|
Notes
on Selections From:
Westoby A (Ed) (1988)
Culture and Power
in Educational Organisations,
Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
This is
a marvellous collection
of critical examinations
of organisations, especially
of educational ones.
It was a
reader for a
marvellous OU course
Educational Professionals
and Organisations
(E814),
which offered or
thoroughly critical analysis
of current conceptions
of the teacher
as a professional
(to be
countered by the
notion of the
teacher as a
skilled worker in
a labour process),
and the conception
of the school
as educational management
tended to see
it. This
reader exposes models
of management and
some of the
more popular fashions in
'educational management'
to some skilled sociological
and political critique.
I have
included a number
of selections from
this excellent collection
here.
You can jump
straight to individual
sections by clicking
the hyperlinks.
Weick on loose-coupled organisations
Ouchi and Wilkins on
organisational culture
Meyer and Rowan on the 'logic
of confidence' which replaces real inspection and control
Bachrach on organisational
politics as the main unifying mechanism
Weick
K 'Educational organisations
as loosely coupled
systems'
The elements
in many organisations
[especially schools -- the example cited throughout] are
not tightly integrated
together, but
are loosely coupled.
This means that
simple models,
such as those
based on rationality
or bureaucracy are
inadequate: organisations
offer different realities
to the participants.
Rationalise models are
rare and there
are few actual
instances of them,
so they can
have only a
little explanatory power.
In terms of
metaphors, schooling
in particular is
probably better seen
as an agricultural
system rather than
a factory.
If organisations are
so fluid,
what makes them
function a tall?
New research is
needed on the
persistence of 'soft'
structures. The
notion of loose
coupling is a
sensitising devise,
helping us to
address Features organizations
overlooked by the
rational model.
Events which
couple together can
be mutually responsive,
but those elements
can still keep their
own identity.
Attachments between elements
can the 'circumscribed,
infrequent, weak
in mutual effects,
unimportant and/or
slow to respond'
(59)..
Among the
new possibilities for
research, it
seems that two
very common coupling
mechanisms are the
technical core of
an organisation,
and the authority
of office,
leading to connections
via common tasks,
or through a
system of positions.
Neither need be
particularly prominent,
leaving lots of
room for the
intentions and actions
of the incumbents,
including those which
tend to frustrate
planning and which
baffle and anger
administrators.
Educational organisations
do not just
feature strongly linked
means and ends.
For one thing,
there can often
be alternative means.
Other important elements
include the relations
between teachers and
materials, voters
and school boards
[in the
US],
administrators and classrooms,
processes and outcomes,
teacher or relations
to other teachers,
or to pupils,
or to parents
each of these
relations can be
problematic and couple
together in fluctuating
ways.
Organisations need
to vary their
activity, for
example in slack
times, and
it is convenient
to have lots
of means to
achieve one end.
Loose coupling is
also indicated by: a richly connected
network where influences
are slow to spread, a relative
lack of co-ordination
and a relative
lack of regulation,
a planned unresponsiveness,
degrees of independence,
opacity to an
observer, infrequent
inspections, decentralisation,
systems of delegation,
an absence of
linkages which are
supposed to be
there in theory,
a disjunction between
structure and activity,
where outcomes are
the same although
activities are different,
and where there
are few prerequisites
(61).
Loosely coupled
organisations, loosely
coupled elements in
loosely coupled systems,
can be useful..
For example,
it allows some
portions of an
organisation to persist,
rather than having
to respond each
time to some
change. The
example here is
when elected officials
are only loosely
coupled to the
institutions they run.
Of course,
this can permit
undesirable continuities
as well.
Further, a
more sensitive sensing
is possible,
just as sand,
with lots of
independent elements,
is more sensitive
to the wind than solid
rock. However,
this can lead
to faddishness.
Loose coupling can
permit a localised
adaptation which does
not need to
work through the
whole system.
It can permit
a greater number
of mutations and
novel solutions,
preserving diversity,
although it can
also prevent the
system wide adaptation
of positive elements.
Loose coupling can
contain the damage
of any one
sector, but
also make it
difficult to repair
the defective sector.
