Organizational Development Project

Description
Organization development (OD) is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and/or efficiency. OD theorists and practitioners define it in various ways. Its multiplicity of definition reflects the complexity of the discipline and is responsible for its lack of understanding.

Final Report Organizational Development Project Phase One – Assessment Prepared for Board of Education Palo Alto Unified School District

February 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007
Geoff Ball, Jerry Talley and Patricia Brown Geoff Ball & Associates Los Altos, CA 94022

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary Overview of Project Methodology Focus Groups/interviews Survey A Process Interrupted Topical Working Groups & Interviews Consultant recommendations Who's to Blame Soothing the System Rebuilding the Committee System Key Work Processes Board's Policy Leadership Refreshing the Strategic Planning Process Final Thoughts Page 3 Page 6 Page 8 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 10 Page 11 Page 13 Page 14 Page 17 Page 21 Page 23 Page 28 Page 31

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 2

Executive Summary
The purpose of this project as stated in the contract is to “provide organizational development services to the District." Our work focused on an assessment of the situation, the first phase of a full organizational development process, and the identification of actionable approaches to build strong communications and to continue to foster the development of an outstanding management team. This assessment has led us to focus on the organizational systems in the District – our recommendations seek to improve the overall functioning of these systems. For this report, the consulting team assembled by Geoff Ball & Associates (Geoff Ball, Jerry L. Talley and Patricia Brown) will be identified as BTB. The scope of our contract limits our assessment to the “management” of the District. This group includes the Board of Education, the Superintendent, District Office and Site Administrators and other administrators – a number totaling 71 persons that we have named the “leadership group”. Our work focused on the leadership group’s interaction, communication and management practices in the District. We did not do assessments with other district employees, not in the district office, not at the school site level nor with parents or the community. After collecting data through interviews, focus groups and an online survey, we identified five areas for further work. We conducted several additional interviews and three topical working groups to assist us to develop recommendations that would be tailored to the current needs of the District. This report focuses on the organizational systems in five areas. In each of these areas we have provided our analysis of the situation, informed by input from the leadership group, and we have developed recommendations, in the form of specific approaches and options, to improve the organizational systems in that area. The areas, with recommendations related to the key organizational systems, are:
•

Soothing the System - so people can re-engage with each other and initiate debate on difficult and sometimes conflicted issues.
•

A first step toward supporting the change would be for the Board and Superintendent to announce that this is “a time of healing”, a period in which undesirable practices need to be reversed or replaced. BTB recognizes the need for separate organizational units (sites, teams, committees, etc.) to engage in the process of defining for themselves, and declaring in front of each other, the norms and rules they desire for their work together. The District should announce which organizational practices will be the targets of improvement efforts and what priorities will be followed in the sequence of efforts.

•

•

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 3

•

Rebuilding the Committee System --so there is a clear “path of influence” for the numerous educational experts to (1) contribute appropriately to high-level decisions on policy and priorities, and to (2) provide useful feedback on the implementation challenges of such decisions.
•

We suggest that the Board and Superintendent confirm their joint intention to establish and maintain a collaborative approach to District governance, It would be useful for the District to examine the flow of data and decisions from one committee to other committees in the system of governance and intentionally design a path of influence that is open to all managers. The effectiveness of committees could be improved by a careful look at what happens before, during and after individual meetings and developing consistent guidelines based on acknowledged best practices in group settings.

•

•

•

Key Work Processes -- so that classical process improvement strategies, where appropriate, might give the District greater consistency, efficiency, and transparency.
•

Seek examples of procedures where the variation from site to site creates confusion of unequal treatment of staff or students. Over time, move toward standardized procedures where that makes sense. The Board should revisit the allocation of resources to the District Office with input from all members of the leadership group.

•

•

Board Policy Leadership -- so the Board can focus on approaches to enhancing its effectiveness, which in turn, is critical to organizational systems.
•

Take time to consider options for clarifying board roles and select from models that the Board agrees will best serve the unique needs of PAUSD and the new administration. Define and publicize those roles and build in accountability measures such as staff and community feedback mechanisms and regular selfevaluation by the board itself. Develop and implement a “code of conduct” for Board members As a Board, agree on ways to handle “end runs” and attempts to bypass existing influencing and decision making systems. In fulfilling its function of setting policy and monitoring its implementation, the Board should feel comfortable giving direction to the Superintendent about the nature of the information it needs for making its policy decisions. In partnership with the Superintendent, take leadership in the development of the PAUSD norms and values statement. Use the “study session” format as a forum for receiving and considering information and inviting input from interested persons.

• •

•

•

•

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 4

•

Refreshing the Strategic Planning Process --in anticipation of its implementation in the upcoming school year. Critical issues will include (1) matching organizational capacity with strategic objectives (possibly through instrumental goals), and (2) using the plan as an on-going framework for considering new initiatives.
•

The Board and incoming Superintendent could take the lead in identifying a collaborative strategic planning effort as a high priority, to take place in the upcoming school year The Board and Superintendent can establish the model for how to use a strategic plan effectively in the day-to-day work of the District. The Strategic Plan needs to include 'instrumental goals' - goals allocating resources to key organizational systems such as: skill acquisition, work process development, cultural norms, etc.

•

•

Organizational systems are key to the functioning of the organization. They often are fairly invisible and hard to see. Most people are not trained to be aware of them. But, without wellfunctioning organizational systems the people in the organization will be constantly bumping into each other and falling over each other - which leads to 'heroic efforts,' and, more importantly, to frustration and anger, disengagement and resignation. The quality of performance of these systems is critical to the overall performance of the District. If the Board provides the policy support for improving the organizational systems in the five suggested areas for action, we anticipate significant improvement in overall organizational satisfaction and functioning. If the Board were to forego serious efforts in these areas, we would anticipate significant negative consequences (i.e., loss of long-tenured talent to other districts, continued, if not escalated, hostility between the Board and the managers, loss of energy and commitment in support of high performance, loss of trust and rapport, and damage to the Board’s credibility). We believe that the District and its community will take this challenge and succeed in restoring the organizational systems of the District to fully support a sustainable level of performance by the leadership group that will continue to place the District in the top echelon of Districts in the United States.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 5

