Management
of Semi-Public Organizations in Complex Environments
Alexander W. Wiseman,
Ph.D.
The
Abstract
Management activities in schools are unique compared
to those of managers in other public organizations because of the character of
schools as public service as well as publicly-funded organizations where high
degrees of organizational autonomy and external penetration are both expected
and required. There are rich discussions of various relationships between
managerial activity and organizational context. And, while these discussions
are not unique to the educational literature, special attention has been given
to the association of managerial activities with organizational outputs of
schools. There has, however, not been much attention to the effect the
semi-public nature of schools has on school management In keeping with the
theme of this symposium issue of Public
Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, this paper addresses
school management and the nature or influence of the public context on
management activities in schools.
The
Management of Schools as Semi-Public Organizations
The
bureaucratic administration of formal organizations is an important and much
discussed phenomenon (Weber 1946; March 1965; Silverman 1971; Meyer, Scott,
Strang, & Creighton 1988; DiMaggio & Powell 1991). Therefore, how
white-collar bureaucratic organizations are managed is and has historically
been of particular sociological as well as administrative interest. As a
result, prescriptions for administrative as well as managerial activity are
widely debated and discussed in both the organizations and management
literatures (Sayles 1964; Hales 1986; Stewart 1989; Noordegraaf & Stewart
2000). Compared to the activities of managers in other organizations,
management activities in semi-public organizations, in particular, are unique
(1) because of their character as public service as well as publicly-financed
organizations where high degrees of organizational autonomy and external
penetration are both expected and required and (2) because of their
institutionalization across organizational environments (Weick 1976; Meyer
& Scott 1983; Ingersoll 1993).
First,
semi-public organizations are those organizations that are governed and
financed either in part or wholly by the public meaning that the general public
often feels that it has a vested interest in the governance and implementation
of schooling. These organizations are frequently governed by local political
bodies and expected to be highly responsive to the requests and suggestions of
the constituents of these political bodies. As a result of these various
constituents, decision-making and other rational processes are often
complicated.
Although
there are many organizations that are semi-public, public schools are unique in
that they are permeable to a higher degree than other semi-public
organizations. This high degree of permeability results from a combination of
factors. The general public is in most nations and states compelled to attend
school at least through the end of primary school and through secondary school
in most developed nations. Therefore, the public has had an intimate connection
to schools throughout much of their lives, and often the most impressionable
years of their lives. As a result, the public believes that it knows what
schools do and should do. This long-term public exposure and involvement
coupled with the consequent feeling of familiarity and entitlement that this
exposure and involvement cultivates means that the public is comfortable
discussing schools and has an opinion on most matters related to schooling,
even if their opinions are not informed by the most relevant facts.
Another
aspect of public schools that makes them especially permeable to public
involvement and pressure is the fact that they are largely governed and
financed by the public through political bodies at various levels of
governance. For instance, at the national or federal level in most nations
there is a Ministry or Department of Education that is responsible for national
policy on education and often funds part if not all of the educational
activities and schooling that occur in a nation. Depending on the particular
nation, public governance at subordinate or more localized levels occurs as
well. For instance, at the state or regional level in many nations, educational
policy is further refined or created, which is unique to that state or region.
In addition, local regions through their own budgets often fund much of the
schooling that occurs within their jurisdiction. Finally, at the local level
there is often a local community governing board that makes policy
implementation decisions as well as further refining educational policy from
the regional and national levels. These local governing boards also make
decisions regarding the use of funds and the collection of new funds for
educational purposes. At each of these governance levels, the funds that are
allocated to schools find their origins in publicly administered taxes or other
public sources. Therefore, the public itself has a vested interest in the
governance and implementation of schooling because it governs and funds
schooling, be it directly or indirectly.
Secondly,
semi-public organizations are often institutionalized across organizational
environments meaning that the formal structure and policies related to these
organizations cross traditional contextual boundaries demarcated by regions
ranging from local communities to regional districts to nation-states. As a
result, the contextual boundaries of semi-public organizations are frequently
undefined or only vaguely defined. This means that it is difficult to talk
about where contextual influences on the managers of semi-public organizations
begin and end. And, in fact, previous studies have not considered the influence
that the complexity of public organizational contexts has on managers’
activities. The problem of broad and
ambiguous definitions of organizational contexts is also significant because
“environment” is a key concept of organizational and administrative theory
related to managerial activity. And, although some previous empirical studies
do estimate relationships between management activities and individual elements
of semi-public organizations’ immediate contexts (Leithwood & Duke, 1999),
researchers have yet to determine how these managers adjust their activities in
complex contexts comprising many different and even conflicting elements. In
other words, the problem is that no one has yet estimated management activities
based on the complexity of institutionalized organizational contexts,
especially at the national and cross-national levels.
Even though
levels of organizational governance, finance, and public familiarity vary by
both organization and national system, public schools are ideal for the
examination of the relationship between managerial activity and organizational
environments. They are ideal because principals must manage their schools
according to local school community contexts and immediate needs, while also
considering and responding to national educational goals, trends, and
expectations for schooling. Therefore, what principals do may be a response to
school level needs, nation level expectations, or both. Each of these levels of
needs and expectations may be called an organizational environment and at each
level, varying levels of complexity characterize these organizational
environments (Meyer & Associates 1978; Meyer & Scott 1983).
Managerial Work in Semi-Public Organizations
The most
obvious and important question when defining the nature of managerial work in
semi-public organizations is to ask who is a manager (Grey 1999; Mintzberg
1980). Stewart (1996, p. 3101) suggests that the two simplest definitions are
that (1) managers are anyone responsible for the work of others and (2)
managers are those above a certain level in the hierarchy of supervision. Yet
even these definitions may not be appropriate given that one important
managerial activity is to delegate responsibility and authority. As a result,
managerial activity according to Stewart’s definition becomes ambiguous as it
is diffused throughout the hierarchy of organizational supervision. This
ambiguity and diffusion arises because managers pass their responsibility and
authority to others who perform many seemingly managerial tasks (Grey, 1999).
In other words, as managers delegate responsibility and authority, activities
that may be characteristically ‘managerial’ may not belong to or be performed
by managers exclusively (Hales 1994; Noordegraaf & Stewart 2000, p. 433).
Therefore, the nature of managerial work causes a fundamental problem in
identifying managerial activity in semi-public organizations.
A second
important conceptual consideration is that different fields define managers and
their activity differently (Noordegraaf & Stewart 2000, p. 436). The
context of management varies considerably, according to Stewart (1996, p.
3100), over time and among people in similar positions both within as well as
across nations and organizations. Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000, p. 436)
argue similarly that the perceptions of what managerial activity entails vary
across fields within the already amorphous contextual environments of
managerial activity. Of course, the obvious distinctions between the broader
fields such as business, economics, sociology, political science, and
education, for example, may be made, but even finer distinctions, definitions,
and perceptions of managerial activity are possible. For instance, even public
administration and organizational activity scholars have different conceptions
of managerial activity (Noordegraaf & Stewart 2000, p. 436).
Consequently,
a third and more important consideration for this study is the conceptual
distinction between public and private sector management and even the
distinction within the public sector between the political and the social
services spheres (e.g., Lau, Pavett, & Newman 1980; Harrow & Willcocks
1990; Smith 1995; Forssell & Jansson 1996; Noordegraaf & Stewart 2000).
As Hannaway (1989) and others (Mintzberg 1980; Noordegraaf & Stewart 2000,
p. 435) suggest, education and schooling contexts provide situations where the
activity of managers is semi-public. On the one hand is the frequent push by,
for example, educational stakeholders, researchers and practitioners for the
corporate model of management in schools (Duffy 1996, 1997). Yet as Noordegraaf
and Stewart (2000, p. 440) point out, “As traditional public sector values—such
as representativeness, equality before the law, justice—are forced to compete
with modern managerial values—such as economy, efficiency,
effectiveness—inevitable tensions arise.” These tensions are what may give rise
to a loose relationship (i.e., loose coupling) or even a broken relationship
(i.e., decoupling) between managerial activity and organizational environments,
especially at the national level. These tensions also suggest how the
environmental complexity of schools may influence principals’ management
activity and encourage it to couple differently with the organizational
environment at different organizational levels.
Thus the
conceptual considerations when defining managerial activity in semi-public
organizations, and school principals’ management activity in particular, are
dominated by (1) the ambiguity of what constitutes managers’ work or activities
in these organizations, (2) the perception or relative context both of the
managers and those observing or studying managerial activity, and (3) the
semi-public and, consequently, tension-producing characteristics,
responsibilities, and pressures of public school managers such as principals.
Management Activity
The nature
of managerial work is slippery (Hannaway, 1989). And those who empirically
approach management studies recognize the malleability of managerial activity
even though less empirical and more policy-oriented studies do not. Noordegraaf
and Stewart (2000) argue that managerial activity is oriented more toward
systemic and sectorial concerns than specific problems or regions, although
“extensive local knowledge” cannot and should not be discounted. They assert
that “management skills are…less specific to particular problems, and more
restricted to specific organizations and industrial sectors; deal with a
succession of tasks in one system, rather than a series of discrete tasks
occurring in separate locations; rest on a broad, diffuse knowledge base which
includes extensive local knowledge” (Noordegraaf & Stewart, 2000, p. 434).
Given this study’s focus on managerial activity, this is a powerful assertion.
Therefore, according to Noordegraaf and Stewart (2000, p. 434), principals’
managerial activity is not specific to particular problems of instruction and
learning within individual schools, but is restricted to the concerns and
situations of types of schools and schooling.
This
concept of principals’ managerial activity also suggests that while extensive
local knowledge, which may include familiarity with the community and local
external as well as internal school culture, is included as a part of the
rationale or considerations of principals, their activity is based in a set of
broad and diffuse core beliefs about the managerial activity of principals.
Noordegraaf and Stewart (2000, p. 427) conclude that the institutional
embeddedness of managerial activity deserves attention, especially for
managerial activity occurring in the public sector. This is an encouraging
assertion given that this study both investigates public sector managerial
activity by focusing on school principals and considers both the organizations
and administrative approaches to principals’ managerial activity.
Although
other work focuses on the organizational embeddedness of managerial activity
(i.e., managerial role in terms of the manager’s systematic tasks; Noordegraaf
& Stewart, 2000, pp. 431, 435; Sayles, 1964), each of these examples and
assertions discussed above, punctuated by Noordegraaf and Stewart’s conclusion
suggests that the nature of managerial activity goes beyond the specific organizations
in which managers are situated to encompass fields of organizations or ranges
of organizations whose structures and purposes have been synthesized and
scripted as part of an institutionalization process. This institutionalization
of schooling structures, processes, and, in particular, principals’ managerial
activity suggests both the expansion of organizational boundaries and the
importance of national systems in the study of institutionalized organizations
such as schools.
Consequently,
previous research has struggled with defining and measuring managerial activity
in semi-public organizations. Although managerial activity has been defined in
many ways which vary significantly depending on the managerial context or
perspective of researchers and participants (for examples see Grant, Katkovsky,
& Bray 1967; Dunnette, Campbell, & Helervik 1968; Campbell, Dunnette,
Lawler, & Weick 1970; Koontz 1972; Hannaway 1985; Whitley 1988), the
various elements of managerial activity in semi-public organizations may be
divided for reasons of identification and convenience into two sets of
considerations: technical management activity and legitimacy management
activity.
The Institutionalization of Semi-Public
Organizations
As Meyer
and Rowan (1977) argue, many organizations become structured by their
environments and isomorphically change with them. Of particular interest to
administrators and policymakers, therefore, is the probability that structure
and substance, which insinuates itself among semi-public organizations,
disseminates through managers’ activity. Rather than any sort of technical
exchange between managers and those they manage via managers’ activity and the
consequences of their activity, managers’ activities often reflect
organizational models applied to and shaped by environmental contexts at both
the local and national levels.
The
significance of environmental contexts is that legitimate managerial activities
depend on the institutional models developed by each type of organizational
system. In particular, principals’ management activities, therefore, vary
depending on the national characteristics of schools’ organizational
environments (Wiseman, 2001), which are determined in part by cross-nationally
institutionalized models of legitimate principals’ management activity and in
part by the penetration of school management hierarchies and systems by
environmental conditions (Rowan, 1982).
