1
ORGANIZATION AS FILTER OF INSTITUTIONAL DIFFUSION
The Organizationas a Filter of Institutional Diffusion
Kenneth A. Frank*
Michigan State University
William R. Penuel*
University of Colorado
Min Sun
Virginia Tech
Chong Min Kim
NorthwesternUniversity
Corinne Singleton
SRI International
*Co-equal authorship for first two authors
Corresponding author: Kenneth A. Frank, Professor of Measurement and Quantitative Methods,Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education and of Fisheries and Wildlife. Room 462 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI 48824-1034; phone: 517-355-9567 fax: 517-353-6393; ;
This work has been supported by National Science Foundation grants #0231981 and #0624307. All opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the authors. We wish to thank core members of the data collection and analysis team for their efforts in making these analyses possible: Christine Korbak, Judi Fusco, Christopher Hoadley, Joel Galbraith, Amy Hafter, Aasha Joshi, Amy Lewis, Margaret Riel, Willow Sussex, and Devin Vodicka.
Abstract
In contrast to conceptualizations of institutions as uniformly penetrating permeable organizational boundaries, we attend to how the effects of institutions on workplace behaviors can be mediated by intra-organizational social networks. In the example, the effects of institutional pressure on teachers to adopt a skills-based approach to reading instruction are mediated by interactions with colleagues within schools, especially members of cohesive subgroups. These social dynamics accentuate initial differences in instructional practices among subgroups, creating challenges for organizational coordination and adding nuance to conceptualization of institutions as uniformly affecting practice.
1
1
ORGANIZATION AS FILTER OF INSTITUTIONAL DIFFUSION
The Organization as a Filter of Institutional Diffusion
A recurring finding in studies of institutional diffusion and change is that even though institutional pressures may be similar for organizations in a field, the same institutional forces can result in divergent organizational outcomes (e.g., Scott, 2008). In this study, we add to this body of research by exploring how the organization as an institution (Williamson, 1981) filters the effects of other institutions on workplace practice. In particular, we focus on how intra-organizational networks contribute to organizational response to external pressure (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Kilduff & Tsai, 2003).
Our empirical analysis focuses on how teachers shape one another’s responses to a new institutional regime for reading instruction. The regime, instituted formally through federal policies and regulations, encouraged teachers to adhere to an evidence-based approach to developing students’ basic skills in reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). Importantly, the schools in our study were not subject to legal requirements that compelled them to follow this new approach, but as we show, individual teachers did change their practices after it became federal policy. To preview the main finding from our study, teachers’ practices did not conform exclusively to the new regime but rather depended on exposure to external professional development in reading instruction and on local norms of practice in their schools and collegial subgroups.
Below, we elaborate a theoretical account of how normative pressures shape the diffusion of institutions within organizations that can help explain this pattern of results. We then present our empirical example featuring institutions for teaching reading and describe our data and measures. We specify multilevel models to estimate the extent to which teachers’ responses to external forces depended on exposure to professional development external to the school, peers in the school, and subgroup members. The subgroup effects were estimated from our data on teachers’ social networks, providing empirical work in response to recent calls for the integration of network analysis into organizational research (Brass, et al., 2004; Kilduff & Tsai, 2003; Kilduff, Tsai, & Hanke, 2006). We conclude by considering how teachers’ inclinations to conform to local professional norms can create divergent responses and emergent, school-level patterns that conflict with the policy goals that aim for coherent, consistent teaching practices.
The Organization as Filter of Institutional Forces on Workplace Behavior
Assuming organizations are exposed in some measure to external institutions, the goal of our study is to understand how workers within organizations respond to external institutions. In particular, we focus on how organizations structure social networks that filter individual responses to institutional pressures. These networks are salient because they provide relevant resources for complex, locally adapted production, such as teaching (e.g., Bidwell, 1965; Authors, 2004). For example, a teacher may draw on her colleagues for knowledge of how to implement new practices given the types of students in her school, other elements of the curriculum, etc.
Importantly, the organization establishes the context for an exchange of knowledge for compliance. A worker possessing knowledge may share it to gain status in the organization (Blau, 1964) and so that others may implement new practices that contribute to organizational productivity or legitimacy (Authors, 2004). The worker accessing knowledge conforms to organizational norms to maintain her personal legitimacy and standing in the organizational social system. For example, a junior teacher may conform to the norms of others in exchange for accessing their local knowledge of how to implement the curriculum, improve classroom management, or navigate school politics.
To say that production workers’ networks affect their responses to institutional pressures may seem straightforward(e.g., Scott, 2008). Itconflicts, however, with Meyer’s (2008) claim that “institutionalized forces usually diffuse more as cultural waves than through point to point diffusion” (p. 805). The difference has important implications for institutional diffusion, as our conceptualization implies that a worker’s response will depend on the norms to which she is exposed in her network and the resources that inhere in her network(Kilduff, et al., 2006). In turn, organizational response will depend on how organizationsdistribute relevant resources and convey norms.The challenge for our analysis is then to characterize the mechanisms through which institutional norms permeate organizations. Before turning to this task we characterize in more detail the changing institutional pressures on schools and teachers in the United States.
Changing Institutional Pressures on Schools and Teachers in the United States
Early institutional accounts of schools portrayed them as organizations capable of exerting very little normative pressure on teachers, especially with respect to their instructional practices. For example, Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that schools build gaps between their formal structures and actual work activities, leading to a “loose coupling” of the formal and informal organization. Forms of loose coupling documentedin the 1970s include minimal observation or monitoring of the performance of work, making goals ambiguous and hard to measure, and making inspection and evaluation activities “ceremonial”(Bidwell, 1965; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer, Scott, & Deal, 1981; Weick, 1976).
One aspect of loose coupling has been supported by cultural norms of teaching. Institutions concerning teaching practice may not have succeeded in penetrating classrooms in the past because they encountered competing professional institutions concerning norms of privacy and autonomy. For example, Lortie (1975) described teaching as an isolated profession, in which he likened teachers in schools to eggs in an egg crate, each teacher conducting her practice in a self-contained classroom with little need to interact with other teachers. He emphasized that the physical and social organization of schools supported norms of privacy, the obligation not to interfere in colleagues’ instructional decision making, and the idea of teaching as a highly individualized craft. Though a number of researchers began—during a wave of reform focused on school restructuring—to emphasize the potential of greater collaboration on instructional matters as a way to overcome these norms (Rowan, 1990), that wave produced in most schools contrived forms of collegiality that did little to undercut norms of privacy and autonomy (Glidewell, Tucker, Todt, & Cox, 1983; Hargreaves, 1991; Little, 1990).
Accountability-based reform as a policy challenge to loose coupling. In the past two decades, a new institutional force of accountability has emerged in education. For example, in the mid 1990’s accountability-based programs were widely adopted by states (Elmore, Abelmann, & Fuhrman, 1996). Such programs have enjoyed bipartisan support among policymakers since that time, because they address multiple goals of concern to people across a wide political spectrum, including the need to monitor progress toward providing equal opportunity and outcomes for children of color and children living in poverty and the need to provide citizens with data on whether schools they support with their tax dollars support are achieving high standards (Hess & Petrilli, 2006). The low cost of testing regimes relative to the costs of other policies (e.g., new curriculum or professional development initiatives) and ability to render outcomes of schools visible to the public also facilitated the rise of accountability-based reforms(Linn, 2000).
The new institution of accountability struck at the very heart of loose-coupling, because greater accountability linked community interests to observable outcomes that are a function of teacher behaviors and collaboration (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003; O'Day, 2002). Indeed, a number of new organizational roles and routines have emerged in the last fifteen to twenty years in response to the push for accountability. For example, routines focused on the examination of student achievement data became common, especially those that look at patterns by student subgroups, which are the focus of attention in the current federal accountability system (Anderson, Leithwood, & Strauss, 2010; Means, Padilla, DeBarger, & Bakia, 2009; Wayman, Midgley, & Stringfield, 2006).
Policy attempts to influence teaching practice. Although most accountability-based reforms have not historically made specific demands on teachers’ pedagogical practices (Hess & Petrilli, 2006; O'Day, 2002), concurrent with the emergence of higher-stakes, federally-mandated accountability in the United States has been an unusual level of coherence in federal reading policy. This coherence formed around a National Research Council report (National Reading Panel, 2000) that focused reading instruction on the basic skills required to decode print, especially phonological awareness and phonics. Soon after the publication of the report, states passed reading initiatives that reflected its recommendations (Allington, 2001; Miskel & Song, 2004). Significantly, the panel report came at the culmination of a period characterized by “the reading wars,” which pitted alternative approaches to teaching reading against one another (Pearson, 2004), and the policy shift coincided with the passage of the federal No ChildLeft Behind Act (NCLB), which created a federal system of accountability for schools and districts.
NCLB established new programs and resources to incentivize schools—especially those serving low-income students—to adopt curriculum materials consistent with the panel report’s recommendations. The Reading First program authorized by NCLB became the primary supplementary resource for funding professional development activities and curricula in reading for schools eligible for federal assistance from this program. Schools in the program were required to adopt reading curricula that focused on core reading skills identified in the consensus report of the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel, 2000). In interpreting and enacting the law’s mandate, the U.S. Department of Education privileged programs that emphasized skills-based reading instruction that taught students primarily how to decode print (e.g., phonics-based instruction; U.S. Department of Education, 2006)
The confluence of accountability-based reform and a coherent vision for change in reading instruction. The confluence of a coherent vision for instructional change with heightened accountability constituted a new “regulatory regime” (Schneiberg & Clemens, 2006) that defined both specific norms and constraints on action, a hallmark of institutionalization (Meyer, Boli, & Thomas, 1994). Thus emerged, in 2002 with the passage of new laws and funding for reading programs aligned to this regime’s goals, a new, potentially powerful institutional wave in reading, a wave that if past history is a guide, could be expected to crest between 3 and 5 years (Cuban, 1990). Thus our study, featuring data collected in the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years is ideally situated to measure the impacts of the institutional wave associated with the new regime in reading.