Overview of Project
The purpose of this project as stated in the contract is to “provide organizational development services to the District to study its management organization and submit a written report making recommendations as to how the District can continue to improve communications and develop a great management team.” For this report, the consulting team assembled by Geoff Ball & Associates (Geoff Ball, Jerry L. Talley and Patricia Brown) will be identified as BTB. As we said to the Board as we started our contract, the work to be done in this project focuses on assessment and relationship building - the first phase of a complete organizational development process. The field of Organizational Development tells us that any organization is governed in its actions by a complex mix of work processes, understandings and agreements, formal and informal structures, and cultural elements. These organizational components evolve partially as a result of deliberate choice and partially by unseen system dynamics. The goal of this assessment has been to unravel the combination of choice and evolution so the actual mechanisms of governance are visible and accessible, and so that actionable recommendations to build strong communications and continue to foster the development of an outstanding management team can be developed. An outcome of this assessment has been BTB's focus on the organizational systems in the District – our recommendations seek to improve the overall functioning of those systems. Organizational systems are key to the functioning of the organization. They often are fairly invisible, hard to see. Most people are not trained to be aware of them. But, without wellfunctioning organizational systems the people in the organization will be constantly bumping into each other and falling over each other - which leads to 'heroic efforts,' and to frustration and anger, disengagement and resignation. The quality of performance of these organizational systems is critical to the overall performance of the District. Our goal has been to engage all members of the leadership group through our methodology and harvest their opinions and perspectives to contribute to our understanding of the current situation. Our final work with leadership group members gathered information we needed to develop our suggested approaches to the District. From our assessment we identified five topical areas where follow-up work can be done by the District to further strengthen organizational systems. To be most effective, we recommend that the District address all of the topics identified in this report. We have suggested possible action steps to move toward goals for each topical area.

Scope
Our work focused on the members of the District’s leadership group, which included the Board of Education, the Superintendent, District Office and Site Administrators and other administrators – a number totaling 71 persons that we have named the “leadership group”. We did not do assessments with other district employees, at the individual school level nor with parents or the community. Our focus has been on the concerns voiced by members of this leadership group. The work did
Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment Page 6

not explore all aspects of the District as an organization. We are not attempting to provide a report balancing what needs improvement with what is working well. Since the scope and resources of this project were limited, we focused on issues and concerns

Please keep in mind that much appears to be right with the District. The respondents from the leadership group indicated in our survey that they felt that PAUSD was a great place to work; that they were willing to examine whatever individual contributions they may have made to the upset that led to this project; and that they believed that this coming year would be a good time to address the improvements that need to be made. Most important, from all reports the District is delivering high quality education to its students.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 7

Methodological Summary
This project used several different methodologies to ensure the highest quality data. People had a chance for open qualitative discussion as well the opportunity to contribute structured quantitative input.

Focus Groups
Individual interviews were conducted with Board members, the Superintendent and Senior Cabinet members as a prelude to the broader data collection efforts. Then, all members of the leadership group were invited to attend any of 8 focus groups. These groups varied in size from 3 to 9 members and lasted 2 hours or more. A total of 50 people participated. Our strategy was to cast a fairly broad net in these conversations, so the discussions were started with a few general questions:
•

How does the leadership (structure, style, and processes of governance) of the District hinder you in doing your job?
Page 8

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

• • • •

How does the leadership of the District support you in doing your job? What are the more difficult issues facing those who lead the District? What mechanisms or structures would help you address those issues more effectively? Is there anything else that hasn't been mentioned that you feel is important in developing a more effective and cohesive organization?

Typically a group would generate a list of topics and then start in and explore them one by one. We allowed the participants to drive the flow of discussion. Our role was to (1) capture their comments in real time with their recorded words projected up for all to see, (2) ensure everyone had a chance to speak, (3) generally draw people out on more sensitive or complex topics, and (4) challenge them to consider alternative points of view. In line with the Board's desire to maintain a confidential process, the focus group notes were never linked to an individual speaker. To assure the accuracy of the focus group notes, participants were encouraged to correct any errors in our recordings before the end of the meeting. We made no attempt to limit the membership of groups, so they typically had representatives from different segments of the District’s leadership group. After all the focus groups, we consolidated the data set and combed it for recurrent themes and concerns. Based on our experience with organizations in general, we constructed a map of issues and the possible causal links between them.

Survey
We consider the focus groups notes as our primary data base, but we also administered a 38 question survey to the leadership group. The purpose of the survey was to verify what we learned from the focus groups, and to test the distribution of opinion. We did not want to be misled by a vocal minority in the open discussions. The survey allowed everyone (Board, Superintendent, Cabinet, Managers) to indicate his or her level of agreement with a particular statement. Our strategy was to express the themes from the focus groups as positive declarative statements to which the respondent could indicate their degree of assent. For example, there were numerous comments in the focus groups about the difficulty of getting repairs done at the sites. Heating was a particularly common example. In a question added to the survey, we found out that the opinions were fairly evenly split; about half the respondents felt repairs were conducted in a timely manner, while half felt they were not. So the focus group data overestimated the extent of concern with repairs. On most other topics, however, we found the focus group notes were validated by the survey findings. The survey was administered through an on line service. An email invitation was sent to all 71 members of the leadership group; 51 responded. The data was downloaded and analyzed separately. We identified five topic areas from our assessment process for further exploration and were prepared to schedule working groups in those areas when we encountered an unforeseen barrier to progress.
Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment Page 9

A Process Interrupted
Shortly after the completion of the survey, the Board appointed the current Principal of Palo Alto High School to a previously unfilled cabinet position. The appointment was explained as a direct response to the possible loss of his talents as he was being recruited by another school district. To many of the managers, however, this appointment was a shocking violation of trust. Their response was to step back from the organizational assessment process; the scheduled working groups had to be canceled. Unable to proceed with our planned process, we renegotiated our role with the District and began brokering a restoration of working relationships between the Board and the managers. We worked mostly with leaders of the Palo Alto Management Association (PAMA) on the managers' side, since the Association represented the vast majority of managers. After several weeks of separate discussions with the Board and managers, we initiated two weeks of smaller meetings in which Board members met with members of the PAMA Board to re-establish trust and rapport. Eventually people felt ready once again to pursue the process we had defined initially.