Regardless
of the relationship between a manager’s activity and an organization’s local
environment, centralization of decision-making at the national level may
determine a manager’s ability or opportunity to contextualize their activity
(Stevenson & Baker, 1991). As a result, management activity is caught
between local environmental pressures and national environmental pressures. So,
managers of semi-public organizations respond to (1) pressures at the system
level for legitimacy and (2) pressures from the local level for accommodation.
How managers respond to these discrepant pressures, unfortunately, is not answered
or estimated in the literature.
While some
of the activity of these managers surely follows technical-rational,
bureaucratic models, the more organizational and institutional elements of
managerial activity are frequently described as agency-less “actions” performed
in accordance with legitimate, scripted models of activity (Brignall &
Modell, 2000). Yet to deny that these models exist and that managers behave in
a manner appropriate to maintaining not only their individual legitimacy but
also the legitimacy of their organizations in both local and national contexts
would be to deny the influence of organizational environment. In fact, what
drives much of managers’ actions is their attention to and need for legitimacy
at both the local and national levels. Yet what constitutes legitimate activity
at the local level may not and often does not correspond to what constitutes
legitimate activity at the national level. In fact, while certain
organizational outputs may be desired at both levels, the process or method of
achieving these outputs may vary significantly. This is not to say that
technical output is not part of the environmental mix for schools or is not a
concern of managers. Instead, a loosely coupled model suggests that many other
objectives occupy managers’ time and efforts, and these are often institutional
requirements from the outside (Meyer & Scott 1983).
Thus, for
example, the popular conception is that highly consistent or stable loci of
organizational governance can simplify the external environment of
schools. Using schooling as an example,
in highly centralized school systems, principal management may require fewer
legitimizing activities because so many of the institutional demands on schools
are met at a governance level above the school.
An example of this would be a nationally centralized curriculum. Political and technical conflict over the
nature of such a curriculum would more likely occur at more centralized or
national level arenas than at the local school level. In this case principals would not have to do
the work of developing and legitimating a curriculum with both the local
community and other levels of school administration. Instead, their job would
be to technically assist faculty in implementing this curriculum. Whereas, in a
school system in which there was discrepancy about which bureaucratic level of
governance had control over the curriculum, the environment of schooling and
principals’ management activity would be much more complex due to competing
efforts to govern the schools from both the local and national levels of
administration. This kind of reasoning about the centralization of
organizational bureaucracies and management activity leads to several
propositions:
Proposition
1: In organizational environments with less centralized decision-making
bureaucracies, managers of semi-public organizations spend more time managing
legitimacy issues and less time managing the technical processes of their
organizations.
Proposition
2: In organizational environments with more centralized decision-making
bureaucracies, managers of semi-public organizations spend less time managing
legitimacy issues and more time managing the technical processes of their
organizations.
In other
words, management activity may be directed more towards legitimacy than
technical process management depending on the penetration of regional or
national level governance into local governing bodies. This means that
organizations with fewer institutional requirements and public penetration can
be more overtly accommodating to local community and cultural influences. In
turn, managers of semi-public organizations in decentralized systems vary their
activity more by the particular demands of their communities and clients than
models of legitimate activity imposed or expected by their external governing
bodies. Therefore, system or organization level inputs and resources may
influence the categorical performance and production of managers, but
penetration of local culture and community influences can particularize
performance and activity of managers as well. As Table 1 shows, a balance
between the technical organizational processes and organizational legitimacy
influences may be achieved or attempted although the environments in which each
is a significant predictor of managerial activity may differ: management of
technical processes dominating less complex environments and legitimacy
management dominating the more complex environments.
Environmental Complexity
The
complexity of organizational environment has been previously defined as an
increase in the number of stakeholders or other influences penetrating
organizations’ daily functions and administrative duties. Another previous
definition of organizational complexity has been the decentralization of administrative
or organizational processes and functions, meaning that centralized
institutions are supposedly less complex than their decentralized partners
(Wiseman et al, 2000). As a result, American schools are labeled the most
complex of any system in the world because of the extreme decentralization of
school governance and administration in the
Loose Coupling in Semi-Public Organizations
The
relationship or association of managerial activity to the organization as well
as the organization’s environment is the focus of loose-coupling arguments. In
characterizing loose coupling, Weick (1983, p. 44) argues that “coupled events
are responsive, but that each event also preserves its own identity and some
evidence of its physical or logical separateness.” And as Ingersoll (1993, p.
