Introduction to Educational Leadership & Organizational Behavior

Patti Chance

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317923176
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation générale

Like the bestselling first edition, this introductory textbook succinctly presents concepts and theories of educational leadership and organizational behavior and immediately applies them to problems of practice. The second edition includes a new chapter on organizational culture, expanded overage of organizational structure, systems, and leadership, and additional case studies and scenarios representing real problems of practice.

1

Applying Organizational Theory to Educational Leadership: An Overview of Theoretical Foundations

It was Monday, August 1, and Sandra Jenkins’ first day on the job as an elementary assistant principal. It was her first administrative appointment, and she was excited, nervous, and a little scared. She had completed her course work for administrative certification last May and had interviewed for this position shortly after that. The interview with the principal and assistant superintendent had gone well; they had seemed very pleased with her educational background and teaching experiences. She had immediately liked Mission School District and Summerset Elementary School. Today, she would be introduced to her new position, move into her office, and spend the day with the principal, Pat Larkin. Pat had many years of experience as a principal, and Sandra felt she could really learn a lot from someone like Pat.

When Sandra arrived at Summerset promptly at 8:00 am, Pat was already in his office. He greeted her enthusiastically, offered her a cup of coffee, and suggested they meet in the conference room. Pat was obviously prepared for their day-long orientation session, as Sandra noticed policy and procedure manuals, handbooks, and other files neatly stacked on the conference room table. After some brief chitchat, Pat began, “Well, Sandra, I’m really excited to have you on board the Mission District administrative team. Today is going to be like your first day of school. I know that you have been taking administrative classes at State University for your school administration credential. You’ve probably learned a lot of theories about leadership and school organization and reform, but now you’ll learn about the real world of school administration. You can basically forget most of that stuff they taught you in your graduate classes, because it doesn’t really apply in practice.”

Sadly, too many school leaders agree with Pat’s comments about the connection of educational leadership theory and practice. It is for that reason this book is written. This book is intended as an introduction to organizational and leadership theory for educational administration, and addresses fundamental processes inherent to school organizational behavior and leadership. Two major themes are developed. The first involves an examination of organizational structures and basic components of organizations to understand the systemic operations of educational organizations. Concepts and theories related to bureaucracy, social systems, power, and organizational climate are introduced as a framework for becoming acquainted with schools’ organizational structure. A second theme involves leadership processes that are essential to school effectiveness. These include decision making, communication, understanding human motivation, and guiding change.

Throughout the book, organizational theories are presented within the context of their usefulness in informing practice. Direct relationships and applications are made to the real world of school principals and superintendents. In addition, theories and concepts are explained in terms of their historical perspectives, because it is important to recognize that all organizations, especially schools, are influenced by larger social, cultural, and economic forces. Thus, as work, lifestyles, and other aspects of modern culture change, so do the organizations that operate as part of the culture. However, history teaches us that change is not a re-creation, but rather an evolution of organizational systems. “Old” ways and methods may eventually give way to “new” means and structures, but not without retaining certain traditions and ways of operating, at least through periods of transition and reforming. Taking the historical development of culture and organizations into account, it follows that the study and conceptualizations of organizational theories offer views about school organization and leadership that reflect traditions, thoughts, and cultural perspectives relevant to a particular point in time. Schools today in many ways still resemble schools as they existed early in the twentieth century; in other ways, they are vastly different. An historical perspective on the development of organizational theory is essential to understanding the role of school leadership today.

Three Periods of Organizational Theory

The study of organizations and ensuing theory can be classified into three historical periods: (a) classical organizational thought; (b) behaviorist period; and (c) systems theory. Although each era distinguishes itself from the preceding period, organizational theory is continually evolving. Thus, more recent stages of theory development are built on previous understandings and conceptualizations of organizations.

Classical Organizational Theory

The classical organizational theory period is most aptly represented by the work of Frederick Taylor. Taylor, often referred to as the father of scientific management, viewed workers in much the same way as industrialists of the period thought of machinery and the assembly process. The following principles outline the basic concepts of Taylor’s (1911) scientific management.

♦ A hierarchical chain of command with various levels of authority and an established division of labor is the most effective operational structure.

♦ Each person in the organization must be prescribed clearly defined tasks.

♦ Rules of behavior and a system of punishment are necessary to the efficient and effective management of an organization.

♦ Workers should be hired based on their abilities and expertise.

♦ Tasks and procedures should be standardized.

Taylor’s notions about scientific management were obviously rooted in an industrial era characterized by mass production where factories produced manufactured goods with interchangeable parts. Mass production relied on an assembly-line approach to manufacturing, and efficiency was gained through specialization, with each factory worker performing a single task as a part of the total production process.

Efficiency was a primary concern of the industrial era, because the goal of mass production was the manufacturing of large quantities of goods at the cheapest cost. Taylor and his followers of “human engineers” concentrated on the efficient operation of factory production through time and motion studies and prescribed methods of work that required the least number of physical manipulations in the shortest time. Management studies in the classical period were characterized by a concern for planning, directing, and organizing the efficient operation of a mass production enterprise. Bureaucracy, discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, arose as an efficient organizational structure in the industrial era. Classical organizational thought was characterized by a concern for specialization and division of labor, where work was coordinated from the top-down through formal structures of communication and a well-defined chain of command.

Henri Fayol (1916/1949) expanded Taylor’s view of management and administration to include that of the upper levels of the organization. Fayol indicated that organizational efficiency would result if issues related to planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling were used by those in management positions. Fayol also espoused certain administrative precepts such as setting a good example, eliminating incompetents, being knowledgeable of personnel, and creating a shared organizational focus by periodically meeting with assistants.

Luther Gulick (1937) also contributed to the foundation of scientific management and the development of the modern bureaucracy. He is best known for his delineation of the functions of the chief executive, described as POSDCoRB. This acronym stood for planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. These ideals of management provided support for the departmentalization of businesses, the development of a defined span of control, and the delegation of authority to subordinates as it was deemed necessary.

Basic principles of management related to productivity, efficiency, the use of authority, and the coordination of institutional activities are rooted in research associated with the classical period of organizational theory. Fundamental principles of management science during the classical period called for a well-defined organization with a hierarchy of authority, established rules and regulations, and workers who were technically competent. These are the principles and assumptions on which bureaucratic theory is built. Ultimately, this approach to management migrated from the corporate world to that of education, resulting in an industrial view of school. This model equated schools to factories, where raw materials (students) were processed into finished products (productive citizens). Early scholars of educational administration, such as Ellwood Cubberly (1916), compared the management of schools to the management of business and industry. In his description of the role and function of the school principal, Cubberly (1923) outlined specific job descriptions for various school employee roles with rigid expectations and a defined hierarchy of authority. Concepts of specialization and measurement dominated his discussion of school organization, as evidenced by his references to classification of students and teachers and the measurement of instruction through standardized tests and inspection of teaching practices.

Classical organizational theory continues to impact schools. The “factory model” of education is highly engrained in schools’ organizational structure and is evident in the language often associated with schooling. Phrases such as “producing students” and “measuring outcomes” illustrate an enduring mental model of school factories that produce a finished product of an educated youth. Specialization of labor continues to be practiced in schools, as teachers’ roles are defined by their areas of expertise (art teacher, history teacher, special education teacher, fifth-grade teacher), and students are labeled and pigeonholed by their abilities (gifted student, honors student) and, unfortunately, also by their so-called disabilities or handicaps (learning disabled, behavioral disorder, mentally challenged). The basic school structure of grade levels, with students grouped according to their age, and the departmental structure of secondary schools, with curriculum and teachers organized according to academic disciplines, exemplify the constructs of classical organizational thought that are deeply imbedded in our educational institutions.

Behaviorist Period

Classical organizational theorists viewed workers as part of the “machinery” or “technology” of the organization. Human needs, responses, and goals were not considered separately from the aims and objectives of the organization. The social sciences period, which emerged in the 1920s, changed the focus of organizational theory to the consideration of human dynamics and the impact of psychological and social factors on the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization.

Interestingly, a major impetus for the emergence of social science theory in organizational management stemmed from an investigation framed in classical organizational thought and scientific management. In the 1920s, Elton Mayo, a professor of industrial research at Harvard University, launched a study of the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago to investigate the effects of lighting on worker productivity. In setting up the Hawthorne studies, researchers hypothesized that productivity would increase with increased illumination. Using a control group and an experimental group, results of a series of experiments showed that both groups’ productivity increased regardless of whether lighting was increased, decreased, or held constant. Follow-up studies continued in the Hawthorne plant over several years, in which different variables such as rest breaks, length of workday, and other working conditions were manipulated. Findings were similar to the original illumination studies.

In the final analysis, researchers concluded that the effects of increased productivity were not determined by physical manipulations in the work place but rather were the result of psychological and social changes in the work environment. The workers and supervisors involved in the experimental situations were the object of considerable attention. Consequently, self-images and interpersonal relations changed. Supervisors acted more informally and were less directive. Workers, knowing they were being studied, viewed themselves differently and began to develop a culture of friendship and an informal structure of rules and norms among themselves. An informal standard of output and levels of production emerged, often lower than management’s expectations or physical capabilities. Thus, it was concluded that social and psychological variables were more important to effective management than the manipulation of physical and economic conditions (Pugh & Hickson, 1989).

Two themes developed and merged during the behaviorist period. One was the human relations orientation, which brought attention to the informal structures of organizations, social interactions, and worker satisfaction and morale. The human relations approach, perhaps too simplistically, proposed that people work harder when treated well. A second theme was the behavioral science approach, which focused on the behavior of individuals within the formal organization structure, and combined principles of classical organizational thought with principles of psychology, sociology, political science, and economics. Chester Barnard is often credited with providing the initial framework for the behavioral science approach through his analysis of formal and informal structures within an organization. Barnard (1938) conceptualized organizations through the interactions between formal and informal structures. Herbert Simon (1957) described organizations in terms of equilibrium, where individual needs are balanced with organizational goals. Taking a rational approach typical of behavioral scientists, Simon postulated that equilibrium in an organization was achieved through an exchange of inducements and work. Employees continue with an organization as long as the benefits to them outweigh the work they produce. When both individual needs and organizational goals are being adequately met, an organization achieves equilibrium. Contributions to organizational theory from the social sciences approach include a better understanding of motivation, communication, and situational leadership. These concepts will be more fully addressed in subsequent chapters.

Systems Theory

The application of social sciences to organizational theory brought a focus to the human factor in organizations. Organizational theories broadened their perspective regarding the dynamics of an organization and expanded notions about organizational leadership to include not only managing the operations and technology of the organization but also considered the psychological and social factors involved in motivating workers. However, organizational theories of the 1940s and 1950s did not consider the relationship of the organization to factors in its external environment. The social sciences era tended to conceptualize organizations as closed systems. In the 1960s, organizational theory began to incorporate the notion of open systems. Borrowing from theoretical concepts of the natural sciences, organization theories applied the analogy of organizations as living organisms.

Systems theory, discussed more fully in Chapter 3, postulates that organizations are dynamic systems involving constant interactions among the various formal and informal systems within the organization as well as exchanges (feedback and input) between the organization and systems outside the organization. Schools, as open systems, have various subsystems that operate within it. For example, teachers, students, and administrators might be considered as different subsystems within a school. Additional subsystems might include the athletic department, the leadership team, the student council, or Mr. Jones’ fourth-grade class. Individuals can belong to various groups, and the interaction among the various subsystems is complex. Individuals and groups interact both through formal structures, such as faculty meetings, and informal structures, such as a conversation over lunch in the faculty lounge. In addition, the school receives input and feedback from the outside environment and produces output that is exported to the outside environment. Inputs into the system include community expectations, parental demands, teachers’ expertise, and the students themselves. The school transforms the input through activities within the organization, such as classroom instruction, parent-teacher conferences, or a career fair. The school then exports a product—a high school graduate, happy parent, or disgruntled community member—into the environment. The school will subsequently receive feedback from the outside environment. For instance, local businesses that hire graduates complain of lack o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• About the Author
• Preface
• 1 Applying Organizational Theory to Educational Leadership: An Overview of Theoretical Foundations
• 2 Organizational Structure: Fundamental Constructs that Define Schools
• 3 Systems Theory: Understanding the Dynamics of Schools as Open Systems
• 4 Organizational Culture: Schools as Learning Organisms
• 5 Leadership: Influencing Behavior, Relationships, and School Effectiveness
• 6 Contingency Theory: Variables Affecting Organizations and Leadership
• 7 Motivation: The Human Dynamics of Leadership
• 8 Communication: The Impact of Organizational Structure on Information Flow and Perceptions
• 9 Decision Making: An Essential Function of Leadership
• 10 Organizational Change: Reforming and Restructuring
• 11 Applying Theory to School Leadership: Concluding Comments
• Name Index
• Subject Index