Topical Working Groups and Interviews
Based on the focus group information (adjusted by the survey), we settled on five key areas in which to develop recommendations. The criteria for selecting these topical areas were twofold: (1) the set would address the greatest degree of organizational distress, and (2) work in these areas would be likely to provoke additional advances in other areas. That is, we hoped to initiate conversations that would expand into other topics once some momentum was established. The topical working groups were designed to explore the subtlety and nuance around the topic areas and to improve the quality of our eventual recommendations to the Board. In preparation for the topical working groups, we interviewed some staff with long experience in the District. These topical working groups, in our mind, were the opportunity to move from looking backward at how the current distress developed to turning energy and focus to the future, to making things better for all. The product from these groups was a forward-looking description of the problematic situation. This description consists of a general statement of the current situation and of the desired situation in this topic area, along with options and approaches for moving toward the desired situation. We used this information in crafting the recommendations contained in this report. Due to our compressed schedule, we only had time to conduct 3 of the original 5 topical groups. The discussion around Board dynamics was deferred, given the parallel work between the incoming Superintendent and the current Board. The discussion around Strategic Planning was postponed. An invitation to participate in the Topical Working Groups went out to all members of the leadership group and 20 people signed up for 1 or 2 groups. In addition, 1 or 2 board members attended each group.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 10

Consultant Recommendations
BTB found a rich source of data from the interviews, focus groups and on line survey. We certainly came away with a better understanding about systemic issues and some valuable ideas about approaches to improvement. We knew, however, that our thinking would benefit greatly from engaging members of the leadership group in more detailed and nuanced discussions of options and approaches. We had planned to hold topical working groups for all five identified areas. However, time constraints at the end of the school year, along with knowledge of the planning work scheduled by the Board and the new superintendent convinced us to limit the number of group sessions. We convened 3 topical working groups to test our approaches and refine our final recommendations. The groups were held as follows:
• •

Soothing the System: Tuesday June 19th from 1:30 to 3:30, with 9 attendees Rebuilding the Committee System: Wednesday June 20th from 10am to noon, with 8 attendees Key Work Processes: Wednesday June 20th from 1 to 3pm with 7 attendees

•

The reports in the two additional areas (Board Policy Leadership and Strategic Planning) were developed using only the data from the focus groups, interviews, and the survey. We strongly urge that the District pursue work in all five identified areas and to that end we have made some suggestions about possible approaches in each area. We believe that these five areas of focus could contribute significantly to improved organizational functioning in the future. In each of the topical working groups, we reviewed the relevant data and how we made sense of it. We briefly described 1-2 approaches to addressing the topic we thought worth considering and asked the group members to share their own thinking with us. To structure these facilitated conversations, we asked people to categorize their thoughts into the following areas:
•

The current situation (since the project started, the situation has evolved – this was an attempt to help us understand the current state of affairs) Approaches (interventions, strategies, actions) Rationales (underlying dynamics; presumptions of causal factors) Desired outcomes (the desired change if the approach were enacted) Metrics (concrete indicators of success)

• • • •

We also asked participants to adhere to the group agreements that we have used consistently since the middle of the assessment process. These group agreements addressed how participants would interact with each other in the session, some communication guidelines and confidentiality. The discussions were candid and open and the groups were very participatory. We found it was useful to assist group members to be deliberate about the nature of their contributions. Members helped each other. One person might suggest a metric and that would prompt clarification of a more abstract outcome. Or, by articulating the prevailing rationale, a group member would challenge people to consider a new range of approaches.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 11

In each of the topical areas, BTB has developed a set of suggested approaches or recommendations about how PAUSD might proceed to address and improve identified concerns. These approaches are highlighted in bold boxes such as this one in the sections that follow.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 12

Who's To Blame?
There are many people -- both internal and external -- who are hoping this report will complete the following sentence: "The one person most to blame for the current troubles in the Palo Alto Unified School District is ..." The focus groups and interviews conducted by BTB were replete with proffered candidates for this “honor”. In situations with similar levels of stress and anger, it is a common tendency to seek out those few individuals who are “the cause” of the situation. If only they could be replaced, it is hoped, the situation would return to "normal". It is a natural, if not very useful, penchant to focus on the individuals in the system more than the system itself. And, in fact, "the system" always comes to us with a human face. In the context of organizations, we are aware of personally tense interactions or violated expectations. It is harder to see the erosion of organizational systems -- the unintended impact of the formal organizational structures, the typical emergence of complementary informal mechanisms, the slow erosion of work process understandings, shifts in and disagreements on shared values, the impact of lost institutional memory, the power of group dynamics, or the reciprocal tendencies of difficult interactions. But, without well-functioning organizational systems the people in the organization will be constantly bumping into each other -- which leads to 'heroic efforts,' frustration, anger, disengagement and resignation. The quality of performance of these organizational systems is critical to the overall performance of the District. It has been our emphasis since the beginning to focus on the complex organizational systems of PAUSD rather than imagine that single individuals are the cause of the issues that have been identified as concerns. In a hierarchical structure, there are always a few individuals who are ultimately accountable, but that is different than being the cause of dysfunction. It is not realistic to believe that replacing one or two individuals will lead to a smooth restoration of some former and preferred state of affairs. Our experience is that the dynamics in a large, complex system can be strong enough to survive a transition in the players; in fact, system dynamics are capable of shaping individual behavior as much as -- if not more than -- personal styles. A healthy and resilient system can adapt to a variety of styles and still hold to a desired culture, a preferred way of getting work done together. The attempt to identify "who is to blame" is actually a negative feature of the current organizational culture. It contributes to an atmosphere of fear and distrust. This mindset justifies righteous indignation rather than collaborative dialog and problem solving. It blinds people to their own role in the current situation. Some focus group participants, for example, noted that they had contributed to the situation just by not speaking out, by not standing up against egregious violations of long-standing PAUSD norms and values by their peers. So, who's to blame? In a sense, no one and everyone. For the purposes of this assessment, it doesn't matter. What does matter is peoples' ability and willingness to listen to each other without a presumption of guilt or innocence, of being right or wrong, and with an interest in moving ahead together.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 13

Soothing the System
The Situation
At the beginning of this project, BTB found the PAUSD leadership group to be extremely raw and tender. It was easy for people to over-react to, or misperceive, even innocent actions. In the focus groups and interviews, people reported feeling hurt, insulted, attacked, or intimidated. The language around feelings of hurt, anger or fear was often extreme. There were occasional outbursts of strong anger or tearful expressions of pain and anguish. There were references to feeling manipulated, misled, or mistreated. A few questions from the mid-March survey provided a more accurate check on the extent of such feelings. Questions about feeling vulnerable to insult or attack, a sense of safety in expressing dissenting opinions, or a confidence that they would be heard and understood all showed extremely negative patterns. It confirmed that the level of distress and upset revealed in the focus groups was widely shared among the respondents. Since the start of the project there have been significant shifts in attitude. While some people clearly continue to feel as deeply distressed as they did in February, others are more willing to talk about and address issues. That shift in feeling tone portends an optimistic response to future efforts. We believe, however, it would be easy for the situation to regress back to a more reactive level. At this time, some people are feeling more optimistic, but a significant misstep could turn optimism to cynicism or despair.

