Organizational Structure and Students

¶ … Lens One: Structural Theories

Organizational structure refers to how work activities or tasks are divided, and how relationships are established and maintained (Corlett, n.d.). Bureaucratic organizations are structured formally and may result in a pyramidal shape with the bulk of employees at the bottom with the least amount of decision-making power (Corlett, n.d.). The bureaucratic organization can also take on the image of a machine (Morgan, 1998). Morgan (1998) adds that structural theories offer precision in the design and implementation of organizational details. For example, the work of teachers is highly formalized down to the details of lesson plans and the measurable outcomes in terms of test scores. A core goal of a mechanistic, bureaucratic organization is predictability. The machine image also demonstrates the ways an organization emphasizes speed, clarity, and efficiency. Structural theories illustrate how educators participate in chains of command, and there are legal and contractual bases of formal authority. For instance, teachers are not allowed to make executive decisions regarding the budgets for their schools or to address the needs of students like James. Teachers are constrained by the organizational structure in which they work, which mechanizes all actions and decisions.

While the highly mechanical organization encourages accountability through clear chains of command and strict role differentiation, the problems with David Woods Elementary school are at least in part attributable to the organizational structure. For one, too much centralized power reduces the role educators can play in the lives of students like James. Second, the lines of accountability and responsibility for educators are becoming blurred as teachers are expected to fulfill many different roles at the same time. Teachers are expected to maintain discipline in the classroom, teach to common core standards, and address the special needs of their individual students with little institutional support.

Lens Two: Systems Theories

According to Corlett (n.d.), there are four general themes related to systems theories of organizations. One theme is productive processes. In an educational organization, the productive processes focus on measurable student outcomes such as rates of graduation or grades. A second theme of systems theory as it pertains to organizations is energizing processes, which refer to the role of the organization in its environment or social context. For example, a school plays a distinct role in its local community just as education plays a major role in a society's economic and social landscape. Enabling processes are a third theme of systems theory. These are the processes that ensure checks and balances within the system. In a school like David Woods, administrators provide support services for teachers, who in turn provide ongoing feedback to administrators. Finally, systems theory demonstrates the developing processes that provide for all stakeholders. In an educational organization, the stakeholders may include parents as well as students. Morgan (1998) shows how systems theory essentially describes organizations as organisms. In an organism like a school, each part is requisite for the functioning of the whole.

Just as an organism is sensitive to environmental stimuli and external issues, an organization is also going to react to changes or stressors in its environment. According to Boyne & Meier (2009), a "turbulent external environment is widely believed to have damaging effects on public service performance," (p. 799). In fact, a turbulent external environment has a negative impact on performance measures (Boyne & Meier, 2009). In the school environment, external turbulence such as unstable home environments, poverty, and other external stressors will have a notable impact on individual student performance outcomes. External turbulence will also have an effect on the overall performance outcomes for the entire student body and for teachers, too. The additional stress that comes from addressing the emotional and mental health needs of students like James creates "volatility" in the school organism, according to the lens of systems theory (Boyne & Meier, 2009, p. 799). In addition to the stability versus turbulence measures, it is also possible to rate school performance on measures like diversity versus homogeneity, clustering versus randomness, and scarcity versus munificence. Diversity will help David Woods Elementary administrators and educators better address the needs of their students, whereas homogeneity will reduce the resilience of the school programs.

Lens Three: Culture Theories

Morgan (1998) offers the metaphor of the village as another lens for viewing organizations like David Woods Elementary. With a "collaborative spirit" like that in a village or communal environment, stakeholders and participants in the organization work together, collaborate, and become committed to shared goals and outcomes (Morgan, 1998, p. 118). The organizational culture of the school does not, unfortunately, resemble a village or commune at the moment. The case study demonstrates some of the main problems with the organizational culture, its collisions of values and the overload of burdens placed on educators. Ideally, leaders within the organization motivate employees like teachers to work together to pursue common goals.

When it comes to working with students like James, who experience traumatic home environments, educational leaders can also create a collaborative environment by involving students and parents in the conversation. Instead of punishing James in traditional ways or suspending him, the administrators can use creative methods that promote James's emotional, social, and psychological development in addition to his academic performance. An attitude of togetherness would replace the antagonism and conflict that currently exists.

Lens Four: Political Theories

Political theories and lenses of organizations offer the opportunity to explore power issues and power pathologies. Many people in positions of power in organizations can abuse their power or create hostile work environments. In the case of David Woods Elementary, the administrators on site do not wield their power unethically. However, the educational policy makers are not involved in the daily activities of schools and in many cases are not educators at all. Unhealthy political coalitions, and the misplacement of power into the hands of politicians and not educators has created a situation in which students like James do not receive the attention or assistance they need.

Whereas bureaucracies like the school system behave rationally, they also have weaknesses that can explain some of the problems evidence in the case study. Bureaucracy "undermines personal freedom in important ways," preventing highly trained and skillful educators and leaders from helping students, developing more effective policy, or encouraging a healthy organizational culture (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999, p. 711). Information flow in the organization is stymied by political barriers and dysfunction.

Critical Assessment and Reflection

The case study of David Woods Elementary demonstrates problems with the organizational structure, culture, politics, and system. Various lenses through which organizations can be viewed help to outline possible solutions to problems. Manipulation, power struggles, and blocks to flow of information are some of the most notable problems evident in dysfunctional organizations (Kramer & Neale, 1998). Each of these vantage points offer distinct assistance in helping administrators and policy makers, as well as educators change the outcomes for students like James and his peers.