1
Organizational Theories and the Development of Leadership Capacity for Integrated, Socially Just Schools
Dr. Colleen A. Capper
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Professor
Terrance L. Green
University of Wisconsin-Madison, PhD Student
The authors would like to thank Chia-Chee Chiu, PhD student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for her extensive assistance with developing the article data set and help with managing the citations.
In Press
American Educational Research Association Handbook on Leadership for Equity and Diversity
L. Tillman & J. J. Scheurich, Editors
Organizational Theoriesand the Development of Leadership Capacity for Integrated,
Socially Just Schools
The purpose of this chapter is to review the use of organizational theories in the field of educational leadership and propose how organizational theories can inform leadership for inclusive, high achieving schools and districts. To achieve this purpose, we first outline seven reasons why it is important for educational leaders and scholars whose focus is inclusive, equitable, excellence schools to be knowledgeable about organizational theories. Then, we explore what organizational theories informed the field in the past. Next, we discuss the current status of organizational theory and behavior first by examiningtexts used in leader preparation. We further examine the current status of organizational theory in the field by analyzing the conceptual frameworks that guided the last ten years of empirical studies that focus on leadership, social justice, and equity and the theories generated from those studies. In all this literature, we note the theoretical gains and gaps and how this literature can inform organizational theory and behavior in leader preparation and scholarship. We then turn to the field of organizational sciences to examine the use of critically oriented theories to glean lessons for the educational leadership field.
In the last section of the chapter, we describe the promise of criticallyoriented theories, focusing specifically on the case of critical race theories, for integrated, socially just schools. We close the paper with a suggested future research agenda for organizational theories in educational leadership and considerations for leader preparation.
Why is This Important?
Some may question why it is important for current and prospective educational leaders who care about equity and excellence to learn about organizational theories. This question may be asked especially when, as we discuss in a later section, current organizational theory texts in education and educational leadership are grounded primarily in structural functionalism and do not address the range of epistemologies and theories. Put another way, how are theories that are typically written by "white guys who are now dead based on studies of white guys who are also now dead" relevant to the complexity of leading integrated, socially just educational settings with demographically diverse students, staff, families, and community members?
In addition, current or prospective educational leaders who care about equity are well aware of the sense of urgency needed to overcome the persistent and pervasive inequities in education--that indeed, students are struggling in K-12 schools, and the entire rest of these students' existence is being determined by the decisions and non-decisions of educational leaders. Higher education leaders may also experience this sense of urgency to increase the number of typically marginalized students who can complete a postsecondary degree and whom in turn can go on to make a difference in the world. Leaders need proactive strategies and practices they can implement now in their educational settings. Young students who are struggling cannot wait. Given this dire sense of urgency, is it time well invested or wasted in understanding organizational theories?
Hatch (2011) in her text that address organizational theories across three epistemologies, argues that students of organizational theory cannot expect a simple list of "how-to's" to immediately emerge from their study of theory. She argues,
I believe a great deal of the frustration with organization theory that many students and practitioners report feeling is the result of not recognizing that the application of theory isa creative act. A belief that abstract theory can generate instant solutions to specific
problems is naïve. It is equally naïve to reject theory as having little value simply because
you have not yet learned how to use it. Theory is better suited to raising important questions at critical moments and reminding you what relevant knowledge is available, than it is to providing ready-made answers to your problems. Use theory as a tool to help you reason through complex situations; do not expect it to guarantee your success. (Hatch, p. 10).
As such, Hatch (2011) admonishes that students of organizational theory cannot expect to be "spoon fed" organizational theories and to sit back and let the instructor identify a bulleted list of leadership practices extracted from the theories. Instead, the study of organizational theories and their associated epistemologies demands a "creative act" from the student, to intellectually dig deep in the direct study of the theories and in the critical reflection about the theories as it relates to their practice.
Given this "creative act" expected of prospective and current educational leaders, we argue that these leaders should be introduced to epistemologies and their associated theories including and in addition to structural functionalism and interpretivism. In so doing, we identified seven benefits in response to the question: How can understanding organizational theories develop leader capacity for integrated, socially just educational settings?
First, studying organizational theories that extend beyond structural functionalism and interpretivism pushes students' intellectual thinking or "stretches the mind." In the introduction to their organizational theory text, Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) note, "organization theory draws on the sciences, the humanities and the arts, and so presents the intellectual challenge of thinking in interdisciplinary ways" (p. 3). Educators expect staff to routinely challenge students with a rigorous, intellectually rich curriculum. Yet, educational leaders in the midst of their day to day work may intellectually drift, and their leadership informed by a bland intellectual diet consisting of practitioner publications that most often align with status quo thinking. Because of their epistemological unconsciousness (described later), practitioners often fail to realize that is what touted as “new” or “innovative” in education, often emanates from status quo (i.e., structural functional) epistemologies. Thus, the interdisciplinary basis of organizational theories can expand equity leaders' intellectual capacity even beyond the field of education.
