Some of you know my husband, John Borwick, has started a business: Higher Ed IT Management. His company focuses on coaching and other educational engagements to help make higher education IT better. From his website:
consulting and custom training engagements to help higher education improve how IT is managed. These engagements can be “pull” engagements from IT or “push” engagements by administrators or governance outside IT. We work with on-campus champions to build institutional capabilities for managing IT: capabilities such as project management, service management, continual improvement, or IT governance. We understand higher education and believe that outside groups must assist and coach in improvements, rather than lead them, for the improvement to take root.
It’s really interesting work, and John is particularly good at it.
Anyway, as part of his work, he maintains a blog on these issues. And a lot of the topics he addresses are relevant to our (library) interests as well. To some extent it’s useful because it’s helpful for libraries (in this case academic libraries) to understand how other units we might collaborate with (campus IT) function.
But in a different vein, it’s useful because a lot of the concepts apply to our world as well. The other day he posted on Revolutionary vs. Evolutionary Organizational Change. As The Library feels the pressure to reinvent itself, so too does organizational IT. There is a lot of change in that industry, though it looks different from our change, we’re all going through the business of adapting our organizations in light of evolving conditions around us.
Revolutionary change is fast. It’s driven from above. It’s mandated. It’s not necessarily rooted in a culture. Evolutionary change is slower. It’s change by convincing others. it’s long lasting. This framework reminds me of, but is not exactly the same as Jason Griffey’s post on farming vs. mining from a few years ago.
Me? I’m an evolutionary farmer. There are moments when I do revolutionary change, but normally only when I know a group well enough give a pep talk/set up an inspirational framework for it. More often, my approach to change is very person driven, with a strong emphasis on getting to know an organization and where people are, and building from there. It’s slower, but hopefully has a way of sticking. I’ve had a lot of situations where I was learning evolutionary change and the change I was a part of didn’t stick, and I don’t want to waste my time on that. I want what I spend my time working on to matter in the long run, which often means a lot more one on one conversations and figuring out where we’re all starting from.
Evolutionary change actually makes me think a little bit of constructivist educational models. Figure out where people are, find out where they need to be, and help them build the “scaffolding” to get from one place to another. Sometimes it’s in a classroom. Sometimes it’s informal learning. Sometimes it’s organizational. But it sure is slower than revolution.
I find this concept really interesting and a useful framework for thinking about change. If you want more information, hop over there and read John’s post!