copyright © allyn & bacon 20071 chapter 4 this multimedia product and its contents are...

Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007 1

Chapter 4

This Multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law:•Any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network;•Preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images;•Any rental, lease, or lending of the program.

Organizational Theory and the Modern Period


Two Major Perspectives on Educational OrganizationsBureaucratic or the “factory model”.

Human Resources Development.

What follows are two examples of different approaches to controlling and coordinating the behavior of people in an organization.


Bureaucratic Views Five mechanisms for dealing with controlling and

coordinating the behavior of people in an organization. Maintain firm hierarchical control of authority and close

supervision of those in the lower ranks. Establish and maintain adequate vertical communication. Develop clear written rules and procedures to set standards

and guide actions. Promulgate clear plans and schedules for participants to

follow. Add supervisory and administrative positions to the

hierarchy of the organization as necessary to meet problems that arise from changing conditions confronted by the organization.


Bureaucratic Views (continued) In 1983, A Nation At Risk, and other reports brought

recommendations that resulted in: Longer school days, focus on time on task, more

homework, career ladders, calls for stronger school leadership of the principal, “tougher” curriculum, longer school calendar and others.

In essence, the bureaucratic model was at work: management decided what was to be done, they directed the workers to do it, and supervised them closely.

Although this model was not effective, it still persists today.


Human Resources Development Views Human Resources Development (HRD) views the

teacher as foremost in creating instructional change. HRD uses newer concepts such as loose coupling

(allowing subunits autonomy) and the power of organization culture to influence behavior.

HRD exercises coordination and control through socialization of participants to the values and goals of the organization, rather then through written rules and close supervision.


Theory X and Theory Y Theory X rests on four assumptions that an administrator

holds about people in the organization. They dislike work, must be supervised closely, will shirk

responsibility and seek formal direction, and have little ambition.

Theory Y embraces four very different assumptions administrators hold about the nature of people at work. They view work as satisfying, exercise initiative and self

direction if committed to the organization, learn to accept responsibility and seek it, and have the ability to make good decisions.


Pattern A & Pattern B Behavior Chris Argyris explains how Theory X views

give rise to Behavior Pattern A in leaders: Pattern A, Hard: characterized by no-nonsense,

strongly directive leadership, tight controls, and close supervision.

Pattern A, Soft: involves a good deal of persuading, “buying” compliance from subordinates, benevolent paternalism, or so-called good (that is, manipulative) human relations.


Pattern A & Pattern B Behavior (continued)

Theory Y views lead to Behavior Pattern B: Characterized by a commitment to mutually shared

objectives, high levels of trust, respect, satisfaction from work, and authentic, open relationships.

Pattern A, Soft, is often mistaken for Behavior Pattern B.

See figure 4.1 for comparison of underlying assumptions.


Rensis Likert Systems 1, 2, 3, and 4 Based on studies of schools and other organizations,

Likert identified four systems describing management styles. System 1 --Management is seen as having no trust in

subordinates. System 2 –Management has condescending confidence and

trust in subordinates. System 3 –Management seen as having substantial but not

complete trust in subordinates. System 4 --Subordinates make specific decisions at lower

levels. These ideas are supported by many well-known

researchers.


General Systems Theory F. Kenneth Berrien, in revising biologist Ludwig von

Bertalanffy’s original description of a general systems theory, wrote: An organization is an integrated system of interdependent

structures and functions. An organization is constituted of groups and a group consists of persons who must work in harmony. Each person must know what the others are doing. Each one must be capable of receiving messages and must be sufficiently disciplined to obey. . . .

Two central concepts: subsystems and multiple causation.


Peter Senge and The Fifth Discipline Peter Senge wrote a popular book in 1990 titled, The

Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.

The five disciplines are: personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared vision, and systems thinking.

The fifth discipline, Systems Thinking, is essential for integrating the other four disciplines in making the organization effective.


Social Systems Theory Systems are divided into two main classes:

Open Systems that interact with their environments.

Closed Systems that do not interact with their environments.

For schools, we define closed systems as those organizations that tend to limit the influence of the community and tend to proceed as though unrelated to the larger real world in which they exist.


A Contextual Approach The input-output, or linear model contributes

little to our understanding of how educational systems function (see Figure 4.3).

Daniel Griffiths defined an open system as recognizing the existence of a suprasystem and within it, a subsystem (see Figures 4.4 through 4.7).


Role Theory The dynamic interaction of people with varying

psychological makeups in the organizational setting is the domain of role theory.

Useful terms: role, role description, role prescription, role expectation, role perception, manifest and latent roles, role conflict, role ambiguity, role set.

Role set can be described in graphic terms (Figures 4.8 to 4.10) which includes all players important to the role perception and role expectations of any particular role. Can lead to role conflict.


Role Related to Social Systems Theory Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba developed a model of

the organization as a social system (see Figure 4.11). It is composed of: The interaction of the organizational dimension

(nomothetic) and the personal dimension (idiographic). The nomothetic is composed of: the institution, roles, role

expectations. The idiographic is composed of: the individual,

personality, and need-dispositions. B = f(R · P) See Figures 4.12 and 4.13 for example application.


Role Related to Social Systems Theory (continued) When there is a quid pro quo relationship between

the nomothetic and the idiographic dimensions of the Getzels-Guba model, equilibrium exists.

Example is the case of Schmidt at Bethlehem Steel as described by Frederick Taylor.

Chester Barnard defined effectiveness as the accomplishment of recognized

objectives of cooperative action. efficiency as the ability of an organization to sustain

continued participation of individuals through satisfactory inducements.


Role Related to Social Systems Theory (continued) In an expanded version of Getzels-Guba model,

Figure 4.14 depicts the interaction of the school and its larger environment.

Changes in the environment stimulate a reaction that is either static or dynamic: In Static reactions, the organization responds to

maintain status quo. Dynamic equilibrium is characterized by subsystem

changes to steady the system (i.e., homeostasis).


Role Related to Social Systems Theory (continued) Systems that do not have sensitive antennae picking up

accurate feedback information or that do not provide information to decision makers, find it difficult to react appropriately to environmental changes.

Such systems tend to be in a static, rather than in a dynamic, equilibrium with their environments. They tend to lack the self-correcting, homeostatic processes essential to maintaining themselves in environments characterized by change.

These organizations will decline over time.


Sociotechnical Systems Theory Includes four interacting subsystems

Structure. Tasks. Technology. People.

A change in one subsystem will affect the other subsystems.

Figure 4.16 depicts Robert G. Owens and Carl R. Steinhoff’s sociotechnical system model.


Contingency Theory Different beliefs in organizational theory, such

as classical, human relations, or behavioral, will lead to competing advocacy positions.

None of the three approaches is superior in all situations.

Rational Planning Models Mechanical approaches. Organic approaches.


Contingency Theory (continued) Organizational structure and management methods can be

identified as being most effective under specific situational contingencies.

Three basic propositions underlie the contingency approach to organizational behavior in schools: There is no one best universal way to organize and administer school

districts or schools. Not all ways of organizing and administering are equally effective in a

given situation: effectiveness is contingent upon appropriateness of the design or style to the situation.

The selection of organizational design and administrative style should be based on careful analysis of significant contingencies in the situation.


Contingency Theory (continued) Organizations that deal successfully with uncertain

environments tend to differentiate internally more than less successful organizations do; yet they are able to maintain high levels of integration between the various subunits.

New technological developments, typically developed externally, of every description tend to alter the contingencies that affect the internal arrangements of the school.

The school system or school, as a sociotechnical system, is in constant dynamic interaction with the larger external environment in which it exists.

copyright © allyn & bacon 20071 chapter 4 this multimedia product and its contents are...

Documents

behavior pattern

behavior of people

theory x views

power of organization

organizational theory

close supervision

bureaucratic model

derivative work