledge work,
quality improvement, business process re-engineering
and organization development. Claims that Knowledge
Work Supervision marks the
leading edge of an emerging
paradigm shift in the fi eld of
educational supervision.
© Francis M. Duffy
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 ,1 [ 1997] 2 6 –3 1
MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 26 ]
Designing high performance
schools through Knowledge Work
Supervision
Th e su per vision of tea ch er s is tr a dition a lly
in spector ia l. Su per visor s focu s th eir a tten tion on th e cla ssr oom beh aviou r of in dividu a l
tea ch er s, h opin g th a t, if on ly en ou gh tea ch er s
im pr ove, th e en tir e sch ool system w ill
im pr ove. Beer et a l.[1], h owever, su bm it th a t
th is a ppr oa ch to or ga n iza tion a l im pr ovem en t
is:
gu ided by a th eor y of ch a n ge th a t is fu n da m en ta lly flawed. Th e com m on belief is th a t
th e pla ce to be gin is w ith th e k n ow ledge a n d
a ttitu des of in dividu a ls. Ch a n ges in a ttitu des… lea d to ch a n ge in in dividu a l beh aviou r … a n d ch a n ges in in dividu a l beh aviou r,
r epea ted by m a n y people w ill r esu lt in or ga n iza tion a l ch a n ge… Th is th eor y gets th e
ch a n ge pr ocess exa ctly ba ck w a r d. In fa ct,
in dividu a l beh aviou r is power fu lly sh a ped
by th e or ga n iza tion a l r oles people play. Th e
m ost effective w ay to ch a n ge beh aviou r,
th er efor e, is to pu t people in to a n ew or ga n iza tion a l con text [a r edesign ed or ga n iza tion ?], wh ich im poses n ew r oles, r espon sibilities, a n d r ela tion sh ips on th em (p. 159).
Th u s, if a sch ool system w a n ts to im pr ove its
over a ll per for m a n ce, it seem s th a t tr a dition a l
su per visor y m odels a n d m eth ods a r e n ot
h elpfu l. Wh a t, th en , ca n a sch ool system do to
m ove tow a r ds h igh er levels of or ga n iza tion a l
per for m a n ce?
Th is a r ticle a n swer s th is qu estion by
descr ibin g a n ew m odel of su per vision con ceived to h elp a sch ool system r edesign its
a n a tom y (str u ctu r es), ph ysiology (fl ow of
in for m a tion a n d webs of r ela tion sh ips) a n d
psych ology (beliefs, va lu es). Th e m odel is
ca lled Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision [2] a n d it
m a r k s th e lea din g edge of a n evolvin g pa r a digm sh ift in th e field of edu ca tion a l su per vision . Th e dir ection of th is sh ift is displayed in
Ta ble I.
In for m ed r ea der s of th e liter a tu r e on sch ool
r efor m a r e often over wh elm ed by th e sh eer
qu a n tity of in for m a tion on sch ool im pr ovem en t. Th er e is a bu n da n t liter a tu r e expla in in g wh y sch ools n eed to be r estr u ctu r ed, th e
liter a tu r e is r eplete w ith descr iption s of wh a t
th e ou tcom es of sch ool r efor m ou gh t to look
lik e (e.g. block sch edu lin g, yea r -r ou n d sch oolin g, ou tcom es-ba sed edu ca tion a n d sch oolsof-ch oice). Th er e is, h owever, a lm ost n o liter a tu r e a bou t h ow to r edesign a sch ool system to
m ove it tow a r ds h igh er levels of per for m a n ce.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision r espon ds to
th is cr itica l n eed by pr ovidin g in n ova tive
gu ida n ce on h ow to r edesign a n en tir e sch ool
system . Th e pa r a digm is expla in ed in m or e
deta il in a n ew book ca lled Design in g High
Per for m a n ce S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e to
Orga n iz a tion a l R een gin eer in g[3].
Th e pa r a digm of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision offer s a system ic a n d system a tic pr ocess
for r edesign in g a sch ool system a n ywh er e in
th e wor ld. Th e vision for Kn ow ledge Wor k
Su per vision is th a t it becom es a veh icle for
h elpin g sch ool system s th r ou gh ou t th e wor ld
to becom e h igh -per for m in g lea r n in g or ga n iza tion s th a t a pply th eir collective k n ow ledge
to cr ea te a n d deliver edu ca tion a l ser vices
th a t h ave tr u e va lu e for a ll stu den ts a n d pa r en ts.
Th e pa r a digm w a s con str u cted by r eview in g th e pr a ctices of sever a l in ter r ela ted a r ea s:
sociotech n ica l system s design [4-8], k n ow ledge wor k [9-13], qu a lity im pr ovem en t[14-19],
bu sin ess pr ocess r een gin eer in g[20] a n d or ga n iza tion developm en t[21-24]. Th e a u th or ’s
exper ien ce a s a m a n a gem en t con su lta n t to
bu sin esses lik e th e Sta te F a r m In su r a n ce
Com pa n ies, th e Associa tion for Su per vision
a n d Cu r r icu lu m Developm en t, a n d th e US
Depa r tm en ts of E n er gy a n d Agr icu ltu r e a lso
con tr ibu ted to th e design of th is su per vision
m odel.
The structure of the paradigm
Th e pa r a digm of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision h a s fou r ph a ses, ea ch w ith m u ltiple
steps. Th e pa r a digm is cyclica l wh er eby a t
th e com pletion of ph a se IV, a poin t in tim e
th a t va r ies fr om sch ool system to sch ool
system , th e pr ocess r ecycles ba ck to ph a se I.
Th e cyclica l pr ocess con tin u es for th e life of
th e sch ool system th er eby m a k in g Kn ow ledge
Wor k Su per vision a n ever -en din g pr ocess of
or ga n iza tion a l r en ew a l. Th e str u ctu r e of th e
pa r a digm is depicted in F igu r e 1.
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
Table I
Dire c tio n o f the pro po se d paradigm shift
From
Traditional paradigms
(Clinical supervision and its
variations; and, supervisionas-performance evaluation)
Knowledge Work
Supervision
Underlying philosophy
Changing individual behaviour
improves the entire organization
Changing the entire organization
improves individual behaviour
Focus
On individual behaviour
On the system’ s overall func tioning
Organizational unit within
which supervision occurs
Within individual sc hools
Within a c luster of inter-c onnec ted
sc hools
Core methods
Classroom observation for c linic al
supervision and performanc e
evaluations
Assess and simultaneously improve
all of the following:
The sc hool system’ s relationship
with its environment
The knowledge work proc esses:
linear work and non-linear work
The soc ial arc hitec ture, inc luding
motivation, job satisfac tion, skills,
and quality of work life
Continuously improve all of the above
for the life of the organization
Key players
Building princ ipal
Instruc tional supervisor
Peers
Distric t-wide steering c ommittee
providing strategic leadership
Redesign management teams
providing tac tic al leadership
Knowledge work supervisors
providing overall c o-ordination and
proc ess management
View of teachers
Employees needing to be evaluated;
or c olleagues needing assistanc e
Semi-autonomous knowledge
workers
Stakeholders in the organizational
improvement proc ess
Ways of improving individual
performance levels
Formative/ summative evaluation
In-servic e training
Coac hing
Clinic al supervision
Formative evaluation
Self-direc ted in-servic e training
Coac hing
Clinic al supervision
Competenc y modelling
Performanc e tec hnology
Paradigm attributes
To
Source: The F.M. Duffy Group, Highland, Maryland, 1996.
Th e pa r a digm is power ed by th r ee k ey player s:
1 a n or ga n iza tion -w ide steer in g com m ittee
pr ovidin g str a te gic lea der sh ip;
2 sch ool-ba sed r edesign m a n a gem en t tea m s
pr ovidin g ta ctica l lea der sh ip for th e
r edesign in itia tive; a n d
3 Kn ow ledge wor k su per visor s sk illed in th e
pr ocess of or ga n iza tion a l r edesign .
Phase I: preparing
Th e seven su per visor y a ctivity steps a r e:
1 Bu ild su ppor t for Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision .
2 Iden tify a sta r tin g-poin t.
3 E sta blish a con tr a ct.
4 F or m a steer in g com m ittee.
5 E n ga ge th e steer in g com m ittee in a ssessin g th e en vir on m en t.
6 E n ga ge th e steer in g com m ittee in r edefin in g th e m ission a n d vision of th e sch ool
system .
7 E sta blish a ch a n ge m a n a gem en t str u ctu r e
a n d pr ocess.
Th e a bove su per visor y a ctivities focu s on
pr epa r in g to r edesign a sch ool system . Steps
1-3 a r e difficu lt, ch a llen gin g a n d politica l; yet
com pletin g th ese steps is cr u cia l to th e su ccess of th e over a ll r edesign effor t (pr a ctica l
gu ida n ce on h ow to u se positive politica l
sk ills in or ga n iza tion s is fou n d in Block ’s[25]
[ 27 ]
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Figure 1
The paradigm o f Kno wle dge Wo rk Supe rvisio n
is o
rv
r
Phase IV
Co ntinuo us
impro ve me nt o f
sc ho o ling
pe
su
rk
e
mi
tte
rin
gc
om
wo
ee
ge
St
le d
Phase III
Pe rmane nc e
and diffusio n
Phase I
Pre paring
ow
Kn
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
Phase II
Re de sign fo r
high
pe rfo rmanc e
Re de sign manage me nt te am
book , T h e Em pow ered M a n a ger. F a ilu r e to
com plete th is ph a se or sh or t-cu ttin g th e
pr epa r a tion pr ocess u su a lly r esu lts in a fa iled
r edesign effor t. Th is con clu sion is su ppor ted
by Kotter [26] wh o iden tifies eigh t er r or s m a de
by or ga n iza tion s en ga ged in r e-en gin eer in g
effor ts – er r or s th a t r esu lt in fa ilu r e. Fou r of
th ese er r or s ca n occu r du r in g ph a se I of th e
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision pr ocess. Yet,
despite Kotter ’s r esea r ch eviden ce, th er e a r e
sch ool system s th a t for ce str on g in du str ia llik e im pr ovem en t pr ocesses on th eir people.
If Kotter is cor r ect in h is a ssessm en t of wh y
ch a n ge effor ts fa il, th en th e ou tcom e of for ced
sch ool im pr ovem en t is pr edicta ble. P h a se I of
th e pr oposed m odel is m or e dem ocr a tic in its
a ppr oa ch to bu ildin g su ppor t for ch a n ge – a
ch a r a cter istic th a t seem s to be su ppor ted by
Kotter ’s r esea r ch .
Steps 1-3 a r e con du cted by a sm a ll gr ou p of
in flu en tia l a dm in istr a tor s, su per visor s a n d
tea ch er s wh o see th e n eed to in stitu te Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision . Th ese people bu ild
su ppor t for Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision ,
iden tify a clu ster of in ter con n ected sch ools
(for exa m ple, in th e USA, elem en ta r y sch ools
“feed” in to m iddle sch ools, a n d m iddle
sch ools feed in to h igh sch ools – a clu ster
wou ld be on e h igh sch ool a n d a ll th e m iddle
a n d elem en ta r y sch ools feedin g in to it)
w ith in th e sch ool system to be gin th e pr ocess,
a n d develop a con tr a ct w ith tea ch er s a n d
a dm in istr a tor s fr om th a t clu ster.
Th e steer in g com m ittee esta blish ed in step
4 is com posed of r epr esen ta tives fr om a cr osssection of th e sch ool system (a dm in istr a tor s,
su per visor s, tea ch er s a n d, m ost im por ta n tly,
th e sen ior a dm in istr a tor ). Th e steer in g com m ittee pr ovides str a te gic lea der sh ip for
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision by dia gn osin g
th e or ga n iza tion ’s r ela tion sh ip w ith its
[ 28 ]
en vir on m en t a n d by r edefin in g or cla r ifyin g
th e sch ool system ’s m ission a n d vision .
Th e la st step of ph a se I is th e for m a tion of a
r edesign m a n a gem en t tea m (RMT). Th e RMT
is a str u ctu r e a lr ea dy in pla ce in som e sch ool
system s in th e USA in th e gu ise of sch ool
im pr ovem en t tea m s. Th e RMT becom es th e
dr ivin g for ce beh in d th e r edesign pr ocess by
pr ovidin g ta ctica l lea der sh ip. Th ese tea ch er s
a n d a dm in istr a tor s m a n a ge th e r edesign
pr ocess in th eir r espective clu ster. By lea r n in g h ow to do th e r edesign wor k , th e RMT
in cr ea ses th e lik elih ood th a t im pr ovem en ts
th a t a r e m a de w ill “stick ”.
Phase II: redesigning for high performance
Th e six su per visor y a ctivity steps h er e a r e:
1 Dia gn ose th e wor k system of th e clu ster of
sch ool be gin n in g Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision .
2 Dia gn ose th e socia l a r ch itectu r e of th e
clu ster.
3 Develop pr oposa ls to r edesign th e clu ster.
4 Develop a n im plem en ta tion pla n .
5 Im plem en t selected pr oposa ls.
6 E va lu a te th e pr ocess a n d ou tcom es of th e
r edesign effor t.
Th e fir st a n a lysis in ph a se II exa m in es th e
wor k system of th e clu ster of sch ools be gin n in g th e r edesign pr ocess. Sch ool system s a r e
k n ow ledge or ga n iza tion s a n d th e wor k th ey
do is k n ow ledge wor k . In sch ool system s, th e
wor k system h a s two k ey wor k pr ocesses. Th e
m ost im por ta n t k n ow ledge wor k pr ocess is
cla ssr oom tea ch in g. Cla ssr oom tea ch in g is
k n ow ledge wor k . It is n ot a step-by-step wor k
pr ocess (lik e m a k in g a n a u tom obile); in stea d,
it is n on -lin ea r in n a tu r e. Th e n on -lin ea r
n a tu r e of tea ch in g is r eflected in h ow a
tea ch er tea ch es. Wh en sh e is on h er feet h er m in d is r a cin g. Sh e h a s h er objective(s) in
m in d. N ew exa m ples of th e poin ts sh e is tr yin g to m a k e pop in to h er h ea d. Stu den ts a sk
qu estion s th a t ta k e h er off cou r se tem por a r ily. Sh e r etu r n s to h er or igin a l dir ection wh en
a stor y r ein for cin g h er poin ts com es to m in d.
Sh e look s a t th e clock a n d r ea lizes sh e m u st
br in g th e lesson to a close. Befor e closin g sh e
m a k es on e la st poin t th a t w a s tr igger ed by a
stu den t’s qu estion du r in g th e fir st m in u te of
cla ss – a fu ll 44 m in u tes ea r lier.
Th e secon d wor k pr ocess in sch ools is a
step-by-step, lin ea r wor k pr ocess th a t su ppor ts th e cor e wor k pr ocess (cla ssr oom tea ch in g). It is th e in str u ction a l pr ogr a m m e,
wh ich in th e USA is str u ctu r ed a s k in der ga r ten th r ou gh twelfth gr a de. Stu den ts m u st
pr ogr ess th r ou gh th is wor k pr ocess in a
lin ea r w ay. Cer ta in r equ ir em en ts m u st be
sa tisfied befor e th e stu den t ca n pr ogr ess to
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
th e n ext h igh er gr a de. Th is sequ en ce of
gr a des con tin u es u n til stu den ts gr a du a te.
To dia gn ose th ese two wor k pr ocesses, th e
RMT look s for er r or s in both wor k pr ocesses.
To exa m in e th e lin ea r in str u ction a l
pr ogr a m m e, th e RMT a u dits th e in str u ction a l
pr ogr a m m e. Policies, pr ocedu r es, in for m a tion flow, a n d so on a r e exa m in ed to iden tify
er r or s. Tr a dition a l sociotech n ica l system s
a n a lysis pr ocedu r es a r e u sefu l for th is a u dit
(e.g. ch a r tin g er r or s on a m a tr ix).
Tr a dition a l sociotech n ica l system s design
is n ot u sefu l for im pr ovin g n on -lin ea r k n ow ledge wor k [12] lik e cla ssr oom tea ch in g. Th er e
is a lso n o r esea r ch eviden ce su ggestin g th a t
tr a dition a l sociotech n ica l system s design ca n
im pr ove tea ch in g a n d lea r n in g. Tr a dition a l
in str u ction a l su per vision is a lso n ot effective
for im pr ovin g cla ssr oom tea ch in g th r ou gh ou t
a sch ool system , a lth ou gh is seem s to be
u sefu l w ith select tea ch er s.
Th e br oa d a ction s n eeded to im pr ove
k n ow ledge wor k in sch ools a r e a da pted for
sch ool system s fr om th e wor k of P ava [12].
Th ese a ction s a r e:
• Im pr ove th e qu a lity a n d tim elin ess of k ey
in for m a tion th a t tea ch er s n eed to tea ch
effectively.
• E n su r e th a t tea ch er s in ter a ct w ith th e th e
k ey people w ith wh om th ey sh ou ld be
exch a n gin g cr itica l in for m a tion .
• P r ovide tea ch er s a n d k ey people w ith a
va r iety of str u ctu r ed, sem i-str u ctu r ed, a n d
in for m a l for u m s for exch a n gin g cr itica l
in for m a tion .
• E xa m in e a n d im pr ove a n y devices (e.g.
com pu ter s), wor k pr ocedu r es (e.g. testin g
a n d m ea su r em en t) a n d or ga n iza tion a l
fu n ction s (e.g. a dm in istr a tion ) th a t su ppor t
tea ch in g.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision pr ovides a
system ic a n d system a tic m odel for a ch ievin g
th ese im pr ovem en ts.
Th e secon d dia gn osis of P h a se II exa m in es
th e socia l a r ch itectu r e of th e sch ool system .