86) asserts, schools embody the stereotypical characteristics of loosely
coupled organizations such as: (1) unclear, diverse or ambiguous organizational
means and goals; (2) low levels of coordination of employees’ productive
activities; (3) low levels of organizational control; (4) high levels of
employee autonomy; and (5) low levels of managerial authority. Yet, coupling
can occur both within and between organizational levels.
Furthermore,
Weick (1983) citing the influences of Glassman (1973), Heider (1959), and
Salancik (1975) suggests seven characteristics of loosely coupled systems,
which can be in turn translated into both local and national level phenomena.
These seven characteristics (Weick 1983, pp. 48-51) are that: (1) loose
coupling allows the persistence of some parts of organizations because
organizations then do not have to respond to every environmental change, (2)
loose coupling provides a sensitive sensing mechanism for adjustment to local
environmental influences, (3) loosely coupled systems are good for localized
adaptation, (4) loosely coupled systems can change more and have more unique
solutions than tightly coupled systems, (5) breakdowns in one part of a loosely
coupled system are isolated and not allowed to spread to other parts of the
organization, (6) loosely coupled systems allow more self-determination by the
actors, and (7) loosely coupled systems are less expensive than tightly coupled
systems because they do not coordinate people as much as tightly coupled
systems. As school managers tailor their activity to the specific needs of
schools' local environments and managerial pressure from the national
educational system increases (i.e., these predictors increase or combine), the
complexity of the school managers’ organizational environment should rise as
well. In other words, the more complex schools’ organizational environments are
within national educational systems, the more loosely coupled the managerial
activity of principals’ should be to the school and national environments.
Sensitivity
to organizational environments changes between types of organizations or by
organizational sector (Davis & Powell 1990). In particular, environmental
influence can differ between for-profit and non-profit organizations. Hannaway
(1989) as well as Lau, Pavett, and Newman (1980) argue that too much has been
made of the difference between public and private organizations. In particular,
Hannaway (1989, p. xi) suggests that “administrative systems that are part of
an organization producing goods for market exchange may behave differently at
some levels, although perhaps not quite so differently at others.” Hannaway
(1989, p. xi) continues by asserting that the evidence she finds “suggests that
the similarity in administrative systems across [public and private]
organizations—at least at the levels discussed here—are probably greater than
the differences. These are bold assertions, which may suggest that there are
institutionalized models for managerial activity regardless of organizational
sector and environmental influence. These assertions, therefore, suggest a more
institutional approach to school management activity than even the organizational
literature typically suggests.
Across the
many kinds of schools and educational environments that exist, there are often
consistently similar pressures on principals to behave in certain ways and
perform certain duties. In addition, principals find themselves either looking
to legitimate models of school management or being taught to be effective
school managers in formally accredited and scripted-for-legitimacy professional
training programs. In other words, the mechanisms of institutional change,
which according to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) consist of coercive, mimetic, and
normative influences, may lead principals to follow transnationally
institutionalized scripts for principals’ activity (i.e., models of legitimate
school management activity).
Following
established, rationalized scripts ensures principals’ legitimacy even though
some activities may decouple from the legitimate model of school management
activity depending on the specific school environments (Weick 1976). This means
that the activities of principals are sometimes torn between the rationalized,
transnational models of legitimate school structures, processes, and outcomes
and the characteristics and needs of principals’ school environments.
Consequently, when considering school management activities, one might expect
that they would become increasingly standardized and stable over time due to
institutional pressure resulting from the expanding legitimacy of mass
education (Meyer, Ramirez, Rubinson, & Boli-Bennett 1977; Meyer, Ramirez,
& Soysal 1992).
Ogawa and
Bossert (1995) argue that principals’ managerial activity is an organizational
quality and as such enhances an organization’s social legitimacy, finds
strength in a network of roles throughout the educational institution, relies
on individuals’ resources, and leads to the adoption of structures that mirror
an organization’s cultural environment. By situating principals as school
managers in the midst of complex, semi-public organizations such as schools,
this literature questions the linkage between school management activity and
either school output or organizational environment, and suggests that if school
management activity and school output are related, it is because the
relationship connects organizational and institutional level environmental
influences (e.g., local and national environment) to individual level processes
and outcomes (e.g., principal, teacher, and student performance).