This critically oriented intellectual challenge and continual learning about these theories
can sustain leaders in the long haul and can alleviate burnout. In some ways, continued learning about organizational theories can be an intellectual break that is a relief from the rigors of daily equity leadership. At the same time, what leaders learn during the intellectual respite from their day to day work can inform their practice in new ways. As such, the study of organizational theories does not necessarily require leaders step out of their practice. In contrast, studying organizational theories can engage leaders in their leadership practice more deeply, and in so doing, can facilitate leaders’ mindfulness about their life and work.
Second, studying organizational theory can teach prospective educational leaders to examine the larger context, or "bigger picture" in which their work is taking place. Being able to step back from the day to day micro leading can help leaders not take personally the inevitable resistance to their social justice efforts (Theoharis, 2007). Being able to step back from day to day leading and examine the larger context of the educational setting can also help leaders see their educational setting as a complex system of inter-related aspects. In so doing, taking a larger perspective on their educational setting as an organization can help leaders see how the different aspects of the organization do and should work together. Understanding differing epistemologies and their associated theories can help leaders "chunk" or mentally organize into coherent groups different aspects of the educational setting. For example, when considering moving toward more equitable outcomes, leaders can consider politics, culture, and structure among other organizational aspects. Hatch (2011) concurs with this benefit of understanding organizational theories and writes that organizational theory " . . . illustrates the power of abstraction—using concepts allows you to consider large blocks of knowledge at once, a handy capacity to have when your daily activity demands that you understand and stay abreast of developments within a complex entity such as an organization" (p. 10).
Related, possessing an understanding of organizational theories and their originating epistemologies can help leaders see the epistemological similarities across seemingly differing phenomena within their educational setting, and in so doing can be aware of and do something about contradictions in practice. For example, some principals include students with disabilities, but exclude or segregate students who are bilingual and even while doing so, claim they are an inclusive school. Likewise, some educational leaders claim they are an inclusive school while including some students with disabilities and segregating other students with disabilities. A third example in public school settings is applying strict punishment to students who make a racially offensive comment, but ignoring students who make comments such as "that's so gay." One explanation for these contradictions in leadership practice is the inability of leaders to see the conceptual and philosophical similarities in practice across student differences, or to see the ways their practice contradicts their equity beliefs.
Third, having an understanding of organizational theories and their associated epistemologies can provide leaders that care about equity and excellence with the intellectual and analytical tools to be able to dissect and make sense of the complexities of their work. Hatch (2011) agrees with this benefit, and testifies that "Organizational theory has helped me time and again to analyze complicated situations in the organizations with which I have worked, and to discover or invent effective and creative means for dealing with them” (p. 3).
Fourth, understanding organizational theories from a range of different epistemologies can provide a new set of introspective lenses for educational leaders. Indeed, educational leaders can learn that the act of introspection itself is conducted differently and demands a different set of questions of the self, depending on which epistemological lens the leader is using. Hatch (2011) explains this iterative process between the personal and theoretical further:
As your pool of concepts and theories expands, you will find yourself analyzing your
experiences in new ways, for instance, by relating experiences that you never before
thought of as related, or by seeing hidden or disregarded aspects of a situation in which youwere involved. In other words, use your personal experience to develop concepts withwhich you can understand or build theories, and then use your concepts and theories tobetter understand your experiences. This sort of give and take between theoretical understandingand personal experience is essential to the development of your theorizing skillsof abstraction, reasoning and application as well as to your knowledge of organizations andorganizing. (p. 9)
As such, organizational theories can serve as a means for equity leaders to engage in their work, not as distant administrators, but to recognize their leadership as autobiographical; that how leaders lead is deeply reflective of their own life.
Fifth, understanding organizational theories across epistemologies can help leaders become conscious of the epistemologies that guide their values and leadership practices. This epistemological consciousness can help leaders realize that they have been living and working from particular epistemological perspectives, or have evolved through perspectives, and that those perspectives have a distinct name. This epistemological consciousness also helps leaders identify and gain support from others who lead or live from similar perspectives.
At the same time, this epistemological self consciousness helps leaders to begin to understand the epistemologies that inform the values and actions of others. Hence, for example, when leaders experience resistance to their equity efforts, rather than viewing the resistance as personal either to the leader or from the individuals who resist, and rather than viewing the resistance from others as monolithic and immutable, leaders can understand the epistemological similarities and differences in the resistance to help guide their decisions in how to respond and how to be proactive. Related, having an understanding of epistemological orientations that may differ from your own preferred orientations, can help equity leaders be less fearful of and to be able to find avenues of collaboration with individuals who take epistemological perspectives that may differ from their own.
Sixth, learning about varying epistemologies and their associated theories can help leaders realize there are commonalities across all organizations, regardless of purpose or structure (e.g., from the Epic medical record corporation based in Verona, Wisconsin to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting that meets once a week in a church basement). The formation and function of nearly all organizations, regardless of moral purpose, requires consideration of human resources, a structure, a decision-making process, roles and responsibilities, and a culture among others. Having an understanding about these similarities and differences can motivate equity leaders to learn from others about their organizations, how they work, how people are rewarded or motivated, the unique culture of that organization, how people are trained, hired, supported, how diversity and difference is addressed or not, if the organization has a goal to make society better or not, how leadership is addressed and cultivated and how all these aspects vary by country or geographic location in the US. Educational leaders for social justice can benefit from learning about these different organizations, profit and non profit, loosely structured, and not--lessons that can inform the leading of integrated, socially just educational settings.
Finally, knowing critically oriented and postmodern theories and epistemologies can help equity leaders understand that there are common experiences across leaders working toward equity and excellence. These shared experiences can be generalized across equity leaders and contribute to theories about this experience; that what the equity leader is doing or experiencing is not some isolated situation. This shared understanding can move leaders beyond the sense of being an "N of 1" individual, isolated as a social justice leader making this particular equity decision. Instead, a web of epistemological and theoretical interconnectedness can be woven among equity oriented leaders. In this way, for example, equity leaders can know that how the change process unfolds in their settings may not be a random happening of events, but is somewhat predictable based on others' experiences.
In sum, understanding organizational theories and their associated epistemologies can significantly contribute to developing leader capacity for integrated, socially just schools. As importantly, educational leadership research could be strengthened with the use and further development of critically oriented organizational theories. Given this relevancy context, we next discuss the status of organizational theory in the past and present.
Organizational Theories That Informed the Field in the Past
Two decades ago, Nicolaides and Gaynor (1992) examined " . . . the knowledge base of administrative and organizational theory that currently informs doctoral administrator preparation programs in the member universities of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA)" (p. 240). After soliciting syllabi from faculty who teach organizational theory in the 50 universities that were UCEA members at the time, the authors narrowed their review to 36 syllabi, (11 of these syllabi were courses taught by white women). They concluded that
… the course content [of these syllabi] subscribes to a perspective that socializes graduates intellectually and theoretically to mainstream interpretations of educational administration . . . [T]eaching in these courses is limited to topics and themes shaped by traditional perspectives. . . . Alternative perspectives . . . were neither systematically or consistently incorporated into the courses examined. Issues such as those dealing with race, gender, ethnicity, and social class were underrepresented (Nicolaides & Gaynor, 1992, p. 262-263).
More specifically, Nicolaides and Gaynorfound that "only 5 ofthe 36 syllabi" addressed gender (p. 256). Only a few of the syllabi cited authors wrote from perspectives other than structural functionalism (e.g., interpretive or critical theories), and only 1 syllabus addressed leaders of color (Nicolaides & Gaynor, 1992, p. 256). The authors also noticed a trend toward critical theory was moreapparent in the readings, course objectives, and topical outlines prepared bythe 11 female professors than in the majority of those developed by the 55 male professors. All 11 female professors participating in the study includedtopics, subtopics, and required readings on women as educators, though these readings were only of white women (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Lincoln, 1985; Shakeshaft, 1987; Silver, 1978), and only a few women addressed individuals of color. In sum, Nicolaides and Gaynor agreed with Griffiths (1988) in stating that "one finds the same kind of theory being espoused as 24 years ago--positivism" (p. 48, cited in Nicolaides Gaynor, 1992, p. 238). Now fast forward to 2012, two decades after Nicolaides and Gaynor’s study, and nearly a half-century (44 years) after the time span of Griffith’s 1988 review, have the organizational theories that inform the field today moved beyond positivism?
Organizational Theories That Currently Inform the Field
We reviewed the most recent book lists of publishers of organizational theory texts (e.g., Sage, Open University, Charles C. Thomas, Temple University Press, Prentice-Hall, Allyn and Bacon, Scott Foresman, Jossey-Bass, Routledge, State University of New York Press, Lawrence Erblaum, Oxford University Press, Falmer, Wadsworth,and Pearson) and informally talked with colleagues in the field about the organizational theory texts used in their programs. Texts generally adopted for the teaching of organizational theory and behavior in educational leader preparation draw from literature on(a) organizations in general (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Morgan, 1997; Perrow, 1986; Pfeffer, 1997), (b) education (Earle & Kruse, 1999; Owens & Valesky, 2010), and (c) educational administration (Hanson, 2003; Hoy & Miskel, 2007). Other related texts focus on one set of theories, such as those associated with leadership (Northouse, 2010) or organizations and their environments (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1986).Several texts provide a compendium of previously published theories in organizational theory, called "classics" (Matteson & Ivanevich, 1981; Shafrit, Ott, & Jang, 2010).