Th e biggest over sigh t in cu r r en t or ga n iza tion a l im pr ovem en t m odels (e.g. sch ool
im pr ovem en t effor ts, bu sin ess pr ocess r een gin eer in g a n d tota l qu a lity m a n a gem en t) is
th a t th ese m odels do n ot a im to im pr ove th e
socia l system of a n or ga n iza tion . Th e socia l
a r ch itectu r e is a web-lik e str u ctu r e of r oles,
r equ ir ed wor k sk ills, r ela tion sh ips, beliefs,
va lu es a n d per ception s. Th e socia l system
a n d th e wor k system in ter a ct a t a sign ifica n t
level. Th e socia l a r ch itectu r e m a in ta in s th e
wor k system . If im pr ovem en ts a r e on ly m a de
in th e wor k system , th en th e r edesign effor t
w ill fa il in th e lon g r u n . Th e socia l a r ch itectu r e a n d th e wor k system m u st be im pr oved
sim u lta n eou sly in or der to r a ise over a ll levels
of or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce.
Th e m ost im por ta n t ou tcom e of ph a se II is
th e im plem en ta tion of a com pr eh en sive pr oposa l to r edesign th e clu ster of sch ools be gin n in g th e r edesign pr ocess. Th e r esu lts of th e
en vir on m en ta l a n a lysis com pleted in ph a se I
by th e steer in g com m ittee a n d th e da ta fr om
th e dia gn oses of th e wor k system a n d socia l
a r ch itectu r e of th e clu ster of sch ools a r e
a n a lysed to iden tify w ays to im pr ove th e
per for m a n ce level of th e clu ster sign ifica n tly.
Th is exa m in a tion r esu lts in a com pr eh en sive
r edesign pr oposa l th a t h a s su fficien t br ea dth
a n d depth to effect tr u e im pr ovem en ts in th e
wor k system , socia l a r ch itectu r e a n d en vir on m en ta l r ela tion sh ips of th e clu ster of sch ools
th a t be ga n th e r edesign pr ocess. Th e pr oposa l
m u st a lso be clea r ly a n d power fu lly a lign ed
w ith th e over a ll sch ool system ’s vision sta tem en t.
Phase III: achieving permanence and
diffusion
Su per visor y a ctivity steps h er e a r e:
1 Con du ct “dou ble-loop” lea r n in g
sem in a r s[21-22].
2 Ga in com m itm en t to th e ch a n ges th a t h ave
been m a de.
3 Alloca te r ew a r ds for desir ed beh aviou r s.
4 Diffu se th e ch a n ges to oth er pa r ts of th e
or ga n iza tion .
5 Detect a n d cor r ect devia tion s fr om th e
desir ed ou tcom es.
Th er e is a n old F r en ch sayin g th a t a pplies to
sch ool im pr ovem en t effor ts of th e pa st a n d
pr esen t: Plu s ça ch a n ge, plu s c’est la m êm e
ch ose. It tr a n sla tes: Th e m or e th in gs ch a n ge,
th e m or e th ey stay th e sa m e. Th is cyn ica l
obser va tion is pa r ticu la r ly tr u e of or ga n iza tion a l ch a n ges. It is r eflected in sta tem en ts
lik e “Didn ’t we do th is la st yea r ?” or, “I
th ou gh t we solved th a t pr oblem !” or, “If we
h a n g on lon g en ou gh , th is too sh a ll pa ss”.
Obviou sly, if sch ool system per son n el r ea lly
w a n t to im pr ove th e per for m a n ce level of
th eir sch ool system , th ey do n ot w a n t th eir
or ga n iza tion to su ffer fr om th e “ch a n ge –
r ever t ba ck – ch a n ge a ga in – r ever t ba ck
a ga in ” syn dr om e. Th ey w a n t a ll th eir h a r d
wor k , em otion a l com m itm en t a n d en er gy to
pay off w ith per m a n en t im pr ovem en ts. Per m a n en t im pr ovem en ts a r e a ch ieved th r ou gh
steps 1-3. Th ese a ctivities h elp th e clu ster of
sch ools th a t be ga n th e im pr ovem en t pr ocess
to a n ch or th eir im pr ovem en ts to th e sch ool
system ’s cu ltu r e a n d oth er deep or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r es.
After th e r edesign im pr ovem en ts a r e m a de
per m a n en t in th e clu ster of sch ools th a t
be ga n th e r edesign pr ocess, th e steer in g
[ 29 ]
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
com m ittee in itia tes a secon d r ou n d of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision . Lesson s lea r n ed fr om
th e fir st r ou n d a r e u sed to r edesign oth er
clu ster s of sch ools. N ew RMTs a r e ch a r ter ed
a n d tr a in ed. Th e or igin a l RMT a lso ser ves a s
“in -h ou se” tr a in er s for th e n ew RMTs.
Th e Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision pr ocess,
a s descr ibed a bove, r ecycles u n til th e en tir e
sch ool system is r edesign ed for h igh per for m a n ce. On ce th e en tir e system is r edesign ed,
th e steer in g com m ittee a n d RMTs be gin
detectin g a n d cor r ectin g devia tion s fr om
desir ed ou tcom es. Th e r edesign im pr ovem en ts a r e fr equ en tly com pa r ed to th e or ga n iza tion ’s vision sta tem en t. If th e
im pr ovem en ts a r e m ovin g aw ay fr om th e
vision , th en th ey a r e br ou gh t ba ck on lin e.
Th is k in d of str a te gic a lign m en t is cr itica l to
th e lon g-ter m su ccess of Kn ow ledge Wor k
Su per vision .
Phase IV: continuous improvement of
schooling
Th e two su per visor y a ctivity steps a r e:
1 Seek oppor tu n ities for con tin u ou s
im pr ovem en t.
2 Su per vise system bou n da r ies.
After th e en tir e sch ool system is r edesign ed
for h igh per for m a n ce th r ou gh Kn ow ledge
Wor k Su per vision , th e en tir e sch ool system
m oves in to ph a se IV of th e pa r a digm . In
ph a se IV, th e RMTs, wh ich r em a in a ctive
(a lth ou gh w ith r ota tin g m em ber sh ip), seek
w ays to m a k e in cr em en ta l im pr ovem en t in
th eir sch ools’ en vir on m en ta l r ela tion sh ips,
wor k pr ocesses a n d socia l a r ch itectu r e. Th e
or ga n iza tion -w ide steer in g com m ittee over sees th e en tir e pr ocess. Th is k in d of fi n etu n in g is im por ta n t beca u se it h elps th e
sch ool system to elim in a te glitch es in th e
im pr ovem en ts th a t wer e m a de. Th e tools a n d
m eth ods of qu a lity im pr ovem en t a r e u sefu l
du r in g th is ph a se.
Th er e a r e in visible system bou n da r y lin es
between gr a des, between levels of sch oolin g
a n d between th e sch ool system a n d its en vir on m en t. In for m a tion pa sses th r ou gh th ese
bou n da r ies. Th e qu a lity a n d qu a n tity of
in for m a tion a n d cr oss-bou n da r y r ela tion sh ips a m on g people n eed to be m a n a ged to
a ssu r e effective or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce.
Su per visin g th ese bou n da r ies du r in g ph a se
IV, by developin g a n d u sin g h igh qu a lity com m u n ica tion str a te gies a n d m eth ods, is on e of
th e pr im a r y r espon sibilities of k n ow ledge
wor k su per visor s. Kn ow ledge wor k su per visor s a r e a dm in istr a tor s a n d su per visor s
cu r r en tly wor k in g in th e sch ool system bu t
wh o a r e r e-sk illed to do or ga n iza tion a l
r edesign wor k .