It can allow
actors more self
determination, although
this can be
ambiguous, leading
to circumstances where,
for example,
'the stated
intentions of the
action serve as
surrogates for the
consequences'
(64),
or where lots
of individual negotiations
are required.
Finally, loose
coupling can be
a cheaper alternative
to an expensive
administration trying to
generate rules to
regulate inconsistency,
but can also
be non rational
in terms of
change. Overall,
loose coupling can
be both functional
and dysfunctional,
and we need
to try to
pin down the
circumstances in which
one rather than
the other results.
This has
methodological consequences.
Indeed, the
apparent predictability
of organisations may
be simply a function
of our current
methodology, a
measurement error.
If variations are
infrequent, they
are difficult to
observe. Interactional
data is unreliable
because actors tend
to over rationalise
(in schools,
activities such as
certification are particularly
likely to be
rationalised, while
descriptions of the
instructional technology
tend to be
vague). We
need to examine
the context,
trying to view
what is not
done as well
as what is --
some sort of
comparative analysis of
different combinations
of loose and tight
coupling would be
best. In
educational organisations,
it might be
the case that
the most rational
aspects of their
activity, such
as certification,
tends to provide
the common elements
between educational organisations,
leaving other areas
open to more
loose couplings.[It
is not surprising that certification should be the most rational, of
course -- it is the most important function of schools, certainly the
one that requires the most public justification, as Weick suggests]. Answering
these sorts of
questions requires none
teleological thinking,
and we need
to be sensitive
to the multiple
goals of organisations.
Some possible
questions for the
analysis of educational
organisations arise:
(a)
In areas of
certification and inspection,
we might be
able to predict
tight coupling,
although a number
of combinations are
actually possible.
(d)
What is the
relation between core
technology and organisational
form in education?
In other organisations,
whether technology is
certain, it
might be seen
to determine organisation,
but teaching is
a matter of
pursuing diffuse tasks.
This could lead
to a number
of organisational forms,
including an 'organised
anarchy'.The
problem is almost
to explain the
conformity.
(c)
How do members
make sense of
educational organisations
if they are
so ambiguous?
Perhaps the actors
themselves have to
impose some order,
via a 'great
amount of face work
and linguistic work,
numerous myths...
considerable amounts
of effort devoted
to punctuating this
loosely coupled world'
(69).
In
conclusion, we
need adequate conceptual
tools to understand
loosely coupled organisations,
richer images,
with broader connotations.
We should focus
on the practical
tasks of coupling
and will boundary
definition. We
should develop comparative
and longitudinal studies.
Methods should include
modes of philosophical
inquiry, as
well as concrete
descriptions of how
organisations are stabilised.
A focus on
core technology,
systems of authority
and tasks to
be pursued might
replace one on
officially dominant coupling
mechanisms. We
need to assess
the ratio of
functions to dysfunctions,
to assess whether
schools benefit or
suffer from different
patterns of forms of coupling,
and drop our interest
in ideology in
favour of an
examination of how
members make sense
of their occupational
world.
Ouchi W and
Wilkins A 'Organisational
culture'
There has
been a lot
of work on
organisational cultures,
sometimes stemming from
interest in Japan
and its economic
success. Culture
seemed important as
a variable given
that formal organisations
looked rather similar
whether they were
in Japan or
the West.
Culture is a
concept that is
also shared between
different approaches in
social sciences --
anthropology and sociology
refer to it,
and culture is
a concept shared
by both action
and structure approaches.
An early
influence in developing
this interest came
from functionalist anthropology.
This tended to
produce an approach
split between structural
analysis and participant
observation. Culture
both shapes and
is shaped by individuals,
but in studies
of organizations,
it was often
taken as a
simple variable,
usually an independent
one, which
simply guided the
responses of employees,
but which was
never fully explained
itself. A
number of tensions
in studies therefore
arise
(a)
There are explicit
versus implicit approaches.
Durkheimian work
on the representations
of collective life
inspired an emphasis
on organisational myths. Goffman was
used to explain
how organisational symbols
were manipulated.
Even Berger’s and Luckmann’s work
on legitimation became
popular
[and the
notes tell us
that their book
was the second
most often cited
piece in organisational
theory in the
USA].
(b)
Rational versus non
rational approaches
illustrate the influence
of Weber.
Some tussles ensued
concerning the amounts
and nature of
irrational behaviour,
and some people
argued that irrational
behaviour could be
combined functionally with rational
behaviour -- as
in the concept
of 'bounded
rationality'
(cited on
page 230).
Several case-studies
were researched,
including those undertaken
by Gouldner,
Blau, or
Hawthorne.
(c)
Multivariate analysis became
possible with the
increasing use of.
Not only were
various aspects subjected
to analysis,
including factor analysis,
but organisations themselves
came to be
as information processors.
(d)
An increasing interest
in anomalous organisations.
Schools especially are
resistant to interpretation
as bureaucracies,
and are usually
seen as a
weakly rational,
or ‘loose coupled’
as in Weick.
Comparative study soon
revealed Japan as
an anomalous case
to, and
this directed attention
especially to the
'ethos'
of an organisation.
This began the
interest of management
in symbolic actions,
and in organisational
cultures.
This new
interest was taken
up by management
schools and management
theorists. Initially,
an organisational culture
was seen as
ideally emphasising the
rational aspects of
organisation. Psychologists
began to have
an input too,
especially to explain
non-rational judgments,
and aspects such
as 'cognitive
dissonance',
persuasion, people's
perceptions and rationalisations.
Hence the emphasis
on things such
as 'climate'
at the organisational
level, or
the role of post
hoc justifications or
'popular stories...
[rather]...
than rules and
statistics'
[as a
management technique as
well as a
research item].
Current
developments
[and this
piece was written
in 1985!]
include:
-
Theoretical studies.
Some are macroanalytic
and include the
analysis of ceremonies,
rites and their latent
and manifest functions,
or 'stories'
as 'managerial
paradigms'. Culture is seen
as a result
of institutional economics,
including property
rights and management
structures, although
there may be
factors specific to
individual firms.
Occupational subcultures
have also been
studied, again
emphasising the role
of beliefs,
symbols, and
language. Sometimes
these have not
been effectively linked
to the macro
environment, however.
-
Micro analytic
studies examine
learned behaviour or
unconscious meaning
or tension reduction.
There is often
a Freudian or
Jungian emphasis
(page 238).
-
Empirical studies
include ethnographic
descriptions and case
studies (listed
on page 239).
They also include
historical or archival
research examining
organisational sagas,
or cultural evolutions.
Semiotic analyses
include looking at
taxonomies
in use,
metaphors, language
changes as styles
of management change,
and the use
of rhetoric by
administrators.
Quantitative studies
use data gained
from attitude scales
to chart subcultures,
or offer content
analysis, for
example of some
the organisational
stories.
-
'Work
on planned change'
can include case
studies, and
which often show
the difficulties of
change and why
cultures resist.
Sometimes they offer
advice, concerning
how to signal
changes in values,
help participants,
or articulate and
embody 'a
mission' [still
very popular in
UK higher education].
Sometimes they consider
the cultural risks
of change, such
as increased anxiety.
Overall,
tussles remain --
is culture a
dependent or independent
variable? How
best can we
study it?
Meyer
J and Rowan
B 'The structure
of educational organisations'
Educational organisations
in the USA
lack close co-ordination,
and are best
seen as examples
of 'loose
coupling'--
the 'structure
is disconnected from
the technical work
activity, and
that activity disconnected
from effects'.
This is because educational
organisations largely exist
to certificate students,
and in this
activity, they
are tightly coupled.
Classification of students
is the most
important function,
ideologically and financially,
and this can
permit less control
over the institutional
activity as such:
this looser control
voids democratic inconsistency
and maintains a
consensus
(page 88).
Any further attempt to
tight couple education
would threaten the
validity of classification
activities. Instead,
educational organisations
are regulated by
a 'logic
of confidence'
(88).
In terms
of patterns of
control, models
of tight and
loose coupling both
apply. As
examples of loose
coupling:
(a)
Evaluation is never
taken seriously,
there are only weak
inspection regimes [at
the time of
writing.
This assertion is based on data taken
from surveys undertaken
on school superintendents
and what they
actually did.
In UK higher
education, we
only have anecdotes
of the triviality
and bureaucratic numbness
of quality inspectors]. [In those
days] student
achievement data were
really used.
(b)
In the area or
of curriculum and
teaching technology,
there seems to
be no agreement
and few specific guidelines
[again in
Britain in the
UK there have
been attempts to
codify these].
Systematic evaluation of
what has been
learnt by students
from one stage
to the next
is rare.
(c)
There is very
little direct authority
over each institution
[This is
arguably still the
case for UK
higher education,
although financial controls
have multiplied].
By
contrast, there
are some areas
of tight coupling:
(a)
The credentialling
and hiring of
teachers, the
allocation of space
and funds.
Here a number
of rituals and
myths are enforced,
and these are
central to public
support. Teacher
classifications -- into
elementary secondary and
so on --
are still strong.
Inspection of teachers
remain strong.
(b)
Student classifications
in terms of
level, grade
and programme.
Again, however,
the system of
definitions is patrolled
rather than actual
capabilities and characteristics.
Pupils'
entrance and career
stages are elaborate
controlled, rather
than the actual
work they do.
(c)
Topic classifications in
curricular and programmes
of work
[subject boundaries?
Module out lines?],
but actual work
is seldom inspected.
(d)
School classifications,
including different faculties
and different types
of school.
These are widely
understood and they
continued to attract
support from the
public.
Conventional
accounts of schooling
can be divided
into a number
of approaches:
-
The
reform perspective,
adopted by modernisers
and rationalisers.
Here the guiding
image is of
rational control as
in a factory.
In fact,
there is now
less rational control
than there was
in the 19th
century.
This is not
a sign that
the education system
is old fashioned,
simply that it is
remarkably healthy,
strong and popular.
-
The decentralist
view is that
schools are oligarchies
which need to
be made accountable
through decentralisation
and lay control.
But education the
US is popular,
since the community
enjoys many of
the benefits,
often ritual
ones. [In
the UK,
demands for accountability
and lay control
have been much
more successful,
marketed under the
slogan of 'parental
choice'or
the maintenance of
'standards’.
In the process,
schools and teachers
became very unpopular].
-
The professional
model celebrates
loose coupling and
describes it as
a so collegial system.
However, teacher
professionalism is
a myth --
teachers themselves
often debunk their
professional training,
and it is
hard to separate
teaching from administration.
-
Organisation
Theory, which
stresses matters such
as goal displacement
to explain how
classifications have
become more important
than core activities.
However, no
one seems to
be interested in
investigating this
process: institutions
are still supported
as a matter
of faith.
Schools
must not be
seen as a
backward or mismanaged,
but as actually
very successful in
the national context.
Their main role
is to manage
societies, to
define personnel for
the State and
the economy,
and to offer
a kind of
standardised nationality.
The classifications used
by the education
system are important
in a 'social
market'.
The success of the
school in monopolising
these functions is
complete. This
is why there
is such a
public focus on
the social outcomes
of schooling,
on classifications.
They have to
be seen to
be valid,
and this is
more important than
whether they actually
are valid
(100).
Instruction, on
the other hand
has traditionally been
left to decentralised
and local controls,
and national systems
have been resisted.
Local control remains
popular, since
in any community,
its is perceived that
there will always be
some successes and
other failures
[there seems
to be a
fear that in
a national system,
some areas would
be permanently supplying
the successes,
and others the
failures].
The organisational
responses are predictable
from this national
and local context. They
take the form
of decoupling,
where the formal
structure is necessarily
decoupled and from
instruction as such.
This maintains the
myth of overall
validity and credibility,
avoids close inspection,
and increases the
commitments of teachers.
Instructional success has
never been particularly
important in terms
of gaining prestige
-- far more
effective, especially
for universities,
is to invest
in high-status and
high-cost activities.
The ‘logic
of confidence’ emerges
too. Classifications
of students must
be done in
good faith,
as a 'sacred'
activity. This good
faith, combined
with decoupling,
produces a logic
of confidence,
the organisational equivalent
of Goffman's
'face work'
(a matter
of avoidance,
discretion, and
overlooking in the
interests of good
social relations).
This is seen
best, perhaps
in the myth of
teacher professionalism:
this takes the
form of being
conveniently compatible with
large bureaucracies,
but this is
only possible because
bureaucracies only pretend
to control teaching
activities.
It would
be interesting to
pursue some comparative
research, to
see how this
operates with education
systems in different
States. Comparisons
might also be
made with other
organisations which are
more tightly coupled.
It would be
interesting to see
the links with
environments and rates
of change.
At the same
time, it is
not just educational
organisations that find
themselves in this
predicament, and
many other organisations
face similar dualisms
at the formal
and informal level.
There are also
forced to engage
in myth and
faith and actor,
and must appear
‘national functional’
and rational.
Below to achieve
this, much
work is required
to rationalise and
to give accounts
of organisational activities
double - and
decoupling becomes necessary.
[There are
lots of lovely
examples which I
have not had
time to include
here, to
illustrate the notion
of the logic
of confidence,
which I think
is terribly relevant
to modern organisations.
As a quick
example:
...if
systematic safety problems
are "discovered"
by the environment,
safety officers are
invented: their
existence explains how
the organisation has
"taken into
account"
safety problems.
(Who actually
deals with safety
is another matter.)
So also with
pollution control,
labor relations,
public relations,
advertising, affirmative
action, or
research and development.
Some of these
activities may,
in a day-to-day
sense, actually
get done...
[but their
main purpose is
to act as]...
legitimating myths...
created quite independent
of the activities
they index
(109).
Much of
the irrationality of
life in modern
organisations arises
because the organisation
itself must maintain
a rational corporate
persona: we
must find planners
and economists who
will waste their
time legitimating plans
we have already
made, accounts
to justify our
prices, and
human relations professionals
to deflect blame
from our conflicts
(110).
Bacharach
S 'Notes
on a political
theory of educational
organisations'
There are
different emphases in
the study of
educational organisations
in the USA,
including a comparative
structuralist approach
using Max Weber's
work (but
as a kind
of checklist rather
than searching for
the dynamic and
contingent aspects).
Research aims at
some universal general
theory. On
the other hand,
is a more
practical emphasis involving
empirical study,
with theory generated
statistically out of
a number of
case studies:
research here aims
for underlying variables,
rather than processes
which actually involve
human actors.
Loose coupling
as an approach
is a good
example which runs
against the general
pattern, but
it does underestimate
the sources of
order and coupling.
The comparative structuralist
work is occasionally
replaced by qualitative
and subjective studies,
but these are
often equally limited.
What we really
need is to
examine (a)
how organisational structures
emerge from individual
actions;
(b) how
structures stabilise without
inhibiting individual behaviour;
(c)
how orderly change
takes place instead
of chaos and
the loss of
identity.
We can
approach this by
emphasising practical politics,
as a kind
of middle ground.
In this way,
coupling becomes a
'calculated decision'.
Micropolitics of this
kind run throughout
all systems,
and the study
of it offers:
-
The analysis
of many different
kinds of struggle
inside schools,
for example,
those over resources
-
The
view of organisational
participants as political
actors with their
own goals and
their own perceptions
-
An
understanding of decisions
as maximising specific
interests rather than
following some organisational
good in general.
Self-interest become
central
-
Explanation of
why sub-groups
see the structure
differently -- different
types of sub-groups
are outlined on
page 283
-
The way
to study whether
the structural perceptions
of both underdogs
and top dogs
are congruent,
which might affect
the speed of
decisions
-
The
study of the
emergence of coalitions,
and how these
are related to
structures, ideologies
and the environment
-
An analysis
of how actual
decisions relate to
this structure of
coalitions and their
perceptions, to
explain the underlying
logic of real
organisational persistence
and change
-
An understanding
of how coalitions
change and can
rotate, for
example as one comes to power
which then calls
forth a rival
-
A grasp
of the history
of the school
system in terms
of the past
conditions and contexts
of the formation
of current groups.
Overall,
we need to
focus on the
coalition as the
unit of analysis
rather than either
individuals or the
organisation. We
can use both
case-study and comparative
studies. This
will lead to
practical outcomes.
|