School
management activity may be predicted by organizational elements to which principals
may contribute, but which are not dependent upon or significantly related to
their activity. Instead, school level decisions and changes follow legitimate,
rationalized models in part to ensure the growth and legitimacy of the
organization in spite of (rather than because of) individual level outcomes
such as student achievement (Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). It is more appropriate
to look at organizational and institutional level characteristics that
correspond with individual level outcomes independent of school management
activity than to use school management activity to predict individual level
outcomes. This perspective suggests that principals’ individual resources and
decision-making authority are not as influential on school output as the
institutionalized model or environmental context in which their activities
occur and to which they conform.
Consequently,
the semi-public school environment or type of educational system in which
students and principals work may be more predictive of the organizational
output of schools such as school management activities than any proposed link
between school management activities and school output. Of particular interest
to educational administrators and policymakers, therefore, is the probability
that structure and substance, which insinuates itself among school
organizations, disseminates through school management activity. Rather than any
sort of technical exchange between principals and students via school
management activity and the consequences of this activity, a principals’
management of instruction, for example, reflects organizational models applied
to and shaped by semi-public environmental contexts at both the local and
national levels.
The
significance of semi-public environmental contexts is that legitimate
management activities depend on the institutional models developed by each type
of education system. School management activity should, therefore, vary
depending on the national characteristics of schools’ semi-public
organizational environments. Variation in activity that is contextualized to
specific school conditions and communities should also be more influential than
activities that follow a strictly standardized model, which limits
administrative and managerial authority. However, these school-specific
conditions are nested in the larger national context determined in part by
cross-nationally institutionalized models of legitimate school management
activity and in part by the penetration of school management hierarchies and
systems by environmental conditions (Rowan, 1982).
Regardless
of the relationship between school management activity and schools’ local
environments, centralization of decision-making at the national level may
determine principals’ ability or opportunity to contextualize management within
their schools (Stevenson & Baker, 1991). The same institutional influences
that contribute to the training, education, and activity of school managers
like principals as rationalized and legitimate models of school administration
are products of the environment and preexisting levels of school performance at
least as much as they are causes of it. Therefore, principals’ management of
both material and personnel resources is not as influential as the environment
or context, which preexists schooling processes and permeates most aspects of
schooling students receive. As a result, school management activity is caught
between local school environmental pressures and national environmental
pressures.
Unanswered Questions
If and how
school managers respond to semi-public environmental complexity within and
between levels of formal school organization remains unanswered. The unique
character of national organizational environments and their influences on what
school managers do is less frequently studied. Also, the complexity of
environments both within and between organizational levels is undefined and
un-estimated. Most noticeably, however, are arguments that recognize the
institutional isomorphism of school organizations while still allowing for
variation within and between schools’ organizational environments and the
initiatives of school managers like principals. These questions lead to the
need for an updated and elaborated perspective.
DiMaggio
and Powell (1991) observe that while “functional explanations of the ways in
which institutions represent efficient solutions to problems of governance” are
frequent, “sociologists reject functional explanations and focus instead on the
ways in which institutions complicate and constitute the paths by which
solutions are sought.” In other words, change occurs through institutions, and
institutional influence is perhaps the most significant change agent among the
plethora of contextual, environmental, and individual level influences
contributing to each occurrence of change in society.
DiMaggio
and Powell (1991, p.1) assert (p. 1) that “‘institutionalists’ vary in their
relative emphasis on micro and macro features, in their weightings of cognitive
and normative aspects of institutions, and in the importance they attribute to
interests and relational networks in the creation and diffusion of
institutions.” Consequently, an exploration of new institutional theory
emphasizes the distinction between technical and institutional environments.
One of the clearest explanations of this distinction comes from Scott and Meyer
(1991, p. 123) as they define each. Scott and Meyer (1991, p. 123) assert that
“technical environments are those in which a product or service is produced and
exchanged in a market such that organizations are rewarded for effective and
efficient control of their production systems.” This technical environment is
remarkably similar to the accountability environments for principals emphasized
by the educational and business administration approaches to managerial
activity. On the other hand, “institutional environments are, by definition,
those characterized by the elaboration of rules and requirements to which
individual organizations must conform if they are to receive support and
legitimacy.” Thus, outcomes of organizations (such as school performance or
student achievement) and individual participation in organizations (such as
principals’ instructional management activity) are not necessarily as important
in an institutional environment as they are in a technical one. This separation
of process from outcome is fundamental to neo-institutional approaches to
change and agency.
In fact,
the aspect of most interest for this discussion is the change process and,
correspondingly, which causal elements and factors lead to changes in school
management activity. Jepperson (1991) argues that environmental contexts and
collective agency are strong influences and can lead to action bringing change
through contradictions or opposition to institutionalized social elements. He
asserts that these “contradictions, or, separately, exogenous environmental
shocks, can force institutional change by blocking the activation of
reproductive procedures or by thwarting the successful completion of
reproductive procedures, thus modifying or destroying the institution”
(Jepperson 1991, p. 153). In other words, strong exogenous influences can
initiate change in institutional structures and procedures. Therefore,
isomorphism through environmental context suggests that agency is at work, but
more so at the collective than individual level.
Change,
however, must not necessarily be initiated by severe elements outside of the
institution. Although institutional forms and scripts are applied very
uniformly across many semi-public environments (e.g., schools and hospitals),
individuals and collectivities may ‘shop’ for the script or model they prefer
depending on the context and situation in which they will apply it or conform
to it. As a result, the interactive character of legitimacy-seeking is
interesting given that outcomes of institutional structures and processes often
do not change in spite of changes in form and script that may occur.
Still, the
main criticisms of this approach focuses on questions of rational choice and decision-making.
Without actors, rational choice and decision-making cannot exist, and without
the option or ability to rationally make decisions some have suggested that
neo-institutional theory does not allow for the humanity and reality of change,
growth, and even death that is empirically observable in every situation,
environment, and cultural context and in particular in the managerial activity
of school principals.
Conclusion
There is a
relationship between the larger semi-public environments within which schools
are embedded and the tasks on which organizational managers such as school
principals spend their time. Hence
variation in management activity from school to school, as well as from system
to system, is a function of the complexity of both the institutional and
technical environments of schools and schooling. In the highly charged
institutional environments of schools, management activity is driven more by
outside institutional pressures than internal concerns for technical output. This is not to say that technical output is
not part of the environmental mix for schools or is not a concern of
principals. Instead, a loosely coupled model suggests that many other
objectives occupy principals’ time and efforts, and these are often institutional
requirements from the outside (Meyer & Scott 1983).
Thus, for
example, highly centralized national bureaucracies within which schools are
situated can simplify the external environment of schools. Decentralized bureaucracies do the opposite. Principal management in the former may
require fewer legitimizing activities because so many of the institutional
demands on schools are met at a governance level above the school. An example of this would be a nationally centralized
curriculum. Political and technical
conflict over the nature of such a curriculum would more likely occur at more
centralized or national level arenas than at the local school level. In this case principals would not have to do
the work of developing and legitimating a curriculum with both the local
community and other levels of the instructional leadership. Instead, their job
would be to technically assist faculty in implementing this curriculum. This
kind of reasoning about the centralization of school bureaucracies and school
management activity leads to several assumptions: (1) the complexity of
schools' organizational environments varies cross-nationally, (2) nationally
decentralized educational systems create more complex technical environments
than centralized systems do, and (3) in more complex organizational
environments, principals spend more time managing external technical processes
of schooling. Less complex environments lead to the opposite.
In other
words, school management activity may be directed more towards external legitimacy
than internal management depending on the penetration of regional or national
level governance into local schooling and schools. This means that schools with
fewer institutional requirements and penetration can be more overtly
accommodating to local community and cultural influences. In turn, principals
in decentralized systems vary their activity more by the particular demands of
their communities and student populations than models of legitimate activity
imposed or expected by their external governing bodies. Therefore, as Fuller
and Clarke (1994) suggest, system or school level inputs and resources may
influence the categorical performance and production of school actors such as
principals, but penetration of local culture and community influences can
particularize performance and activity of those actors as well. Thus, a balance
between influences may be achieved or attempted although the level at which
each is a significant predictor of principal managerial activity may differ:
technical-rational processes dominating the school level and organizational
environment dominating the national level. In general, however, the
institutional environment of schools will have as much influence on public
school administration and management as the technical environment.
References
Astiz,
M. F., Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2002). Slouching towards
Decentralization: Consequences of Globalization for Curricular Control in
National Education Systems. Comparative Education Review, 46 (1), pp.
66-88.
Brignall,
S., & Modell, S. (2000). “An institutional perspective on performance
measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’.” Management
Accounting Research, 11: 281-306.
Campbell,
J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., III, & Weick, K. E., Jr. (1970). Managerial
Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness (
Davis,
G. F., & Powell, W. W. (1990). “Organization-Environment Relations” (pp.
315-375). In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (
DiMaggio,
P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). “The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” American
Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
Duffy,
F. M. (1996). A Practical Guide to Designing High Performance Schools (
Duffy,
F. M. (1997). “Should educational supervision be influenced by business
management practices? Yes” (pp. 202-209). In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville
(Eds), Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues, and Controversies
(
Dunnette,
M. D., Campbell, J. P., & Helervik, L. W. (1968). Job Behavior Scales
for Penney Company Department Managers (
Forssell,
A., & Jansson, D. (1996). “The logic of organizational transformation: on
the conversion of non-business organizations” (pp. 93-116). In B. Czarniawska
& G. Sevón (Eds), Translating Organizational Change (
Fuller,
B., & Clarke, P. (1994). "Raising School Effects while Ignoring
Culture? Local Conditions and the Influence of Classroom Tools, Rules, and
Pedagogy." Review of Educational Research, 64(1): 119-157.
Glassman,
R. B. (1973). “Persistence and loose coupling in living systems.” Behavioral
Science, 18: 83-98.
Grant,
D. L., Katkovsky, W., & Bray, D. W. (1967). “Contributions of projective
techniques to assessment of management potential.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 51: 226-232.
Grey,
C. (1999). “‘We are all managers now’; ‘we always were’: on the development and
demise of management.” Journal of Management Studies, 36(5): 561-585.
Hales,
C. P. (1986). “What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence.” Journal
of Management Studies, 23(1): 88-115.
Hales,
C. P. (1994). Managing through Organisation (
Hannaway,
J. (1985). “Managerial behavior, uncertainty, and hierarchy: notes toward a
synthesis.” Human Relations, 38: 1085-1100.
Hannaway,
J. (1989). Managers Managing: The Workings of an Administrative System (
Harrow,
J., & Willcocks, L. (1990). “Public services management: activities,
initiatives and limits to learning.” Journal of Management Studies,
27(3): 281-304.
Jepperson,
Ronald L. 1991. “Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism.”
Pp. 143-163 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,
edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio.
Koontz,
H. (1972). Principals of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions
(
Lau,
A. W., Pavett, C. M., & Newman, A. R. (1980, August). “The Nature of
Managerial Work: A Comparison of Public and Private Sector Jobs” (pp. 339-344).
In R. C. Huseman (Ed),
Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., & Soysal, Y. N. (1992).
World
expansion of mass education, 1870-1980. Sociology of Education, 65 (April), pp.
128-149.
Meyer,
John W. and Brian Rowan. (1977). “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal
Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American
Journal of Sociology. 83(2):340-363.
Meyer,
John W., Francisco O. Ramirez, Richard Rubinson, and John Boli-Bennett. (1977).
The World Educational Revolution, 1950-1970. Sociology of Education, 50
(4): 242-258.
Smith,
P. (1995). “Outcome-related performance indicators and organizational control
in the public sector” (pp. 192-216). In J. Holloway, J. Lewis, & G. Mallory
(Eds), Performance Measurement and Evaluation (
Stevenson,
D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1991). “State Control of the Curriculum and
Classroom Instruction.” Sociology
of Education, 64
(January), pp. 1-10.
Whitley,
R. (1988). “The management sciences and managerial skills.” Organization
Studies, 9(1): 47-68.
Wiseman,
A. W. (2001). Principals' Instructional Management Activity: A Cross-National
Analysis of
Wiseman,
A. W., Goesling, B., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Baker, D. P. (2000).
“Technical and institutional environments: A comparative analysis of principal
leadership, achievement, and national bureaucracy.” Paper presented at the 2000
Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,