[ 30 ]
Conclusion
Cu r r en t sch ool im pr ovem en t r ecom m en da tion s a dvise sch ool system s a bou t wh a t th e
ou tcom es of sch ool im pr ovem en t sh ou ld be;
e.g. sch ools of ch oice, block sch edu lin g a n d
tea ch in g eth ics to k ids. Th ese r ecom m en da tion s do n ot ta k e in to con sider a tion th a t
sch ool system s, a n d in deed ea ch sch ool
w ith in a system , a r e com plex ta pestr ies of
in ter con n ected elem en ts woven togeth er by
th e th r ea ds of th eir socia l system s on th e
ba ck gr ou n d of dem a n din g exter n a l en vir on m en ts. Tr yin g to lay th ese r ecom m en da tion s
for ch a n ge on to th ese ta pestr ies w ith ou t
a ssessin g wh a t th a t system ’s en vir on m en t
expects of it, w ith ou t exa m in in g th e n a tu r e of
th a t system ’s wor k pr ocesses a n d w ith ou t
a ssessin g th e m otiva tin g a n d sa tisfyin g
a ttr ibu tes of wor k r ela tion sh ips, r esu lts in
fa ilu r e, fr u str a tion a n d th e a ctu a liza tion of
“Th e m or e th in gs ch a n ge th e m or e th ey stay
th e sa m e”.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision is design ed to
h elp a sch ool system develop pr oposa ls for
r edesign in g itself th a t a r e ta ilor ed to its en vir on m en t, its wor k system a n d its socia l a r ch itectu r e – n ot to wh a t som eon e sittin g in a
gover n m en t office th in k s ou gh t to be don e or
to wh a t th e la test fa d m a k er is sellin g.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision is a n ew
m odel. As a n ew a ppr oa ch to sch ool im pr ovem en t, it is lock ed in a pa r a dox: beca u se it is
n ew, n o on e is u sin g it a n d beca u se n o on e is
u sin g it, n o on e w a n ts to u se it. Alth ou gh th e
m odel is n ew, m a n y of its com pon en ts a r e n ot
n ew, a n d m a n y sch ool system s in th e USA a r e
cu r r en tly u sin g elem en ts of th e m odel. For
exa m ple, th er e a r e sch ool distr icts th a t r e gu la r ly a ssess th eir en vir on m en t’s expecta tion s,
th a t en vision br igh t fu tu r es for th em selves,
th a t u se sch ool im pr ovem en t tea m s a n d th a t
a pply pr in ciples of con tin u ou s qu a lity
im pr ovem en t. All of th ese a ctivities a r e pa r t
of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision . To design
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision , th e a u th or
“sh opped” for n ew, in n ova tive idea s on h ow to
im pr ove pr ofession a l wor k (a .k .a . k n ow ledge
wor k ) a n d com bin ed th ese n ew idea s w ith
effective or ga n iza tion a l im pr ovem en t m eth ods bor r owed fr om th e fi elds listed ea r lier in
th is a r ticle.
Th e pa r a digm look s com plex beca u se it is.
It m u st be com plex, beca u se a sch ool system
is com plex. Th e pa r a digm offer s a system a tic
w ay to exa m in e th is com plexity to deter m in e
wh ich va r ia bles a ffect or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce. Th e pa r a digm a lso view s a sch ool
or ga n iza tion a s a system , a n d pr ovides tech n iqu es to im pr ove a ll pieces of th a t system ,
n ot ju st th e cu r r icu lu m , th e len gth of th e
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
sch ool day or th e cla ssr oom beh aviou r of
in dividu a l tea ch er s. Th e pa r a digm look s lik e
it ta k es tim e beca u se it does ta k e tim e. Th er e
a r e n o “qu ick fixes” for sch ool im pr ovem en t.
If sch ool system per son n el go for th e qu ick
fix, th ey go for fa ilu r e.
If a pplied con sisten tly a n d w ith pa tien ce,
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision w ill a lm ost
cer ta in ly m ove a sch ool system tow a r ds
h igh er levels of or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce
beca u se it com bin es pr oven or ga n iza tion a l
im pr ovem en t m eth ods w ith in n ova tive idea s
for im pr ovin g k n ow ledge wor k (lik e th e
tea ch in g-lea r n in g pr ocess). Th e r ea l-wor ld
exper ien ces of bu sin ess or ga n iza tion s u sin g
sim ila r r edesign m odels con fir m th is con clu sion . F u r th er, a sch ool system w ill n ot per fectly a ch ieve its n ew vision beca u se th a t
vision is a m ovin g ta r get. However, th e or ga n iza tion w ill m ove con tin u ou sly tow a r ds th e
vision beca u se Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision
is cyclica l a n d n ever -en din g. Kn ow ledge Wor k
Su per vision is a sch ool system ’s lifelon g
jou r n ey of con tin u ou s r en ew a l a n d it w ill
r a ise its level of or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce.
N oth in g less w ill do it.
Note and references
1 Beer, M., E isen sta t, R.A. a n d Spector, B., “Wh y
ch a n ge pr ogr a m s don ’t pr odu ce ch a n ge”,
Ha r va rd B u sin ess R eview , Vol. 68 N o. 6, N ovem ber -Decem ber 1990, pp. 158-66.
2 Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision is a r e gister ed
m a r k of Th e F.M. Du ffy Gr ou p, High la n d,
Ma r yla n d, USA.
3 Du ffy, F.M., Design in g High Per for m a n ce
S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e to Orga n iz a tion a l
R een gin eer in g, St Lu cie P r ess, Delr ay Bea ch ,
F L, 1996.
4 P a sm or e, W.A., Design in g Effectiv e Orga n iz a tion s: T h e S ociotech n ica l S ystem s Perspectiv e,
Wiley & Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1988.
5 P a sm or e, W.A., S ociotech n ica l S ystem s Design
for T ota l Qu a lity, Or ga n iza tion a l Con su lta n ts,
In c., Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, 1992.
6 P a sm or e, W.A., “Design in g wor k system s for
k n ow ledge wor k er s”, J ou r n a l of Qu a lity a n d
Pa r ticipa tion , Vol. 6 N o. 4, 1993, pp. 78-84.
7 Tr ist, E .L., Higgin , G.W., Mu r r ay, H. a n d Polla ck , A.B., Orga n isa tion a l Ch oice, Tavistock
P u blica tion s, Lon don , 1965.
8 Lytle, W.O., S ocio-tech n ica l S ystem s A n a lysis
a n d Design Gu id e for L in ea r Work , Block Petr ella -Weisbor d, In c., P la in fi eld, N J , 1991.
9 Dr u ck er, P.F., T h e A ge of Discon tin u ity: Gu id elin es to Ou r Ch a n gin g S ociety, Ha r per & Row,
N ew Yor k , N Y, 1969.
10 Dr u ck er, P.F., M a n a gem en t T a sk s, R espon sib ilities, Pra ctices, Ha r per & Row, N ew Yor k , N Y,
1985.
11 Dr u ck er, P.F., “P r ofession a ls’ pr odu ctivity”,
A cross th e B oa rd, Vol. 30 N o. 9, 1993, p. 50.
12 P ava , C.H.P., M a n a gin g N ew Office T ech n ology:
A n Orga n iz a tion a l S tra teg y, Th e N ew P r ess,
N ew Yor k , N Y, 1983.
13 Kn igh ts, D., Mu r r ay, F. a n d Willm ott, H., “N etwor k in g a s k n ow ledge wor k : a stu dy of str a tegic in ter or ga n iza tion a l developm en t in th e
fi n a n cia l ser vices in du str y”, J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t S tu d ies, Vol. 30 N o. 6, 1993, pp. 975-95.
14 Dem in g, W.E ., Ou t of Cr isis, MIT P r ess, Ca m br idge, MA, 1982.
15 Cr osby, P.B., Qu a lity Is Free: T h e A r t of M a k in g
Qu a lity Cer ta in , N ew Am er ica n Libr a r y, N ew
Yor k , N Y, 1979.
16 Cr osby, P.B., R u n n in g T h in gs, McGr aw -Hill,
N ew Yor k , N Y, 1986.
17 J u r a n , J .M., J u ra n on L ea d ersh ip for Qu a lity,
Th e F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1989.
18 Ish ik aw a , K., W h a t Is Qu a lity Con trol? “T h e
J a pa n ese W ay”, P r en tice-Ha ll, E n glewood
Cliffs, N J , 1985.
19 Ta gu ch i, G. a n d Cla u sin g, D., “Robu st qu a lity”,
Ha r va rd B u sin ess R eview , Vol. 68 N o. 1, 1990,
pp. 65-72.
20 Ha m m er, M. a n d Ch a m py, J ., R een gin eer in g th e
Corpora tion : A M a n ifesto for B u sin ess R evolu tion , Ha r per Collin s, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1993.
21 Ar gyr is, C. a n d Sch ön , D., T h eor y in Pra ctice:
In crea sin g Profession a l Effectiv en ess, J osseyBa ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, 1974.
22 Ar gyr is, C. a n d Sch ön , D., Orga n iz a tion a l
L ea r n in g, Addison -Wesley, Rea din g, MA, 1978.
23 Bu r k e, W.W., Orga n iz a tion Dev elopm en t: Pr in ciples a n d Pra ctices, Little, Br ow n & Co.,
Boston , MA, 1982.
24 Sen ge, P.M., T h e Fifth Disciplin e: T h e A r t a n d
Pra ctice of th e L ea r n in g Orga n iz a tion , Dou bleday, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1990.
25 Block , P., T h e Em pow ered M a n a ger: Positiv e
Politica l S k ills a t Work , J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, 1987.
26 Kotter, J .P., “Lea din g ch a n ge: wh y tr a n sfor m a tion effor ts fa il”, B u sin ess R eview , Ma r ch -Apr il
1995, pp. 59-67.
[ 31 ]
systems into high performing learning organizations
Francis M . Duffy
Pre side nt o f The F.M. Duffy Gro up, Highland, Maryland, USA
Asks the question: what if the
focus of educational supervision was to shift from
inspecting individual teacherbehaviour to examining and
improving three sets of key
organizational variables –
work processes, social architecture, and environmental
relationships? What if supervision could be transformed
from performance evaluation
into a process for designing
high performing schools?
Presents the paradigm of
Knowledge Work Supervision,
an innovative model of educational supervision designed to
achieve what is alluded to in
the above questions. It is a
systemic and systematic
model for redesigning the
anatomy (structures), physiology (fl ow of information and
webs of relationships) and
psychology (beliefs, values) of
an entire school system.
Explains that the paradigm is
cyclical having four phases
each with several activities,
and it was constructed by
reviewing real-world practices
in several interrelated areas:
socio-technical systems
design, knowledge work,
quality improvement, business process re-engineering
and organization development. Claims that Knowledge
Work Supervision marks the
leading edge of an emerging
paradigm shift in the fi eld of
educational supervision.
© Francis M. Duffy
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 ,1 [ 1997] 2 6 –3 1
MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 26 ]
Designing high performance
schools through Knowledge Work
Supervision
Th e su per vision of tea ch er s is tr a dition a lly
in spector ia l. Su per visor s focu s th eir a tten tion on th e cla ssr oom beh aviou r of in dividu a l
tea ch er s, h opin g th a t, if on ly en ou gh tea ch er s
im pr ove, th e en tir e sch ool system w ill
im pr ove. Beer et a l.[1], h owever, su bm it th a t
th is a ppr oa ch to or ga n iza tion a l im pr ovem en t
is:
gu ided by a th eor y of ch a n ge th a t is fu n da m en ta lly flawed. Th e com m on belief is th a t
th e pla ce to be gin is w ith th e k n ow ledge a n d
a ttitu des of in dividu a ls. Ch a n ges in a ttitu des… lea d to ch a n ge in in dividu a l beh aviou r … a n d ch a n ges in in dividu a l beh aviou r,
r epea ted by m a n y people w ill r esu lt in or ga n iza tion a l ch a n ge… Th is th eor y gets th e
ch a n ge pr ocess exa ctly ba ck w a r d. In fa ct,
in dividu a l beh aviou r is power fu lly sh a ped
by th e or ga n iza tion a l r oles people play. Th e
m ost effective w ay to ch a n ge beh aviou r,
th er efor e, is to pu t people in to a n ew or ga n iza tion a l con text [a r edesign ed or ga n iza tion ?], wh ich im poses n ew r oles, r espon sibilities, a n d r ela tion sh ips on th em (p. 159).
Th u s, if a sch ool system w a n ts to im pr ove its
over a ll per for m a n ce, it seem s th a t tr a dition a l
su per visor y m odels a n d m eth ods a r e n ot
h elpfu l. Wh a t, th en , ca n a sch ool system do to
m ove tow a r ds h igh er levels of or ga n iza tion a l
per for m a n ce?
Th is a r ticle a n swer s th is qu estion by
descr ibin g a n ew m odel of su per vision con ceived to h elp a sch ool system r edesign its
a n a tom y (str u ctu r es), ph ysiology (fl ow of
in for m a tion a n d webs of r ela tion sh ips) a n d
psych ology (beliefs, va lu es). Th e m odel is
ca lled Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision [2] a n d it
m a r k s th e lea din g edge of a n evolvin g pa r a digm sh ift in th e field of edu ca tion a l su per vision . Th e dir ection of th is sh ift is displayed in
Ta ble I.
In for m ed r ea der s of th e liter a tu r e on sch ool
r efor m a r e often over wh elm ed by th e sh eer
qu a n tity of in for m a tion on sch ool im pr ovem en t. Th er e is a bu n da n t liter a tu r e expla in in g wh y sch ools n eed to be r estr u ctu r ed, th e
liter a tu r e is r eplete w ith descr iption s of wh a t
th e ou tcom es of sch ool r efor m ou gh t to look
lik e (e.g. block sch edu lin g, yea r -r ou n d sch oolin g, ou tcom es-ba sed edu ca tion a n d sch oolsof-ch oice). Th er e is, h owever, a lm ost n o liter a tu r e a bou t h ow to r edesign a sch ool system to
m ove it tow a r ds h igh er levels of per for m a n ce.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision r espon ds to
th is cr itica l n eed by pr ovidin g in n ova tive
gu ida n ce on h ow to r edesign a n en tir e sch ool
system . Th e pa r a digm is expla in ed in m or e
deta il in a n ew book ca lled Design in g High
Per for m a n ce S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e to
Orga n iz a tion a l R een gin eer in g[3].
Th e pa r a digm of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision offer s a system ic a n d system a tic pr ocess
for r edesign in g a sch ool system a n ywh er e in
th e wor ld. Th e vision for Kn ow ledge Wor k
Su per vision is th a t it becom es a veh icle for
h elpin g sch ool system s th r ou gh ou t th e wor ld
to becom e h igh -per for m in g lea r n in g or ga n iza tion s th a t a pply th eir collective k n ow ledge
to cr ea te a n d deliver edu ca tion a l ser vices
th a t h ave tr u e va lu e for a ll stu den ts a n d pa r en ts.
Th e pa r a digm w a s con str u cted by r eview in g th e pr a ctices of sever a l in ter r ela ted a r ea s:
sociotech n ica l system s design [4-8], k n ow ledge wor k [9-13], qu a lity im pr ovem en t[14-19],
bu sin ess pr ocess r een gin eer in g[20] a n d or ga n iza tion developm en t[21-24]. Th e a u th or ’s
exper ien ce a s a m a n a gem en t con su lta n t to
bu sin esses lik e th e Sta te F a r m In su r a n ce
Com pa n ies, th e Associa tion for Su per vision
a n d Cu r r icu lu m Developm en t, a n d th e US
Depa r tm en ts of E n er gy a n d Agr icu ltu r e a lso
con tr ibu ted to th e design of th is su per vision
m odel.
The structure of the paradigm
Th e pa r a digm of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision h a s fou r ph a ses, ea ch w ith m u ltiple
steps. Th e pa r a digm is cyclica l wh er eby a t
th e com pletion of ph a se IV, a poin t in tim e
th a t va r ies fr om sch ool system to sch ool
system , th e pr ocess r ecycles ba ck to ph a se I.
Th e cyclica l pr ocess con tin u es for th e life of
th e sch ool system th er eby m a k in g Kn ow ledge
Wor k Su per vision a n ever -en din g pr ocess of
or ga n iza tion a l r en ew a l. Th e str u ctu r e of th e
pa r a digm is depicted in F igu r e 1.
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
Table I
Dire c tio n o f the pro po se d paradigm shift
From
Traditional paradigms
(Clinical supervision and its
variations; and, supervisionas-performance evaluation)
Knowledge Work
Supervision
Underlying philosophy
Changing individual behaviour
improves the entire organization
Changing the entire organization
improves individual behaviour
Focus
On individual behaviour
On the system’ s overall func tioning
Organizational unit within
which supervision occurs
Within individual sc hools
Within a c luster of inter-c onnec ted
sc hools
Core methods
Classroom observation for c linic al
supervision and performanc e
evaluations
Assess and simultaneously improve
all of the following:
The sc hool system’ s relationship
with its environment
The knowledge work proc esses:
linear work and non-linear work
The soc ial arc hitec ture, inc luding
motivation, job satisfac tion, skills,
and quality of work life
Continuously improve all of the above
for the life of the organization
Key players
Building princ ipal
Instruc tional supervisor
Peers
Distric t-wide steering c ommittee
providing strategic leadership
Redesign management teams
providing tac tic al leadership
Knowledge work supervisors
providing overall c o-ordination and
proc ess management
View of teachers
Employees needing to be evaluated;
or c olleagues needing assistanc e
Semi-autonomous knowledge
workers
Stakeholders in the organizational
improvement proc ess
Ways of improving individual
performance levels
Formative/ summative evaluation
In-servic e training
Coac hing
Clinic al supervision
Formative evaluation
Self-direc ted in-servic e training
Coac hing
Clinic al supervision
Competenc y modelling
Performanc e tec hnology
Paradigm attributes
To
Source: The F.M. Duffy Group, Highland, Maryland, 1996.
Th e pa r a digm is power ed by th r ee k ey player s:
1 a n or ga n iza tion -w ide steer in g com m ittee
pr ovidin g str a te gic lea der sh ip;
2 sch ool-ba sed r edesign m a n a gem en t tea m s
pr ovidin g ta ctica l lea der sh ip for th e
r edesign in itia tive; a n d
3 Kn ow ledge wor k su per visor s sk illed in th e
pr ocess of or ga n iza tion a l r edesign .
Phase I: preparing
Th e seven su per visor y a ctivity steps a r e:
1 Bu ild su ppor t for Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision .
2 Iden tify a sta r tin g-poin t.
3 E sta blish a con tr a ct.
4 F or m a steer in g com m ittee.
5 E n ga ge th e steer in g com m ittee in a ssessin g th e en vir on m en t.
6 E n ga ge th e steer in g com m ittee in r edefin in g th e m ission a n d vision of th e sch ool
system .
7 E sta blish a ch a n ge m a n a gem en t str u ctu r e
a n d pr ocess.
Th e a bove su per visor y a ctivities focu s on
pr epa r in g to r edesign a sch ool system . Steps
1-3 a r e difficu lt, ch a llen gin g a n d politica l; yet
com pletin g th ese steps is cr u cia l to th e su ccess of th e over a ll r edesign effor t (pr a ctica l
gu ida n ce on h ow to u se positive politica l
sk ills in or ga n iza tion s is fou n d in Block ’s[25]
[ 27 ]
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Figure 1
The paradigm o f Kno wle dge Wo rk Supe rvisio n
is o
rv
r
Phase IV
Co ntinuo us
impro ve me nt o f
sc ho o ling
pe
su
rk
e
mi
tte
rin
gc
om
wo
ee
ge
St
le d
Phase III
Pe rmane nc e
and diffusio n
Phase I
Pre paring
ow
Kn
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
Phase II
Re de sign fo r
high
pe rfo rmanc e
Re de sign manage me nt te am
book , T h e Em pow ered M a n a ger. F a ilu r e to
com plete th is ph a se or sh or t-cu ttin g th e
pr epa r a tion pr ocess u su a lly r esu lts in a fa iled
r edesign effor t. Th is con clu sion is su ppor ted
by Kotter [26] wh o iden tifies eigh t er r or s m a de
by or ga n iza tion s en ga ged in r e-en gin eer in g
effor ts – er r or s th a t r esu lt in fa ilu r e. Fou r of
th ese er r or s ca n occu r du r in g ph a se I of th e
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision pr ocess. Yet,
despite Kotter ’s r esea r ch eviden ce, th er e a r e
sch ool system s th a t for ce str on g in du str ia llik e im pr ovem en t pr ocesses on th eir people.
If Kotter is cor r ect in h is a ssessm en t of wh y
ch a n ge effor ts fa il, th en th e ou tcom e of for ced
sch ool im pr ovem en t is pr edicta ble. P h a se I of
th e pr oposed m odel is m or e dem ocr a tic in its
a ppr oa ch to bu ildin g su ppor t for ch a n ge – a
ch a r a cter istic th a t seem s to be su ppor ted by
Kotter ’s r esea r ch .
Steps 1-3 a r e con du cted by a sm a ll gr ou p of
in flu en tia l a dm in istr a tor s, su per visor s a n d
tea ch er s wh o see th e n eed to in stitu te Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision . Th ese people bu ild
su ppor t for Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision ,
iden tify a clu ster of in ter con n ected sch ools
(for exa m ple, in th e USA, elem en ta r y sch ools
“feed” in to m iddle sch ools, a n d m iddle
sch ools feed in to h igh sch ools – a clu ster
wou ld be on e h igh sch ool a n d a ll th e m iddle
a n d elem en ta r y sch ools feedin g in to it)
w ith in th e sch ool system to be gin th e pr ocess,
a n d develop a con tr a ct w ith tea ch er s a n d
a dm in istr a tor s fr om th a t clu ster.
Th e steer in g com m ittee esta blish ed in step
4 is com posed of r epr esen ta tives fr om a cr osssection of th e sch ool system (a dm in istr a tor s,
su per visor s, tea ch er s a n d, m ost im por ta n tly,
th e sen ior a dm in istr a tor ). Th e steer in g com m ittee pr ovides str a te gic lea der sh ip for
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision by dia gn osin g
th e or ga n iza tion ’s r ela tion sh ip w ith its
[ 28 ]
en vir on m en t a n d by r edefin in g or cla r ifyin g
th e sch ool system ’s m ission a n d vision .
Th e la st step of ph a se I is th e for m a tion of a
r edesign m a n a gem en t tea m (RMT). Th e RMT
is a str u ctu r e a lr ea dy in pla ce in som e sch ool
system s in th e USA in th e gu ise of sch ool
im pr ovem en t tea m s. Th e RMT becom es th e
dr ivin g for ce beh in d th e r edesign pr ocess by
pr ovidin g ta ctica l lea der sh ip. Th ese tea ch er s
a n d a dm in istr a tor s m a n a ge th e r edesign
pr ocess in th eir r espective clu ster. By lea r n in g h ow to do th e r edesign wor k , th e RMT
in cr ea ses th e lik elih ood th a t im pr ovem en ts
th a t a r e m a de w ill “stick ”.
Phase II: redesigning for high performance
Th e six su per visor y a ctivity steps h er e a r e:
1 Dia gn ose th e wor k system of th e clu ster of
sch ool be gin n in g Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision .
2 Dia gn ose th e socia l a r ch itectu r e of th e
clu ster.
3 Develop pr oposa ls to r edesign th e clu ster.
4 Develop a n im plem en ta tion pla n .
5 Im plem en t selected pr oposa ls.
6 E va lu a te th e pr ocess a n d ou tcom es of th e
r edesign effor t.
Th e fir st a n a lysis in ph a se II exa m in es th e
wor k system of th e clu ster of sch ools be gin n in g th e r edesign pr ocess. Sch ool system s a r e
k n ow ledge or ga n iza tion s a n d th e wor k th ey
do is k n ow ledge wor k . In sch ool system s, th e
wor k system h a s two k ey wor k pr ocesses. Th e
m ost im por ta n t k n ow ledge wor k pr ocess is
cla ssr oom tea ch in g. Cla ssr oom tea ch in g is
k n ow ledge wor k . It is n ot a step-by-step wor k
pr ocess (lik e m a k in g a n a u tom obile); in stea d,
it is n on -lin ea r in n a tu r e. Th e n on -lin ea r
n a tu r e of tea ch in g is r eflected in h ow a
tea ch er tea ch es. Wh en sh e is on h er feet h er m in d is r a cin g. Sh e h a s h er objective(s) in
m in d. N ew exa m ples of th e poin ts sh e is tr yin g to m a k e pop in to h er h ea d. Stu den ts a sk
qu estion s th a t ta k e h er off cou r se tem por a r ily. Sh e r etu r n s to h er or igin a l dir ection wh en
a stor y r ein for cin g h er poin ts com es to m in d.
Sh e look s a t th e clock a n d r ea lizes sh e m u st
br in g th e lesson to a close. Befor e closin g sh e
m a k es on e la st poin t th a t w a s tr igger ed by a
stu den t’s qu estion du r in g th e fir st m in u te of
cla ss – a fu ll 44 m in u tes ea r lier.
Th e secon d wor k pr ocess in sch ools is a
step-by-step, lin ea r wor k pr ocess th a t su ppor ts th e cor e wor k pr ocess (cla ssr oom tea ch in g). It is th e in str u ction a l pr ogr a m m e,
wh ich in th e USA is str u ctu r ed a s k in der ga r ten th r ou gh twelfth gr a de. Stu den ts m u st
pr ogr ess th r ou gh th is wor k pr ocess in a
lin ea r w ay. Cer ta in r equ ir em en ts m u st be
sa tisfied befor e th e stu den t ca n pr ogr ess to
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
th e n ext h igh er gr a de. Th is sequ en ce of
gr a des con tin u es u n til stu den ts gr a du a te.
To dia gn ose th ese two wor k pr ocesses, th e
RMT look s for er r or s in both wor k pr ocesses.
To exa m in e th e lin ea r in str u ction a l
pr ogr a m m e, th e RMT a u dits th e in str u ction a l
pr ogr a m m e. Policies, pr ocedu r es, in for m a tion flow, a n d so on a r e exa m in ed to iden tify
er r or s. Tr a dition a l sociotech n ica l system s
a n a lysis pr ocedu r es a r e u sefu l for th is a u dit
(e.g. ch a r tin g er r or s on a m a tr ix).
Tr a dition a l sociotech n ica l system s design
is n ot u sefu l for im pr ovin g n on -lin ea r k n ow ledge wor k [12] lik e cla ssr oom tea ch in g. Th er e
is a lso n o r esea r ch eviden ce su ggestin g th a t
tr a dition a l sociotech n ica l system s design ca n
im pr ove tea ch in g a n d lea r n in g. Tr a dition a l
in str u ction a l su per vision is a lso n ot effective
for im pr ovin g cla ssr oom tea ch in g th r ou gh ou t
a sch ool system , a lth ou gh is seem s to be
u sefu l w ith select tea ch er s.
Th e br oa d a ction s n eeded to im pr ove
k n ow ledge wor k in sch ools a r e a da pted for
sch ool system s fr om th e wor k of P ava [12].
Th ese a ction s a r e:
• Im pr ove th e qu a lity a n d tim elin ess of k ey
in for m a tion th a t tea ch er s n eed to tea ch
effectively.
• E n su r e th a t tea ch er s in ter a ct w ith th e th e
k ey people w ith wh om th ey sh ou ld be
exch a n gin g cr itica l in for m a tion .
• P r ovide tea ch er s a n d k ey people w ith a
va r iety of str u ctu r ed, sem i-str u ctu r ed, a n d
in for m a l for u m s for exch a n gin g cr itica l
in for m a tion .
• E xa m in e a n d im pr ove a n y devices (e.g.
com pu ter s), wor k pr ocedu r es (e.g. testin g
a n d m ea su r em en t) a n d or ga n iza tion a l
fu n ction s (e.g. a dm in istr a tion ) th a t su ppor t
tea ch in g.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision pr ovides a
system ic a n d system a tic m odel for a ch ievin g
th ese im pr ovem en ts.
Th e secon d dia gn osis of P h a se II exa m in es
th e socia l a r ch itectu r e of th e sch ool system .
Th e biggest over sigh t in cu r r en t or ga n iza tion a l im pr ovem en t m odels (e.g. sch ool
im pr ovem en t effor ts, bu sin ess pr ocess r een gin eer in g a n d tota l qu a lity m a n a gem en t) is
th a t th ese m odels do n ot a im to im pr ove th e
socia l system of a n or ga n iza tion . Th e socia l
a r ch itectu r e is a web-lik e str u ctu r e of r oles,
r equ ir ed wor k sk ills, r ela tion sh ips, beliefs,
va lu es a n d per ception s. Th e socia l system
a n d th e wor k system in ter a ct a t a sign ifica n t
level. Th e socia l a r ch itectu r e m a in ta in s th e
wor k system . If im pr ovem en ts a r e on ly m a de
in th e wor k system , th en th e r edesign effor t
w ill fa il in th e lon g r u n . Th e socia l a r ch itectu r e a n d th e wor k system m u st be im pr oved
sim u lta n eou sly in or der to r a ise over a ll levels
of or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce.
Th e m ost im por ta n t ou tcom e of ph a se II is
th e im plem en ta tion of a com pr eh en sive pr oposa l to r edesign th e clu ster of sch ools be gin n in g th e r edesign pr ocess. Th e r esu lts of th e
en vir on m en ta l a n a lysis com pleted in ph a se I
by th e steer in g com m ittee a n d th e da ta fr om
th e dia gn oses of th e wor k system a n d socia l
a r ch itectu r e of th e clu ster of sch ools a r e
a n a lysed to iden tify w ays to im pr ove th e
per for m a n ce level of th e clu ster sign ifica n tly.
Th is exa m in a tion r esu lts in a com pr eh en sive
r edesign pr oposa l th a t h a s su fficien t br ea dth
a n d depth to effect tr u e im pr ovem en ts in th e
wor k system , socia l a r ch itectu r e a n d en vir on m en ta l r ela tion sh ips of th e clu ster of sch ools
th a t be ga n th e r edesign pr ocess. Th e pr oposa l
m u st a lso be clea r ly a n d power fu lly a lign ed
w ith th e over a ll sch ool system ’s vision sta tem en t.
Phase III: achieving permanence and
diffusion
Su per visor y a ctivity steps h er e a r e:
1 Con du ct “dou ble-loop” lea r n in g
sem in a r s[21-22].
2 Ga in com m itm en t to th e ch a n ges th a t h ave
been m a de.
3 Alloca te r ew a r ds for desir ed beh aviou r s.
4 Diffu se th e ch a n ges to oth er pa r ts of th e
or ga n iza tion .
5 Detect a n d cor r ect devia tion s fr om th e
desir ed ou tcom es.
Th er e is a n old F r en ch sayin g th a t a pplies to
sch ool im pr ovem en t effor ts of th e pa st a n d
pr esen t: Plu s ça ch a n ge, plu s c’est la m êm e
ch ose. It tr a n sla tes: Th e m or e th in gs ch a n ge,
th e m or e th ey stay th e sa m e. Th is cyn ica l
obser va tion is pa r ticu la r ly tr u e of or ga n iza tion a l ch a n ges. It is r eflected in sta tem en ts
lik e “Didn ’t we do th is la st yea r ?” or, “I
th ou gh t we solved th a t pr oblem !” or, “If we
h a n g on lon g en ou gh , th is too sh a ll pa ss”.
Obviou sly, if sch ool system per son n el r ea lly
w a n t to im pr ove th e per for m a n ce level of
th eir sch ool system , th ey do n ot w a n t th eir
or ga n iza tion to su ffer fr om th e “ch a n ge –
r ever t ba ck – ch a n ge a ga in – r ever t ba ck
a ga in ” syn dr om e. Th ey w a n t a ll th eir h a r d
wor k , em otion a l com m itm en t a n d en er gy to
pay off w ith per m a n en t im pr ovem en ts. Per m a n en t im pr ovem en ts a r e a ch ieved th r ou gh
steps 1-3. Th ese a ctivities h elp th e clu ster of
sch ools th a t be ga n th e im pr ovem en t pr ocess
to a n ch or th eir im pr ovem en ts to th e sch ool
system ’s cu ltu r e a n d oth er deep or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r es.
After th e r edesign im pr ovem en ts a r e m a de
per m a n en t in th e clu ster of sch ools th a t
be ga n th e r edesign pr ocess, th e steer in g
[ 29 ]
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
com m ittee in itia tes a secon d r ou n d of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision . Lesson s lea r n ed fr om
th e fir st r ou n d a r e u sed to r edesign oth er
clu ster s of sch ools. N ew RMTs a r e ch a r ter ed
a n d tr a in ed. Th e or igin a l RMT a lso ser ves a s
“in -h ou se” tr a in er s for th e n ew RMTs.
Th e Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision pr ocess,
a s descr ibed a bove, r ecycles u n til th e en tir e
sch ool system is r edesign ed for h igh per for m a n ce. On ce th e en tir e system is r edesign ed,
th e steer in g com m ittee a n d RMTs be gin
detectin g a n d cor r ectin g devia tion s fr om
desir ed ou tcom es. Th e r edesign im pr ovem en ts a r e fr equ en tly com pa r ed to th e or ga n iza tion ’s vision sta tem en t. If th e
im pr ovem en ts a r e m ovin g aw ay fr om th e
vision , th en th ey a r e br ou gh t ba ck on lin e.
Th is k in d of str a te gic a lign m en t is cr itica l to
th e lon g-ter m su ccess of Kn ow ledge Wor k
Su per vision .
Phase IV: continuous improvement of
schooling
Th e two su per visor y a ctivity steps a r e:
1 Seek oppor tu n ities for con tin u ou s
im pr ovem en t.
2 Su per vise system bou n da r ies.
After th e en tir e sch ool system is r edesign ed
for h igh per for m a n ce th r ou gh Kn ow ledge
Wor k Su per vision , th e en tir e sch ool system
m oves in to ph a se IV of th e pa r a digm . In
ph a se IV, th e RMTs, wh ich r em a in a ctive
(a lth ou gh w ith r ota tin g m em ber sh ip), seek
w ays to m a k e in cr em en ta l im pr ovem en t in
th eir sch ools’ en vir on m en ta l r ela tion sh ips,
wor k pr ocesses a n d socia l a r ch itectu r e. Th e
or ga n iza tion -w ide steer in g com m ittee over sees th e en tir e pr ocess. Th is k in d of fi n etu n in g is im por ta n t beca u se it h elps th e
sch ool system to elim in a te glitch es in th e
im pr ovem en ts th a t wer e m a de. Th e tools a n d
m eth ods of qu a lity im pr ovem en t a r e u sefu l
du r in g th is ph a se.
Th er e a r e in visible system bou n da r y lin es
between gr a des, between levels of sch oolin g
a n d between th e sch ool system a n d its en vir on m en t. In for m a tion pa sses th r ou gh th ese
bou n da r ies. Th e qu a lity a n d qu a n tity of
in for m a tion a n d cr oss-bou n da r y r ela tion sh ips a m on g people n eed to be m a n a ged to
a ssu r e effective or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce.
Su per visin g th ese bou n da r ies du r in g ph a se
IV, by developin g a n d u sin g h igh qu a lity com m u n ica tion str a te gies a n d m eth ods, is on e of
th e pr im a r y r espon sibilities of k n ow ledge
wor k su per visor s. Kn ow ledge wor k su per visor s a r e a dm in istr a tor s a n d su per visor s
cu r r en tly wor k in g in th e sch ool system bu t
wh o a r e r e-sk illed to do or ga n iza tion a l
r edesign wor k .
[ 30 ]
Conclusion
Cu r r en t sch ool im pr ovem en t r ecom m en da tion s a dvise sch ool system s a bou t wh a t th e
ou tcom es of sch ool im pr ovem en t sh ou ld be;
e.g. sch ools of ch oice, block sch edu lin g a n d
tea ch in g eth ics to k ids. Th ese r ecom m en da tion s do n ot ta k e in to con sider a tion th a t
sch ool system s, a n d in deed ea ch sch ool
w ith in a system , a r e com plex ta pestr ies of
in ter con n ected elem en ts woven togeth er by
th e th r ea ds of th eir socia l system s on th e
ba ck gr ou n d of dem a n din g exter n a l en vir on m en ts. Tr yin g to lay th ese r ecom m en da tion s
for ch a n ge on to th ese ta pestr ies w ith ou t
a ssessin g wh a t th a t system ’s en vir on m en t
expects of it, w ith ou t exa m in in g th e n a tu r e of
th a t system ’s wor k pr ocesses a n d w ith ou t
a ssessin g th e m otiva tin g a n d sa tisfyin g
a ttr ibu tes of wor k r ela tion sh ips, r esu lts in
fa ilu r e, fr u str a tion a n d th e a ctu a liza tion of
“Th e m or e th in gs ch a n ge th e m or e th ey stay
th e sa m e”.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision is design ed to
h elp a sch ool system develop pr oposa ls for
r edesign in g itself th a t a r e ta ilor ed to its en vir on m en t, its wor k system a n d its socia l a r ch itectu r e – n ot to wh a t som eon e sittin g in a
gover n m en t office th in k s ou gh t to be don e or
to wh a t th e la test fa d m a k er is sellin g.
