Institutional theorists assert that the institutional environment can strongly influence the development of formal structures in an organization, often more profoundly than market pressures. Innovative structures that improve technical efficiency in early-adopting organizations are legitimized in the environment. Ultimately these innovations reach a level of legitimization where failure to adopt them is seen as "irrational and negligent" (or they become legal mandates). At this point new and existing organizations will adopt the structural form even if the form doesn't improve efficiency. This statement alone depicts many schools across the country where efficiency is often marked by graduation completion rates or standardized testing results. The bureaucratic structures that pervade schools of today are unique unto themselves as they must cater to a specific ethnic group, academic goal or developing a school culture that generates pride for ones school.
Meyer and Rowan argue that often these "institutional myths" are merely accepted ceremoniously in order for the organization to gain or maintain legitimacy in the institutional environment. Organizations adopt the "vocabularies of structure" prevalent in their environment such as specific job titles, procedures, and organizational roles. The adoption and prominent display of these institutionally-acceptable "trappings of legitimacy" help preserve an aura of organizational action based on "good faith". Legitimacy in the institutional environment helps ensure organizational survival. John Meyer and Brian Rowan, in particular, have done much to bring legitimacy back on the radar in their analysis of organizational and institutional myths.
Meyer and Rowan argue that institutions are legitimate not because they are efficient or provide in actuality what they say they do (Meyer and Rowan, 1983). Rather, institutions and organizations often do not map onto their blueprint, but become legitimized by reinforced practices, customs and rituals that have little to do with efficiency. In my opinion, this perspective of the importance of efficiency that is presented by Meyer and Rowan is interesting because it highlights expectations of such things like standardized testing results. Speaking from experience, as a teacher who teaches a standardized diploma exam; it can be extremely stressful in garnering the necessary results that your administration desires. This type of bureaucratic top down theory brings forth two types of teachers, one that “teaches” to the exam to garner the best results or the other that attempts to create a better rounded student. What would you choose? According to Meyer and Rowan, you would opt for the prior but in the grand scheme of creating the ideal student and teacher you want both. So, in a sense you are stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
As such, the question remains is this top down bureaucracy and efficiency expectation the ideal way to build a schools structure. My thought process on this is a follows these formal structures of legitimacy can reduce efficiency and hinder the organization's competitive position in their technical environment. To reduce this negative effect, organizations often will decouple their technical core from these legitimizing structures. Organizations will minimize or ceremonialize evaluation and neglect program implementation to maintain external (and internal) confidence in formal structures while reducing their efficiency impact. The organization of a school and the people that work within it need flexibility and this mentality is important to the foundation of a good school. This course has so far shown me that organization can be structured but at the same time their has been an evolution of sorts within teaching communities. For instance, projects like our Alberta Initiative on School Improvement (otherwise known as our AISI project), has created a linkage between educators for collaboration. The mentality of reinventing the wheel has gone by the wayside and technology has helped to create a globalized teacher that is connected to colleagues across the province. This has influenced my instructional goals as it has shown me that we as teachers who used to sit in our own little classrooms are “no longer alone”. This project is just one way that we have begun to develop a better classroom teacher and ultimately a better student.
To conclude, it is still important to understand that what Meyer and Rowan argue is fundamentally true, as a leader of a school you must as was highlighted in a song by Johnny Cash…”walk the line”…to create a school that models a efficiency and structure but also allows for the flexibility within the school to create its own identity. This study is ongoing as society changes, so will school identity, structure and culture. As school leaders, we will always be looking for the next best idea to enhance our classrooms and allowing for innovation within our schools will only enhance the development of our society as a whole.
References Cited:
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1983). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. Meyer, B. Rowan, & T. E. Deal (Eds.), Organizational environments ritual and rationality). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Owens, Robert G and Valesky, Thomas C. (2007). Organizational Behavior in Education: Adaptive Leadership and School Reform, 9th Edition. Publisher: Pearson Education Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment