Day 3EAD 800 Valbonne 04

Structural Theories

Today’s topics:

Weberian bureaucracyTypes of formalizationProfessionalism vs bureaucracyLoose couplingCase studyHypotheses

Weberian bureaucracy:

Division of laborSpecializationImpersonal orientationHierarchy of authorityRules and regulationsCareer orientation

Weberian bureaucracy:Experience tends to universally show that the purely bureaucratic type of administrative organization…is, from a purely technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency” (Weber, 1947).

Functions and dysfunctions of Weberian Model:

Characteristic

Function Dysfunction

Division of Labor Expertise Boredom

Impersonal Orientation

Rationality Lack of morale

Hierarchy of Authority

Disciplined compliance and coordination

Communication blocks

Rules and regulations

Continuity and uniformity

Rigidity and goal displacement

Career orientation Incentive Conflict between achievement and seniority

Integration of Formal and Informal Systems

Activities Interaction

Sentiments

Activities Interaction

Sentiments

FORMAL INFORMAL

ENVIRONMENT – Physical, technical, social

Hierarchy

Division of Labor

Formalization

Impersonality

Formal Communication and Leadership

Informal structure

Division into cliques

Informal norms

Personal relations

Informal communication and Leadership

Critiques of Weberian Bureaucracy

Feminist critiqueEmphasis on full-time commitmentPerpetuation of male dominationDoes not contribute to development of groupControl function

Post-modern critiqueInformation-basedHeroic leader impossiblePsychological needs of workersPower of relationshipsComplexity and change increase interdependenceDiminished loyalty, security

Two types of formalization

Enabling bureaucracy

2 way communicationLearn through problemsMutual solutionValues differencesOpennessDelight in unexpectedSupport for risktakingParticipative decisionsProblem-solving focus

Coercive bureaucracyTop down communicationConstrained by problemsForced consensusValues samenessWatchful mistrustFear of unexpectedPunish mistakesUnilateral decision makingAuthority focus

(Adler & Borys, 1996)

Another way to conceptualize rational organizations: Bureaucratic vs.

Professional

BureaucraticHierarchy of authorityRules for incumbentsProcedural specificationsImpersonality

ProfessionalTechnical competenceSpecialization

Are educators professionals?Provide essential services to societyConcerned with identified area of needInvolved in decision-making in service to clientCollectively, and individually, professionals possess a body of knowledgeBased on one or more undergirding disciplinesOrganized into professional associations which control work of the profession (licensing, standards, ethics, discipline, etc.)Inducted through long preparation programHigh level of public trust and respectPractitioners characterized by lifetime commitment to competenceAccountability to the profession and to clientRelative freedom from direct on-the-job supervision and from direct public evaluation

Typology of School Organizational Structure

Professional

Pattern

Bureaucratic Pattern

High Low

High Weberian Authoritarian

Low Professional Chaotic

Similarities and Differences in Professional and Bureaucratic Organizations

SimilaritiesTechnical expertiseObjective

perspectiveImpersonal/

impartialService to clients

ConflictOrientation:

colleague or organization

Decisions: autonomy or compliance

Control: self-imposed or superimposed

Loose coupling – another organizational perspective of schools

Loose coupling theorists focus on the disconnectedness of behavior and outcomes in organizations. Loose coupling connotes weak or infrequent ties between elements that are minimally interdependent (Weick, 1976).

Loose coupling

“In schools, there is loose control over how well the work is done. Inspection of instructional activities is infrequent, and even when evaluation does occur, it is usually perfunctory. Under these conditions, tight organizational controls over who does the work – through such activities as hiring, certifying, and scheduling – are exerted.” (Hoy, Miskel)

Managing change in rational system

“Find goals and or means that can be evaluated easily and to which the participants can commit themselves. It is assumed that if relevant information is gathered to define the problem properly and if the resistance of recalcitrant parties is overcome, then a decision can be made that will correct any problems. In this view, a fairly stable group of decision makers who agree on goals and technology is managing change.”

Managing change in an open system

Concentrate efforts on one or two critical problemsLearn the history of an issue, including when it came up, who took what positions, who won, who lostBuild coalitions to mobilize supportUse the formal system of committee memberships and the informal system of discussions and mediation

(Berger, 1981)

Bees and FliesExperimentation, persistence, trial and error, risks, improvisation, one best way, detours, confusion, rigidity, randomness.

Tightness and looseness

Weick’s interestHigh differentiation – low integration

Such systems may appear ineffective when assessed by criteria tied to efficiency, but may be more effective when assessed against criteria that index flexibility, ability to improvise, and capacity for self-design.

Holographic organization – loosely coupled

Principle 1 – Build the “whole” into the partsVisions, values and culture as corporate

DNANetworked intelligenceStructures that reproduce themselvesHolistic teams; diversified roles

Holographic organization – loosely coupled

Principle 2 – The importance of redundancyIn information processingIn skills and design of work

Holographic organization – loosely coupled

Principle 3 – Requisite varietyInternal complexity must match that of the environment

Holographic organization – loosely coupled

Principle 4 – Minimum SpecsDefine no more than is absolutely necessary

Holographic organization – loosely coupled

Principle 5 – Learn to learnScan and anticipate environmental changeDouble-loop learningEmergent design

Organizational changeLoose coupling is the source of adaptability in most organizations, whereas tight coupling is the source of most adaptation.In a loosely-coupled organization, there is less necessity for major change because change is continuous. If major change becomes necessary, however, it is much harder to diffuse it among systems that are loosely-coupled.

Organizational Change

A tightly coupled system may be slow to innovate yet retain the privilege of “historic backwardness” that allows it to benefit from the lessons of the more loosely coupled systems that made the first innovation. The efficiencies that accompany tight coupling may then allow those organizations that are second on the scene to grind up those who were first.