Organizational theory fundamentals and applications

Organizational Theory: A Synthesis and Application to the Public School System

Although much of organizational theory is viewed through the prism of for-profit corporate experience, it is still possible to apply its principles to non-profit corporations and public service entities, like the public school system. Organizational theory can be a helpful guide in understanding what types of approaches to educating the next generation of young people work, and which approaches do not work, even though education can never be viewed as a static commodity. Organizational theory provides guidance as to how to change one's own style of leadership to meet the needs of the situation, as a single leadership style is never universally appropriate, and give guidelines how to assess different educational situations to foster institutional change. The analysis of organizational leadership, whether of a classroom, or a school, or a school district, is an important tool of self-criticism for any person involved in the educational system, enabling teachers and administrators to be more effective leaders.

Leadership is necessary, even in the most rigid bureaucratic environment. According to theories of organizational systems, the public school system seems on its surface to be like a Weber-style bureaucracy, with different kinds of employees that perform specific functions. It is characterized by specialization, subdivision, and hierarchy (principals perform different functions than teachers, for example, and, in general, administrators have more authority than teachers) (Jaffe, 2001, Chapter 5). Entry into a school's hierarchy is based upon professional and technical competency, demonstrated in a formalized fashion, and promotions are based upon seniority and skills. Every has school standard operating procedures, some of which are effective and some of which are ineffective in improving organizational goals, like reducing student absenteeism. A school has different kinds of 'customers' in the form of the public that it serves, who all have different kinds of personal needs and make different demands upon the system. These include students, parents, the Board of Education, the PTA, teachers, teacher's unions, voters of the districts who pass the school budget, and the federal, state, and local government. A public school, like any organization, also has finite resources, but seemingly infinite needs, and financial constraints. But although a leader is constrained by bureaucratic and external factors, this is all the reason that using opportunities to their maximum advantage is so critical.

Furthermore, unlike the Weberian ideal bureaucracy, even a large public school system cannot aspire to be entirely impersonal. Yes, if different students are perceived to be treated differently when they misbehave, this will raise howls of unfairness from the students and parents. However, if the leader has integrity and a reputation for trustworthiness, the leader's decisions are more likely to be perceived as fair and impartial, and the need for differential treatment, although not biased treatment will be more accepted (Northouse, 2007, p.20). Also, parents want to see that the school system takes an interest in their children, and makes allowances based upon the child's educational needs. A child with dyslexia may make different demands upon the system than a child who comes from a home where English is not the primary language.

Unfortunately, as the needs and the composition of the student body has grown increasingly diverse and the skills required by students upon graduation have grown increasingly complex, the No Child Left Behind Act and the growing importance of standardized testing in determining college placement has contributed to the so-called McDonaldization of the American curriculum. The demands upon the school for the school and students to meet certain percentile goals can be inflexible. If students and schools do not measure up, they are seen as lacking, regardless of how much progress they may have made. Mass produced tests and mass produced textbooks, requiring a mass produced approach to teaching is the goal, rather than creating a unique community of learners. Rigidity rather than responsiveness has increasingly become the norm.

In a McDonalds-style approach to education, efficiency and speed when serving the customer and demonstrating that the customer is being served through quick and demonstrable statistical results, is most important. A McDonalds-style institution must meet uniform standards, rather than create a shared 'meal' or experience -- this is the goal of the McDonald's enterprise, and sadly, far too many schools and school administrators and legislatures, in terms of how they measure student, classroom, and teacher performance.

As schools can exhibit some of the worst as well as the best qualities of bureaucracy, the McDonaldization or franchise, factory system of quality standardization must not hold sway. Ideally, an educational organization should be not a franchise, even a healthy franchise like Subway, but a learning organization. Learning organizations actively seek input from all involved parties, which in the case of the school, would be teachers, students, and parents, rather than simply dispensing hierarchical authority. Learning organizations are responsive to the environment and are capable of change. For example, a learning organization would allow a teacher of proven excellence to do a several-weeks module involving students learning about local Native American tribes, building Indian homes based upon their research, reading Indian myths, doing fieldwork in the woods and presenting a final performance to the school, rather than to 'teach' a standardized test to the students. On the other hand, to inject a certain element of caution (or contingency theory) to one's enthusiasm for a learning approach to educational organizations, when teachers need more guidance because of youth, inexperience, or intransigence, or students are learning-resistant because of difficult socioeconomic circumstances, a leadership style that is stronger, more dominant, and sets very specific institutional goals in a task-oriented fashion may be more appropriate, if the leader can shift his or her personal style to meet the needs of the situation (Northouse, 2007, p.111).