In the next section we develop a set of hypotheses concerning how institutional norms diffuse from the national level ultimately into the school. We begin with a baseline hypothesis concerning the effects of professional development. We then move to effects attributable to the school, the more novel effects concerning intra-school processes, and their implication for variable effects over time.
Factors Affecting Teachers’ Responses to Institutional Forces
Absent specific prescriptions for behaviors, institutions created at the national level need some mechanism of conveyance to affect worker productivity at the local level. For some institutional fields, mass media is an important mechanism (Scott, 2008). But, even though teaching quality is sometimes the focus of mass media attention (e.g., Felch, Song, & Smith, 2010), teachers’ specific practices are rarely the subject of mass media.
Teaching practices are largely influenced by organizations that make up what is sometimes called the “school improvement industry” (Rowan, 2002). This refers to the constellation of organizational actors, many of which are in the private for-profit and nonprofit sectors, and which provide curriculum materials and professional development services to schools. Of these actors, those organizations that provide content-focused professional development are most critical to changing practices, because they provide models for how to implement new approaches to teaching (Cohen & Hill, 2000, 2001). These organizations thus serve as an important conduit between national institutions and the organizational boundary of the school. Furthermore, while providing professional development content, professional developers can convey normative messages about goals for teaching and the best strategies for reaching those goals (Zwart, Wubbels, Bergen, & Bolhuis, 2009). These are likely to be messages that align with emerging regimes for instruction (e.g., basic skills), because such alignment contributes to the legitimacy of these organizational actors’ activities. Therefore we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1:The more a teacher receives professional development in reading instruction, the more the teacher will implement basic-skills instruction consistent with current institutional norms.
Note that although professional development typically occurs outside of the school we consider it on the organizational boundary of the school, because the school chooses most professional development providers and has considerable influence over participation in professional development (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).
If an institutional force has penetrated a school via a few teachers’ participation in professional development, the question arises as to how and why other members of the school would adopt similar practices. First, many teachers may feel a strong identification with their school, and this identification may create a strong motivation to conform to others, to preserve standing in the community (Akerlof & Kranton, 2010). Second, teachers may form a tight-knit, cohesive community that perceive a high level of collective responsibility for improvement, making outright resistance to faculty who bring new resources or ideas about teaching unlikely (Authors, 2009). Our second hypothesis then is:
Hypothesis 2:When a teacher’s school conforms to institutional norms regarding skills-based reading instruction, that teacher will implement similar practices.
This hypothesis might seem straightforward from the perspective of organizational identification(Akerlof & Kranton, 2010). But in this context, the hypothesis explicitly recognizes the role of organizational members in mediating the diffusion of institutions defined external to the school.
Within schools, previous research suggests that informal subgroups or cliques can play important roles in defining salient norms (Authors, 2005; Yasumoto, Uekawa, & Bidwell, 2001). The dense ties within subgroups contribute to norms to which subgroup members are likely to feel compelled to respond(Burt, 2005; Buskens, 1998; Coleman, 1990; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993), because subgroup members serve as a basis of reference (Merton, 1957) or identity (Akerlof & Kranton, 2010). Indeed, informal norms emphasizing conformity to colleagues are critical to the functioning of many organizations (Nadel, 1957; Nee & Ingram, 1998; Simmel, 1955; Weber, 1922/1947). In our example, a teacher might increase her emphasis on basic skills if she is a member of a subgroup focused around basic skills practices and materials. Our third hypothesis relates to subgroups:
Hypothesis 3: The more a teacher’s subgroup members implement basic-skills instruction, the more she will implement similar practices.
Critically, this hypothesis implies that an underlying structuring of stable relations, in terms of subgroups, can anticipate the implementation of new innovations (Authors, 2005). Thus though workers may be influenced by different members of their subgroups, subgroup members nonetheless provide a dynamic stability (Kilduff, et al., 2006) concerning how workers respond to forces exogenous to their organizations.
Together our second and third hypotheses imply that processes by which individuals induce cooperation and conformity in others mediate the diffusion of institutions. One counter argument is that institutional norms are conveyed by direct and frequent interaction. It may be that simply being “in the air” of the subgroup or school does not produce sufficient normative pressure to change practices. Indeed, past empirical research suggests that teachers are likely to conform to those teachers with whom they have direct interaction on matters related to instructional (Authors, 2004; Authors, 2006). Therefore we evaluate our second and third hypotheses with and without controlling for exposure to colleagues’ practices through direct interaction.
Although the diffusion of the institution as we have described it may seem natural and uneventful, it has implications for the distribution of teaching practices within schools. Namely, if teachers conform to school norms (as specified in hypothesis 2) and there are initial differences across schools, then we would expect divergence in practices among schools as teachers within schools become more similar to one another and teachers between schools become more different from one another. The social influences within the school essentially create a multiplier effect (Becker & Murphy, 1990), which has been demonstrated for divergence of crime rates by city precincts (Glaeser, Sacerdote Scheinkman, 1996) as well as math course taking among adolescents within high schools (Authors, 2008), and which amplifies initial differences between different social contexts. Thus we hypothesize: