Organizing for Change

The Extension System is in the business of responding to the needs of a changing society. But it's not enough to merely respond to a changing world in the same old ways. "In a world of 'permanent white water,' where nothing is solid and everything is changing, it is tempting to follow familiar paths and to use the same old solutions, regardless of how much the problems have changed."1 The Extension organization itself must change. We must employ new approaches, new tools to improve our effectiveness. To be able to affect change requires a better understanding of how organizations work. Bolman and Deal offer us that explanation in four conceptual frames: the symbolic, political, structural, and human resources perspectives.2

The symbolic frame represents the very nature of the organization in terms of its values, rituals, symbols, mission, and practices. It's the perception of the organization-what it is, what it stands for, what it does. From perceptions flow expectations.

Many states have undertaken efforts to manage the communication of Extension's image. Whether positive or negative, Extension's image is being molded by what we do, how we act, what we say, and most importantly, by the programs we conduct. Different people have different perceptions of Extension. From our standpoint, expectations may be inaccurate and slow to change. Is Extension seen as flexible and responsive, or traditional and outdated? Is it the perception that Extension is reaching out to unserved audiences or is it characterized as abandoning its original mission and clientele? Is Extension seen as focused and visionary, or spread too thin trying to be all things to all people? Ask yourself how you think others would respond-a local government official, a farm leader, a big city mayor, your governor, your university president?

The important question is: For what do we as an organization want to be known? And: Is what we're doing contributing to and consistent with that image? If not, we need to change either what we do or how it's perceived.

The focus of the political frame is on power and influence both in internal decision making and in the process by which Extension develops and maintains its base of support. The report "Building Effective Support for Extension in the 1990's" emphasizes the latter when it calls for the organization to establish a long-term, contin-uous strategy that communicates a positive image of Extension's responsiveness on emerging issues.3 The strategy shouldn't be limited to building political support when we need funds or are in trouble, but that the relationship be in place in good times, too. Developing a support strategy in times of crisis is too late.

Of further importance is the critical role of lay advisory groups in building a support base. The true owners of the program are clients, leaders, volunteers, program participants, and government officials. The paid staff just can't accomplish what strong lay supporters can. We must aggressively nurture a leadership structure that continually works actively on behalf of Extension support.

Extension struggles with structural issues of how to arrange for covering program needs with fewer staff, determining how many middle-level managers are needed, moving traditional county staff to multicounty responsibilities, and assigning program staff administrative duties. These structural decisions are generally made in the interest of increased efficiency (doing more or the same with less), not for the purpose of improving effectiveness.

We've traditionally restructured to make up budget deficits, rather than in response to programming needs. Structural changes need to be made in response to program needs. If we don't, we're in danger of restructuring the organization right out of business.

The human resources perspective stresses the relationship between organizational and individual behavior. Most Extension staff really like their work and go about it with an excitement and commitment. The human resources perspective says that in those cases, we've successfully selected individuals whose personal goals are consistent with those of the organization.

With 80% to 90% of our budgets invested in people, our staff are truly our most important resource. When we hire individuals, we're not just getting their bodies and their time, but also their training, experience, energy, creativity, and commitment. However, we must emphasize retooling in new issue areas, career counseling and the provision of professional development opportunities, and providing training in educational design, communication methods, and computer skills.

In addition, we must provide staff the opportunity to participate in a management style that incorporates common goals, teamwork, and cooperation-not segmentation, competition, and a risk-averse environment. We need to change our way of thinking from span of control to span of support. In that environment, we can then bring together people with diverse backgrounds, ideas, and experiences who will foster the emergence of creative ideas and approaches.

No one of these four conceptual frames is adequate alone. But each offers insight, so that when considered as a whole, organizational change can be better understood and we have a better idea of the mechanisms at our disposal. A single perspective can limit one's vision and ability to deal with the complexities of organizations. By broadening our thinking on how organizations function, we can expand the tools available to us for change. We must use creativity to help shape Extension so it will be flexible and adaptable, while preserving its inner stability.

1. Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1991), p. 446.

2. Ibid.

3. ECOP Task Force on National Communications and Support Strategy for the Cooperative Extension System, "Building Effective Support for Extension in the 1990's" (Unpublished report for ECOP Task Force, Patrick G. Boyle, chair, 1991).