Our Analysis
We believe the data collected in March reflected a culture in which • • • People too quickly jump to assumptions of malicious intent (rather than simple misunderstanding, lack of skills or even incompetence) Current issues quickly expand to include past, iconic events It's difficult to resolve issues or reach closure

It was reported that a number of the members of the leadership group have fallen into poor practices because there does not appear to have been a clear, collective commitment to and reinforcement for a more positive set of understandings about how to work with each other. Lacking commitment to a common supportive culture, people seem to have fallen into habits that exacerbate the situation in unfortunate ways. A number of leadership group members reported pulling back to a “safe” position, focusing on “my school and the kids” rather than risking engagement with District issues. We presented the following problem statement to this topical working group: What steps can the leadership group take, at this time, to reduce the overall level of tension, disengagement and frustration, and support the development of increasing levels of trust and an increasing ability to work with differing perspectives?

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 14

Approaches for Moving Forward
For a variety of reasons, the last few years for the leadership group have been difficult. There is a willingness – indeed a strong hope – for the next year to be better, to offer a new direction, a healing. But there is also a worry that endemic issues will persist, that a kind of organizational inertia will blunt individual effort. A first step toward supporting the change would be for the Board and Superintendent to announce that this is “a time of healing”, a period in which undesirable practices will be reversed or replaced. It needs to be a time of reflection and new commitments. The change people want will require conscious effort and an openness to gentle correction from peers. One of the very concrete manifestations of this “time of healing” would be a shared set of signals that people can use in meetings or other interactions to flag a comment or behavior, to bring it to the attention of someone without being either accusatory or disrupting the flow of work. Some groups have adopted 3-4 standard sentences that everyone could recognize as a respectful challenge to unacceptable behavior. For example, groups might adopt language such as the following: • • • “Excuse me, but what you just did seems outside our agreements” “My understanding is that we were not going to do X anymore” “I can hear that you're angry, but we agreed to attack the issues and not each other”

Group facilitators or supervisors can and should use their position to highlight movement into risky topics, or acknowledge that such topics may provoke strong feelings from past times, or remind the group of its agreements to explore conflicts in productive ways and strike a new direction for the future. Some years ago the District leadership created “The Tennis Ball”, a statement of norms and values that were intended to provide the context for behavior. We believe it is time for another attempt at defining norms and values, involving those who are here, now. The document, however, is less critical than the process by which it is generated. It is the process of speaking face-to-face about desired behaviors that is critical; only from that experience can people hold themselves and others to the standards of best behavior, confident that they speak on behalf of the group and with the anticipated support from the rest of the group. One of the strong thoughts from the working group was the additional need for separate organizational units (sites, teams, committees, etc.) to engage in the process of defining for themselves, and declaring in front of each other, the norms and rules they desire for their work together. And the process needs to be invoked annually; changing membership and natural erosion requires a periodic refreshing of group norms.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 15

It would be a mistake, however, to believe that a renewed commitment to key values would be sufficient to soothe the system. There was an equally strong call from the working group to address, where these exist, some of the fundamental organizational dysfunctions that have been the source of so much confusion or distress: • • Lack of clarity on decision making, either identifying the actual decision maker or articulating a decision-making rule Poor meeting management, so purpose, roles and outcome are not clarified; processing difficult topics is handled only as “general discussion” without an appropriate group process design Confusion about relative roles of Board, Superintendent, and managers Infrequent and often ritualistic supervision or performance evaluation Ignoring or not even stating broad objectives and priorities for the District, so people end up jumping from issue to issue according to whatever is deemed critical at the moment.

• • •

All of the concerns above reflect basic elements of good organizational practice that were considered caustic or confusing in their current pattern. While addressing them all simultaneously would probably be too burdensome, it would be wise to announce which practices will be the targets of improvement efforts and what priorities will be followed in the sequence of efforts. The anticipated outcomes from efforts in this area would include all of the following: • Creating a safer environment where professionals feel safe to address complex or even conflicted issues, focusing on the substantive issues rather than wasting effort on protecting themselves or maneuvering for better position The prevailing culture is one of mutual respect and belief in each other's best intentions, even as disagreements emerge Everyone's opinion is solicited and respected, even as differences in expertise, experience, or authority are acknowledged and accepted People eagerly contributing to team efforts, firm in the belief that a group effort affords significant leverage and the most powerful way to contribute to the District Confidence that there is a viable path of influence from Principal to Manager to Cabinet to Board; “end runs” and “back doors” become unnecessary.

• • • •

All of this contributes to rebuilding a collaborative and respectful culture - a key organizational system for high performance in PAUSD.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 16

Rebuilding the Committee System
The Situation
Within most school districts there is a network of committees where leaders routinely meet to share ideas, explore options and contribute to the governance of the district. In this section the word “committee” is used in its generic sense, including forums, task forces, working groups, etc. BTB is most interested in those gatherings:
•

that are part of a “path of influence” that provides input and feedback to key policy decisions, where some decision making can occur that support an ongoing, integrated and collaborative system of governance.

• •

These district level committees are potentially the way to engage the best thinking of talented and dedicated educational professionals around the issues that matter. A functioning committee system helps to translate strategic intention into practice and bring learning from practice back into policy. Based on the following information gathered in interviews and focus groups and reinforced by the survey, we believe that PAUSD does not currently have a robust and viable network of integrated and linked committees that systematically channel a flow of expertise and advice into policy making. It appears that the path of influence is unclear and not functioning at a desirable level. In the focus groups we frequently heard from members of the leadership group that they participate in discussions that appear to have no direction or impact. At times, they wonder “why am I here?” Others expressed concern about why they had been excluded from committees where their expertise seemed obviously relevant. They reported having been asked for opinion or input “after the fact”, to confirm a decision that had already been made. They also noted that there is limited reporting out from committee work to affected stakeholders. Documentation of committee work appears less than satisfactory and frequently the needed follow up to meetings does not happen. Finally, many members of the group reported that they had the feeling that their expertise and experience was being disregarded or disrespected. To check on the extent of the opinions expressed in the focus groups, we included several questions about committees in the survey. Queries about the clarity of meeting goals, individual roles, and work group outcomes all showed strongly negative results. There was a similarly strong negative response to questions about making decisions at the right level, following up on decisions made, making sure the right people are in attendance, and devoting sufficient time to debates. There seems to be a widespread dissatisfaction with the way committees are formed, run, and integrated.

Our Analysis
Members of the leadership group do not currently have a robust system for ideas and preferences to be developed across numerous groups and fed into a policy development pipeline. From focus
Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment Page 17

group comments, we heard that there used to be such a system, but it has been lost. That sense of loss contributes to the current level of frustration with this situation. When convening a participatory governance process, it is important to be very clear about where and how decisions will be made. This information should be communicated to committee participants as they begin any given discussion. There are times when the role of a committee may be to think through pros and cons of an issue and present this information to a decision maker. In some situations, a committee has a clear decision-making assignment, but at other times, the Board or Superintendent may decide to reserve “veto” power. There may be times when a committee is convened after a decision has already been made, but the committee understands that it may influence that decision or induce the decision maker to make adjustments or changes, based on its feedback. BTB identified this topic as one that holds promise for strengthening the organizational operations of the District, so scheduled it for further exploration in a topical working group. We presented the following problem statement to the topical work group: How can the committee structure be refined so that it offers authentic opportunities for all members to engage in the ongoing governance of the PAUSD?

Approaches for Moving Forward
Underlying this topic, and the other approaches we will offer, is the need for the Board and the Superintendent to confirm their intention to establish and maintain a collaborative approach to governance. Groups and individuals need to revisit their willingness to include and take advice from others who are members of the District’s leadership group. The concerns identified in this topic are not simply a structural issue. A participatory approach to governance must be grounded in a belief that the PAUSD is better served by inviting and using the best thinking of various members of the organization to inform policy making. There has to be commitment at all levels to seek and take influence from others and respect the value of their contribution. We’re inclined to see this perspective as the overarching guide for the effort. If this commitment is present, future work could proceed at two levels: (1) the intentional development of a publicized and authentic path of influence and (2) an assessment of the need to more consistently use proven best practices in group process to support the work of each committee. It would be useful for PAUSD to examine the flow of data and decisions from one committee to a different committee in the system of governance and intentionally design a path of influence that is open to all managers.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 18

A first step could be to develop a master plan of “governance” committees, that is, committees that inform policy, help set District priorities, or feed major program design. This should include a clear definition of the goals of each group, where and how the work of the group will be communicated and for what purpose. A next step would clarify for each governance committee where it fits into the larger network or path of influence. This could be accomplished by building a flow chart of how committees relate to or feed each other. The result would be a publicized and well-understood path of influence, through which members of the leadership group are able to contribute to the governance of the District. This work could be the charter of a time-limited task force, or it might be better handled by establishing a permanent Committee on Committees. Such a group might consist of one board member, a cabinet member, two District managers, and a site administrator. They could meet initially once a month (and then shift to once a quarter) to ensure the health of the committee system (clarifying charters, arranging training, collecting feedback data, monitoring flow from one committee to the next, etc.). While there is certainly an organizational aspect to the implementation of an effective committee system, the Board of Education would play an important role by demonstrating its careful and respectful attention to the work of these governance committees and giving it as much weight as public input. The expected result of this approach would be that the members of the leadership group would feel that their contributions are valued and considered, even if the ultimate policy or decision differs from a recommended approach. The effectiveness of committees could be improved by a careful look at what happens before, during and after individual meetings and developing consistent guidelines based on acknowledged best practices in group settings. This discussion would include the definition of group agreements about how to work together, clarity about the approach to problem solving and decision-making, and about the desired outcomes of group work. Other approaches could deal with how to communicate time lines, ways to determine committee membership and appropriate reporting out processes. Both those leading committee work and committee participants need to understand “what is within and what is outside of” the purview of the committee. Clearly, committees should not be asked to consider issues that are pre-determined or inappropriate for group discussion. The value of committee working time could be maximized by effective pre-work/preparation – by the convener and by committee participants. While it appears that there is existing knowledge about effective group processes within the leadership group, it seems that proven best practices are not always employed in working committees. Professional development opportunities for managers to refresh group process skills could be beneficial. Along with significant interest among leadership group members in contributing to thinking about district–wide issues, we also heard that time is limited and should be used carefully. There are a number of effective meeting design and management practices that support that goal: • Thoughtful agenda setting that includes: clearly defining the outcomes for the work of the group; identifying who needs to be part of the group. (Note: Committee membership
Page 19

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

should be thoughtful and should make sure that diversity of opinion is represented in order to enrich the exchange within the group and promote the creativity of thinking that is needed to deal with the complex school district environment.) • • • Gathering the background information that the group will need to perform its function. Defining the time line for specific topics and the schedule for the committee’s work. Facilitating the effective use of committee time by labeling each agenda item to clarify expected outcomes (i.e. will the topic be sharing information, discussion, a brainstorm, prioritizing/decision-making) Use both divergent thinking (idea generation, step back, contextualizing) and convergent thinking (deciding, selecting, narrowing, prioritizing) Developing key questions to help the group to focus its work Arranging for ongoing reports from related or relevant committees and making sure that the committee’s own work is appropriately shared. (Note: The committee should be clear about who in the district will be impacted by its work.)

• • •

We suggest that it would also be useful for the District to establish guidelines in the following areas: • • • • • • Criteria for establishing new committees and reviewing/updating the charters of existing committees How to clarify the purpose/charter of every committee How committees are to be constituted Approaches to meeting management How the products of committee work are to be documented and distributed How committees will report out – including how to represent “minority” points of view, if they exist

We agree with comments of some leadership group members who suggested that those participating in committee should take responsibility for revisiting both process and content decisions and being willing to acknowledge mistakes and reverse a decision or direction.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 20

Key Work Processes
The Situation
Key work processes in PAUSD need attention. With respect to personnel decisions, focus group participants expressed concerns about a lack of transparency, and processes that were applied unevenly and unfairly. BTB explored the need for defining key work processes in a topical working group and gained more insights. The operation of the District Office is not separate from the school sites; it is a key part of the system for the District. Lack of staffing at the District Office is seen as negatively impacting site level operations. How things work in PAUSD is not clear to new people – it is a mystery – new people have to ask others and many work process are not well documented, if they are written down at all. This becomes more of an issue with personnel turnover as knowledge of these systems leaves with those departing the District. Survey respondents echoed the concern for bringing new employees up to speed on key work processes. About a third reported confusion about whom to call regarding common work processes.

Our Analysis
There are three reasons why the District could be more explicit about some work processes:
•

First, while many activities in PAUSD are subtle and variable, there remains a substantial list of activities that need to be done routinely. The benefit of being explicit is greater efficiency, thus preserving the time and energy desired for more subtle or customized educational or organizational activities. There are real opportunities for saving time and money by being able to do things crisply. The pressure on the budget and staff time is not likely to diminish. One answer is to become more explicit and conscious about how to get work done both effectively and efficiently. Second, some informally defined processes were the focus of complaints about perceived favoritism or the lack of transparency in District personnel practices. Consistently applied processes feel more equitable, and as long as they are based in best practice and regularly reviewed, they can benefit organizational morale. Third, an articulated system of processes is more resilient in the face of turnover. Recent departures as well as anticipated retirements highlight the need for more explicit procedures where possible.

•

•

The District needs to pay particular attention to whether a process would benefit from detailed specification vs. a looser statement of “guidelines” or “criteria”. Not every work activity is a good candidate for classical process improvement strategies. The District is unlike the typical manufacturing environment in which process improvement evolved. In contrast to for-profit organizations, we see PAUSD as a relatively open system, with diffuse boundaries that only partially separate it from the surrounding community and the larger political system (state
Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment Page 21

mandates, No Child Left Behind, etc.). It relies heavily on strong relationships and shared commitment to values and norms. Work processes have to be somewhat fluid and responsive rather than overly defined and rigid. The goal would be to use classical process improvement for the appropriate kind of work activities and develop more powerful large group strategies for the more inclusive decision making activities, such as teacher selection.

Approaches for Moving Forward
Seek examples of procedures where the variation from site to site creates confusion, or unequal treatment of staff or students. Over time, move toward standardized procedures where that makes sense. This work can include culling out extraneous work, such as having site-based hearings on issues, such as selling drugs on campus, that require mandatory expulsion. Members of this work group provided examples of procedures that varied from site to site and level to level. They reported that the District Office provides services and professional support critical to the sites, especially in times of crisis. The reduction of positions in the District Office has significantly impacted the ability of the sites to do their work effectively. New leadership group members are often unclear about who in the District Office is doing what job(s) and who to call in a crisis. District Office staff members are sometimes stressed by being asked to perform “heroically” and they find themselves unable to respond to site requests in a timely fashion. The Board should revisit the allocation of resources to the District Office with input from all members of the leadership group. District Office staff members should strive to develop clear and accessible information about who is performing what duties or tasks. The work of District staff could be better supported with improved computer systems, for example, to communicate the status of work being done (i.e., repair orders, employment offers). There could be more District level attention on how routine and non-routine work processes function. Topical work group members reported that there is not much expertise in work process design within the District. This includes but is not limited to formal work process design, an approach that is applicable to some areas of work, but by no means to all. By working on this topic area, PAUSD could better reserve “heroic efforts” for top priority or critical projects rather than exhausting staff as they perform routine work processes.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 22

The Board’s Policy Leadership
Most school districts function effectively when the Board of Education focuses on (1) setting policy, (2) working with the Superintendent on district governance, and (3) monitoring the state of the District and the effectiveness of the Superintendent. In implementing its “setting policy” function, the Board of Education typically receives and seeks input from various stakeholders in the District as part of the policy development process. The Board avoids getting involved with the day-to-day management functions of the organization. Board decisions ideally are based on broad-based, factual input as the policy is being developed and approved. The District Administration then helps to translate this policy direction into procedures that provide guidance for policy implementation.

The Situation
During the five months of this organizational development process, BTB heard a wide array of perspectives about the Board and its role in policy leadership for the PAUSD. We interviewed all board members, the current superintendent and all senior cabinet members. In addition, we captured many viewpoints in the original focus groups and tested recurring themes with the survey distributed to all members of the Leadership Group. This Board is to be commended for the very demanding schedule of work it has been following during this period. It has undertaken two concurrent and significant efforts, the selection of a new superintendent and this organizational assessment effort. All board members have given generously of their time and their insights while carrying on the routine meetings that are required to govern the school district. In addition, we have observed first hand the level of concern felt by board members and the impact on individual members of the past difficult months. We believe that there is a genuine commitment to make changes that will improve board operations in the future. Some of the managers' concerns that dominated in the focus groups are undoubtedly linked to the structural and political nature of Board operation. There were complaints that Board members were more sensitive to their individual constituencies than they were to the overall interests of PAUSD. The fracture revealed in frequent split votes seemed to make clear goals and priorities hard to develop. It was felt that the public nature of Board life leaves them overly sensitive to parental pressure and media exposure; some focus group members felt that the latest wave of community email carried more weight than the cumulative wisdom of internal educational experts. Other comments reflected a deteriorated relationship between the Board and the PAUSD managers. There were frequent complaints that the expertise and experience of the managers was not appropriately considered in policy issues. Presentations to the Board were sometimes undermined by Board members doing their own separate research and treating their handful of comments with greater weight than the considered recommendations of educational experts. People were unsure about the lines of communication. When could they speak directly to a Board member? Some had cultivated personal relationships with Board members and felt that it was inappropriate, but they saw no other option to get their issues on the table.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 23

Most common were complaints that the Board was too caught up operational concerns or the most recent crisis of the day. Participants lamented the lack of governance from a set of priorities that expressed a long-term vision for PAUSD. There were complaints of “micromanagement” or feeling forced to defend a site from an “intrusive Board”. The interviews with the Board members provided a different view; they see the Board's operation from the inside. Often they referenced similar issues, but with a new twist. For example, Board members also lamented their penchant for independent research; they felt, however, that uncertainty about the quality of information contained in reports left them no choice but to pursue independent verification. Board members also noted the split in their internal relationships, and the difficulties that presented for cultivating a strong vision, maintaining a long-term plan, or just working through an issue from start to finish. They reported widely differing views on the relationship with the Superintendent, which seemed to make a coherent working relationship difficult to sustain. Any substantive issue could easily evoke the pre-existing split and interfere with attention to substantive issues. The survey respondents provided a consistent view of Board operations. A strong majority complained that the Board does not provide a consistent vision, use educational experts in the formation of policy, or educate itself sufficiently before making a decision. A majority were critical of how the Board manages the interface with parents and the community. The arrival of a new superintendent and the upcoming board/superintendent planning retreat, will require additional time and energy. As part of the on-boarding process, Kevin Skelly is meeting with the Board to explore the role relationship between the superintendent and the Board and establish a new charter for the future. (At the Board’s request, BTB has already scheduled a private meeting with Superintendent Skelly to share insights that arose out of this organizational assessment process. This meeting will take place in early July.) It was clear to us that while the Board’s role in policy leadership was identified in our assessment as a topic for further exploration, that work can best be carried on in partnership with the new chief executive officer of the District. BTB’s best role at this juncture is to contribute the data from the focus groups and survey work to these new conversations, along with our suggestions about possible approaches available to the Board of Education Within the past month, private meetings were held with each board member to go over the survey data and explore individual responses. This was done in order to provide all board members with the same information from the assessment process so that they can carry the data forward into planning sessions with the new superintendent. So this report does not include the product of a topical working group on this topic. However, BTB has identified a number of options or approaches to board development that should be considered as the Board and new administration's plan for professional development.