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision is a n ew
m odel. As a n ew a ppr oa ch to sch ool im pr ovem en t, it is lock ed in a pa r a dox: beca u se it is
n ew, n o on e is u sin g it a n d beca u se n o on e is
u sin g it, n o on e w a n ts to u se it. Alth ou gh th e
m odel is n ew, m a n y of its com pon en ts a r e n ot
n ew, a n d m a n y sch ool system s in th e USA a r e
cu r r en tly u sin g elem en ts of th e m odel. For
exa m ple, th er e a r e sch ool distr icts th a t r e gu la r ly a ssess th eir en vir on m en t’s expecta tion s,
th a t en vision br igh t fu tu r es for th em selves,
th a t u se sch ool im pr ovem en t tea m s a n d th a t
a pply pr in ciples of con tin u ou s qu a lity
im pr ovem en t. All of th ese a ctivities a r e pa r t
of Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision . To design
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision , th e a u th or
“sh opped” for n ew, in n ova tive idea s on h ow to
im pr ove pr ofession a l wor k (a .k .a . k n ow ledge
wor k ) a n d com bin ed th ese n ew idea s w ith
effective or ga n iza tion a l im pr ovem en t m eth ods bor r owed fr om th e fi elds listed ea r lier in
th is a r ticle.
Th e pa r a digm look s com plex beca u se it is.
It m u st be com plex, beca u se a sch ool system
is com plex. Th e pa r a digm offer s a system a tic
w ay to exa m in e th is com plexity to deter m in e
wh ich va r ia bles a ffect or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce. Th e pa r a digm a lso view s a sch ool
or ga n iza tion a s a system , a n d pr ovides tech n iqu es to im pr ove a ll pieces of th a t system ,
n ot ju st th e cu r r icu lu m , th e len gth of th e
Franc is M. Duffy
Kno wle dge Wo rk
Supe rvisio n: transfo rming
sc ho o l syste ms into high
pe rfo rming le arning
o rganizatio ns
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 6 –3 1
sch ool day or th e cla ssr oom beh aviou r of
in dividu a l tea ch er s. Th e pa r a digm look s lik e
it ta k es tim e beca u se it does ta k e tim e. Th er e
a r e n o “qu ick fixes” for sch ool im pr ovem en t.
If sch ool system per son n el go for th e qu ick
fix, th ey go for fa ilu r e.
If a pplied con sisten tly a n d w ith pa tien ce,
Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision w ill a lm ost
cer ta in ly m ove a sch ool system tow a r ds
h igh er levels of or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce
beca u se it com bin es pr oven or ga n iza tion a l
im pr ovem en t m eth ods w ith in n ova tive idea s
for im pr ovin g k n ow ledge wor k (lik e th e
tea ch in g-lea r n in g pr ocess). Th e r ea l-wor ld
exper ien ces of bu sin ess or ga n iza tion s u sin g
sim ila r r edesign m odels con fir m th is con clu sion . F u r th er, a sch ool system w ill n ot per fectly a ch ieve its n ew vision beca u se th a t
vision is a m ovin g ta r get. However, th e or ga n iza tion w ill m ove con tin u ou sly tow a r ds th e
vision beca u se Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision
is cyclica l a n d n ever -en din g. Kn ow ledge Wor k
Su per vision is a sch ool system ’s lifelon g
jou r n ey of con tin u ou s r en ew a l a n d it w ill
r a ise its level of or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce.
N oth in g less w ill do it.
Note and references
1 Beer, M., E isen sta t, R.A. a n d Spector, B., “Wh y
ch a n ge pr ogr a m s don ’t pr odu ce ch a n ge”,
Ha r va rd B u sin ess R eview , Vol. 68 N o. 6, N ovem ber -Decem ber 1990, pp. 158-66.
2 Kn ow ledge Wor k Su per vision is a r e gister ed
m a r k of Th e F.M. Du ffy Gr ou p, High la n d,
Ma r yla n d, USA.
3 Du ffy, F.M., Design in g High Per for m a n ce
S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e to Orga n iz a tion a l
R een gin eer in g, St Lu cie P r ess, Delr ay Bea ch ,
F L, 1996.
4 P a sm or e, W.A., Design in g Effectiv e Orga n iz a tion s: T h e S ociotech n ica l S ystem s Perspectiv e,
Wiley & Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1988.
5 P a sm or e, W.A., S ociotech n ica l S ystem s Design
for T ota l Qu a lity, Or ga n iza tion a l Con su lta n ts,
In c., Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, 1992.
6 P a sm or e, W.A., “Design in g wor k system s for
k n ow ledge wor k er s”, J ou r n a l of Qu a lity a n d
Pa r ticipa tion , Vol. 6 N o. 4, 1993, pp. 78-84.
7 Tr ist, E .L., Higgin , G.W., Mu r r ay, H. a n d Polla ck , A.B., Orga n isa tion a l Ch oice, Tavistock
P u blica tion s, Lon don , 1965.
8 Lytle, W.O., S ocio-tech n ica l S ystem s A n a lysis
a n d Design Gu id e for L in ea r Work , Block Petr ella -Weisbor d, In c., P la in fi eld, N J , 1991.
9 Dr u ck er, P.F., T h e A ge of Discon tin u ity: Gu id elin es to Ou r Ch a n gin g S ociety, Ha r per & Row,
N ew Yor k , N Y, 1969.
10 Dr u ck er, P.F., M a n a gem en t T a sk s, R espon sib ilities, Pra ctices, Ha r per & Row, N ew Yor k , N Y,
1985.
11 Dr u ck er, P.F., “P r ofession a ls’ pr odu ctivity”,
A cross th e B oa rd, Vol. 30 N o. 9, 1993, p. 50.
12 P ava , C.H.P., M a n a gin g N ew Office T ech n ology:
A n Orga n iz a tion a l S tra teg y, Th e N ew P r ess,
N ew Yor k , N Y, 1983.
13 Kn igh ts, D., Mu r r ay, F. a n d Willm ott, H., “N etwor k in g a s k n ow ledge wor k : a stu dy of str a tegic in ter or ga n iza tion a l developm en t in th e
fi n a n cia l ser vices in du str y”, J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t S tu d ies, Vol. 30 N o. 6, 1993, pp. 975-95.
14 Dem in g, W.E ., Ou t of Cr isis, MIT P r ess, Ca m br idge, MA, 1982.
15 Cr osby, P.B., Qu a lity Is Free: T h e A r t of M a k in g
Qu a lity Cer ta in , N ew Am er ica n Libr a r y, N ew
Yor k , N Y, 1979.
16 Cr osby, P.B., R u n n in g T h in gs, McGr aw -Hill,
N ew Yor k , N Y, 1986.
17 J u r a n , J .M., J u ra n on L ea d ersh ip for Qu a lity,
Th e F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1989.
18 Ish ik aw a , K., W h a t Is Qu a lity Con trol? “T h e
J a pa n ese W ay”, P r en tice-Ha ll, E n glewood
Cliffs, N J , 1985.
19 Ta gu ch i, G. a n d Cla u sin g, D., “Robu st qu a lity”,
Ha r va rd B u sin ess R eview , Vol. 68 N o. 1, 1990,
pp. 65-72.
20 Ha m m er, M. a n d Ch a m py, J ., R een gin eer in g th e
Corpora tion : A M a n ifesto for B u sin ess R evolu tion , Ha r per Collin s, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1993.
21 Ar gyr is, C. a n d Sch ön , D., T h eor y in Pra ctice:
In crea sin g Profession a l Effectiv en ess, J osseyBa ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, 1974.
22 Ar gyr is, C. a n d Sch ön , D., Orga n iz a tion a l
L ea r n in g, Addison -Wesley, Rea din g, MA, 1978.
23 Bu r k e, W.W., Orga n iz a tion Dev elopm en t: Pr in ciples a n d Pra ctices, Little, Br ow n & Co.,
Boston , MA, 1982.
24 Sen ge, P.M., T h e Fifth Disciplin e: T h e A r t a n d
Pra ctice of th e L ea r n in g Orga n iz a tion , Dou bleday, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1990.
25 Block , P., T h e Em pow ered M a n a ger: Positiv e
Politica l S k ills a t Work , J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, 1987.
26 Kotter, J .P., “Lea din g ch a n ge: wh y tr a n sfor m a tion effor ts fa il”, B u sin ess R eview , Ma r ch -Apr il
1995, pp. 59-67.
[ 31 ]