See also: distribution
Echoes of the BAD/SET mindsets. Universities as CAS are comprised of tightly integrated sub-systems. Much of these set up (necessarily) through a SET mindset. Uhl-Bien's model suggests seeing organisations as having two organisational functions: 1. Administrative - scale and standardisation focused operational and coordinating roles necessary to provide a stable environment - largely appropriate for ordered processes. 2. Adaptive - not well defined power is distributed and the focus is on forging new relationships and interactions between diverse agents - work that can create friction, but also generates crative outcomes and learning.
Administrative is suitable for stable contexts. Adaptive for more volatile and complex environments.
Leadership needs to focus on balancing the network of interactions and organisational structures within the adaptive space to respond to the pressures. They need capacity to forecast pressures and foster the right balance of administrative and adaptive processes, networks and relations to respond, adapt and change in a complex environment.
There are productive tensions between these two functions.
Shane Dawson#
Summary and some initial thoughts on Keynote talk. See also Dawson et al (2018)
As depicted in Figure 1, when pressure from the surrounding environment is placed upon a system, leadership acts to enable a response by drawing on and balancing interactions that operate in two primary organizational functions – administrative and adaptive (Dawson et al, 2018, p. 239)
The role of the enabling leadership is to effectively balance the network of interactions and organizational structures that occur within this adaptive space to best respond to the pressure. Enabling leaders have a strong capacity to forecast pressures and foster the right balance of administrative and adaptive processes, networks and relations in order to effectively respond, adapt and change in a complex environment. (Dawson, et al, 2018, p. 239)
Education as a complex system with integrated systems. There is both administrative and adaptive systems. Administrative doesn't change quickly. Adaptive can.
Initially, Shane talks about the lever for change being around teaching delivery. That's where the adaptive space currently is. There are stable bits you can't change assessment, curriculum structures, AQF frameworks, LMS but it doesn't mean you can't work around those systems.
At the same stage, formal leadership under appropriate environmental pressures have to consider/drive changes to the administrative side. He gives the example of COVID changing assessment and teaching delivery.
Suggesting that there are two ways of moving forward for leadership
Leadership in response to perceived env pressures change those stable systems
Leadership encourage and enable the adaptive space
2 is the space where MLPs can operate. Even in a distributed leadership model, MLPs can't change the administrative systems (but more later). But they can encourage, grow, and leverage the adaptive space.#
Suggesting a few moves for an MLP or others. Perhaps these are the spaces where your design theory can work?
Encourage and leverage the adaptive space as much as possible.
As Shane would argue (I think) this is space you can work around systems easily. Teaching delivery etc. In this space, it's about being able to orchestrate the loose networks in this space to respond to local needs effectively/efficiently. But it's also about helping cultivate those loose networks.
Use assemblages to soften the administrative systems
One of Dron's observations is that hard technologies can be softened by wrapping them around with different technologies. There are limits to what you can do effeciently/effectively but it can be done.
The distinction between these two spaces is made much more complex due to the fractal nature of complex systems (I think). This confuses things because depending on what level you are viewing the system you will see different types of administrative/adaptive systems. Perhaps something your design theory should help orient people to?
In different specific institutions the possibilities in these two spaces will vary widely. Due to leadership, rampant IT division, and numerous other factors. The question is can you come up with a design theory that helps MLPs do this in context appropriate ways?
References#
Dawson, S., Poquet, O., Colvin, C., Rogers, T., Pardo, A., & Gasevic, D. (2018). Rethinking Learning Analytics Adoption Through Complexity Leadership Theory. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 236--244. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170375