Our Analysis
The Board sits at the intersection of multiple and sometimes conflicting interests. It moderates a constant dialog between parental interests, external mandates, internal educational experts, and organizational capacity. The Board serves a dual role as the governing body for the District, and as the representative of the community to the District. As the governing body, it works with
Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment Page 24

educational experts to craft the best possible offering within the constraints of the educational code and available resources. And it links the school district as an organization with public and parents to build support in the community for the District and to provide a forum for voicing the needs and ideas of the community to the District. The challenge is to both moderate the debate as well as participate in it. The Board cannot become just a collection of powerful players; it needs to facilitate the complex dialog in which it plays a central role. A primary tool for the Board to manage this frequently unruly debate is crafting a coherent body of policy. That policy needs to be forward looking as well as responsive; it needs to be insightful and equitable. In addition, the policy must be actionable, providing real guidelines for resource allocation and decision-making. Given the shifting views of educational needs, the Board’s policy leadership is more of a process than a product. It is an on-going conversation that must be both demanding of excellence as well as compassionate toward missteps. The challenge here is for the Board to be increasingly focused about working at the level of vision, mission, and policy; delving into operational issues is always risky. At the operational level the increase in the volume and complexity of issues goes up exponentially. The rhythm of the work shifts to daily or hourly; the Board is restricted to a weekly or monthly rhythm. If there are Board concerns about the quality of work or the adequacy of information, the correct way to address those concerns is through the Board giving direction to the Superintendent about the nature of the information it needs for making its policy decisions; and through more carefully crafted measurement and feedback mechanisms. This policy tool is addressed to some degree in the topic area of shared governance through an integrated system of policy development that involves all district leaders as relevant and others when value can be added. A second tool for managing this debate is to clearly define the Board’s relationship with the new Superintendent. The Board is central in setting direction and policy, and its choices have significant implications for the entire District. Bringing on a new superintendent creates a new opportunity for defining the complex relationship between the Board of Education and the Superintendent, the education professional selected to lead the district. A first order of business in establishing this new relationship should be to revisit and clearly define the Board’s role in the policy process. A secondary goal should be to define how the Board of Education, the Superintendent and the entire management team can develop understandings and agreements that support a powerful and well-regarded governance function within the District. A third tool is the Board’s ability to work effectively as a group. We recognize that the Brown Act poses a major constraint on a free exchange of partially formed ideas – a process essential to effective working relationships and the ability to craft policy collectively. Expressing opinions and then voting allows for little of the collective thought one would hope for from a Board. Even within the constraints of the Brown Act, we would emphasize the need to find ways to work effectively as a group rather than being simply an assemblage of individuals. Significant fractures at the Board level inevitably filter down and negatively impact the rest of the organization.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 25

Approaches for Moving Forward
The Board has indicated that it is open to suggestions from BTB about how to address some recognized areas for improvement in Board operations. The following are some options for consideration: Take time to consider options for clarifying board roles and select from models that the Board agrees will best serve the unique needs of PAUSD and the new administration. Define and publicize those roles and build in accountability measures such as staff and community feedback mechanisms and regular self-evaluation by the board itself. In conversations with both board members and administrators, there were frequent references to the need for clarity about roles and relationships within the District as an organization. There are a number of ways to think about the complex interaction needed for the roles of policy-making and policy implementation to work effectively. There are several existing models for Board operations that might be considered; it would be helpful to select a model and regularly reflect on that choice. Having an adopted model would provide some shared language. It would support a conversation about the appropriateness of that model. While clarity is a worthy goal, it is important to recognize that there will be “gray areas” in which Board and Administration roles blur. In these situations, just acknowledging the “blur” can go a long way in helping everyone to work together for the benefit of the District. Picking a model for Board roles would help address the difficult question of how to remain at the level of vision, mission, and policy rather than slipping into operational and tactical concerns. For example, the Carver Model of Board governance would direct attention to building a set of monitoring metrics that would allow the Board to step back from operational issues with the confidence that emerging problems could be identified early. Develop and implement a “code of conduct” for Board members that defines desired behaviors and provides consistent guidance as board members come and go. Build in a system to renew this code of conduct regularly. To assist with the very frequent turnover on the Palo Alto Board of Education (related to the practice of limiting board terms to two consecutive terms) it would be helpful to write down guidelines for board members in PAUSD. Naturally, these guidelines would need to be subject to regular review and modification as needed, but the process of considering the desired approach to board service would be helpful for current and new board members. As a Board, agree on ways to handle “end runs” and attempts to bypass existing influencing and decision-making systems. The Board and others have recognized the need to reinforce the orderly systems that support shared governance and decision-making in the District. It is important that the Board is knowledgeable about these systems and able to point staff toward appropriate avenues for communication and participation.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 26

In fulfilling its function of setting policy and monitoring its implementation, the Board should feel comfortable giving direction to the Superintendent about the nature of the information it needs for making its policy decisions. At the same time, the Board should strive to demonstrate its value on collaborative working relationships and an awareness of the burdens information requests place on limited staff time. To enhance the Board’s ability to function effectively as a unified Board of Trustees providing clear policy direction to the Superintendent and the educational organization of PAUSD, it is important that all members receive the information they need to make informed decisions. It appears that there are times when current members have different information and it is not easily shared at the board level because of perceived and actual Brown Act constraints. Talking about what information is needed can be done in public and can be a regular agenda item as a new topic comes to the Board. In partnership with the Superintendent, take leadership in the development of the PAUSD norms and values statement and build in accountability by including the review of implementation into the Superintendent evaluation. This District statement should serve as an umbrella for the values conversations held in other groups. There is a clear need for the Board of Trustees to assist with developing and supporting a strong and collaborative organizational culture. In this role, the Board serves as the leader of the educational organization that is PAUSD. In partnership with the new Superintendent, this action should be considered a very high priority as the new school year begins. Use the “study session” format as a forum for receiving and considering information and inviting input from interested persons. These are posted Board meetings where no action is to be taken. The use of study sessions as a regular approach to considering key issues is a way to increase opportunities for board members to engage in candid, respectful discussions in a public setting that is relatively relaxed and informal. These sessions can be very different in look and feel from formal board meetings. Trustees can sit around tables with staff members and other interested persons as information is shared and clarified. Study sessions are a very useful tool for inviting participation in framing issues, identifying possible alternative approaches, decision-making and for gathering input from a variety of sources prior to taking any action.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 27

Refreshing the Strategic Planning Process
The Situation
In focus groups and interviews BTB heard that, in the past, PAUSD has utilized a strategic planning process to engage a wide array of stakeholders in the process of developing a mission, vision and goals to guide the District in its pursuit of excellence. However, it seems that the relevance of the current strategic plan has diminished and it is not regularly used to guide planning and decision making at all levels of the District. With the opportunity presented by the arrival of a new superintendent, the time is ripe to initiate a new process for defining strategic goals that will address the needs and interests of all stakeholders. The vast majority of the survey respondents (including most Board members) echoed the sentiment that the Board needs to do a much better job of considering new issues in the context of an overall plan for the District as a whole. A majority were also concerned about how the Board preserves strategic priorities in the face of parental pressures.

Our Analysis
One of the factors contributing to concerns that were expressed during the assessment was the apparent lack of a clear and widely supported set of goals that guide the work of the organization. Instead of maintaining a strong, proactive approach, it seemed to some members of the leadership group that the District spends a lot of time reacting to and responding to a variety of wants and needs. The structure and discipline that a strategic plan can offer seems needed. This in no means suggests that rigidity is the goal. BTB recognizes the need for the school district to be nimble and responsive as unforeseen challenges arise. However, a current and continuing planning effort can go far to reduce the number of surprises and allow the District to maintain focus on the goals that it has set. A good strategic plan has to be both inspirational and practical. This requires planners and implementers to be committed to having hard conversations about the fit between strategic intentions and actual organizational capacity. Practically speaking, an up-to-date and vibrant strategic plan, supported by the leadership of the District, should provide guidance as new issues and ideas surface. A robust strategic plan requires a willingness to be constrained by the plan, which means saying "no" to some new demands in order to preserve the direction and momentum toward strategic goals. In most organizations, the biggest challenge is keeping a good plan alive and relevant. This requires a commitment to updating it routinely and developing a shared system of accountability for reaching agreed upon goals. The plan must include a set of metrics that can assist with monitoring progress as well as clear assignment for reporting on the status of various components of the plan. The strategic planning process must be robust in the face of normal changes in leadership. It requires an orientation process that links new leaders to the jointly agreed upon goals of the District and through regular updating invites new ideas and innovations to be added in through a thoughtful process. While it appears that PAUSD has a useful history of strategic planning, this project would also need to look for best practices in other Districts.
Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment Page 28

The challenge for PAUSD at this time appears to be how and when to initiate a collaborative planning process to develop an updated vision, mission and goals that includes the ideas of the new superintendent. The pressing requirements associated with a superintendent transition may tend to delay this process for a while.

Approaches to Moving Forward
BTB believes that the Superintendent and Board will address this topic as a top priority. Our intention is to strongly support that idea and to suggest that sooner is better than later for this effort. Most members of the leadership group appear to be ready to focus on a bright future and eager to participate in planning for it. The Board and the incoming Superintendent could take the lead in identifying a collaborative planning effort as a high priority, to take place within the upcoming school year. We heard a number of references to a broad and inclusive process of strategic planning that happened some years ago. We never were offered evidence of the document that resulted nor did we see that is was regularly used to guide programs and decision making. Since there is a positive history of collaborative planning in PAUSD, it seems useful to go back to a process that worked and see if it is appropriate for use at this time. A small task force might be assigned to review that planning process and make suggestions about how to proceed with a new effort. A basic decision is whether to start afresh or bring out the existing document as a starting place. To ensure the success of the effort, we would recommend being explicit (and realistic) about the tension between desired outcomes and actual organizational capacity to deliver those objectives. The Board and Superintendent can establish the model for how to use a strategic plan effectively in the day-to-day work of the District. It is fully within their roles to refer regularly to the plan as programs are discussed and new ideas are brought forth. A strategic plan should be a useful tool at all levels of governance. The Board and the Superintendent can endorse the consistent use of the document and model that approach by referring to the plan frequently, to consider whether identified goals are being addressed, to receive reports about progress toward goals and to determine whether new initiatives fit within the context of the current plan. The Strategic Plan needs to include 'instrumental goals' (regarding infrastructure, skill acquisition, work process development, cultural norms, etc.). These instrumental goals make explicit the importance of the organizational systems to the operation of the District, and the Plan explicitly allocates resources to their development and improvement. While the plan needs to specify the strategic objectives, latitude must be given to District staff to use creativity in defining most of the “how”. Included in the new strategic plan should be components that address the District’s preferred approach to collaborative planning and decision making, the values and behaviors that comprise
Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment Page 29

its desired work culture and a section that guides the approach to updating and re-invigorating the plan on a regular basis. This provides a statement or agreement about how those working for the goals of the District are going to treat each other as colleagues and co-workers. This is the place for a statement of values that guide actions and examples of behaviors that express those values. Other components of the plan need to lay out a schedule for re-visiting the plan, adjusting goals as progress is made or other issues rise in importance. An annual review seems appropriate with a planned update every two to three years.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 30

Final Thoughts
This report can lead to the development of a Board-approved plan for the orderly improvement of the organizational systems that the leadership group depends on to get its work done. This plan needs to become a section of the District's overall strategic plan. There is a need to make explicit the importance of the organizational systems to the operation of the District. The maintenance and improvement of organizational systems requires the explicit allocation of resources and real attention by the leadership group. The Strategic Plan should explicitly allocate resources to their development and improvement. There is a need to look at the District as a system. It is important to take care of the whole system, not, for example, protecting the sites at the expense of handicapping the District Office and crippling its contribution to the overall effectiveness of the District. There is a path forward. It is well within the capability of the District to select approaches and put them into a plan of action. Implementing the plan will require will, attention and resources over a period of time. It is likely to reduce the District’s capacity to pursue other initiatives during the same time period. If the Board provides the policy support for improving the organizational systems in the five suggested areas for action, we would anticipate significant improvement in overall organizational satisfaction and functioning. If the Board were to forego serious efforts in these areas, we would anticipate significant negative consequences (i.e., loss of long-tenured talent to other districts, continued, if not escalated, hostility between the Board and the managers, loss of energy and commitment in support of high performance, loss of trust and rapport, and damage to the Board’s credibility). As a result of their engagement in this process over the last five months, we believe that many members of the leadership group are ready to start working on joint solutions and eager for positive outcomes. We see a willingness – indeed a strong hope – for the next year to be better, to offer a new direction, to allow for healing. We hope our work sets the stage for this positive next step.

Final Report, Organizational Development Project - Phase One, Assessment

Page 31



doc_109537229.pdf