Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.

Organizational Theory:
Around the Block Again? Moving Forward? Or Both?

KAREN SEASHORE LOUIS

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SERVICES - UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Abstract: Tracing organizational theory (OT) early framings (Perrow, 1970) to more recent applications in schools, this essay suggests
organizational change may be a productive central focus for future OT thinking. Positing that organizations exist so that mutually agreed
upon outcomes may be generated; it is argued that discovering how learning occurs within school organizations has the potential to in-
crease understanding concerning the outcomes of work in school organizations. The work concludes with a call for the field to move
beyond the development of a theory of school organization to a focus on theorizing around the core issues that school leaders face in
order to provide direction toward achieving valued outcomes.

Louis, K. (2015). Organizational theory: Around the block again? Moving forward? Or both? Journal of Organizational Theory in Education
1(1). Retrieved from www.organizationaltheoryineducation.com.

In the Beginning... behavior and sociological studies of bureaucracy.

Most sociologists point to Max Weber’s description of
the basic functions and structures of a bureaucracy as
the invention of organizational theory (Weber, 1968).
Others credit the Functions of the Executive, which laid
out a social psychological theory of the structures and
behaviors that would induce people to cooperate to
achieve a goal set by formal supervisors (Barnard,
1968). Political scientists and economists entered the
organizational theory scene as they began to value
studies of public administration as well as electoral
bodies (Boulding, 1952; Smithburg, 1951), while eth-
nographers jumped on the new bandwagon with de-
scriptive studies such as Dynamics of Bureaucracy and
Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (Blau, 1955; Gouldner,
1954). The Administrative Science Quarterly (arguably the
premier journal publishing empirical organizational
theory research) was launched in 1956, which suggests
that the middle of the last century was a turning point
for the development of a “field” of organizational the-
ory that was distinguished from a slightly longer tradi
-tion of research around administrative and employee
During these early years, however, the study of
schools as organizations was quite limited. Education as a
research field was dominated by psychologists and a
focus on child development well beyond the nascence
of OT. Although a few articles that reflected the in-
creasing interest in organizational structures appeared
in major educational journals starting in the mid-
1950s, much of the focus was on the increasing reor-
ganization of school districts rather than theorizing
schools (or school districts) as organizations. The
Educational Administration Quarterly, founded in 1961,
was created to provide a better niche for investiga-
tions of school organization, but like all new journals
took some time to become established. During the
time when I was in graduate school (late 1960s and
early 1970s), organizational theory was a core feature
of the sociology curriculum, but its application to
schools and educational organizations was still limited.
Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.
Fragmentation in Organizational Theory
Although OT’s history is relatively brief, it has been
theoretically fragmented from its earliest days, as al-
ternatives to Weber’s focus on bureaucracy and struc-
ture emerged. Some saw changes in OT as evolution-
ary. Perrow (1970), for example, identified four de-
velopment strands (classical management theory, hu-
man relations, neo-Weberian, institutional theory), a
view that privileged a particular structural perspective.
Another sociologist, Richard Scott, adopted a compati-
ble framework in 1981, but labeled the different phases
“rational” “natural” and “open systems” theories (Scott,
1968).
Other disciplines contributed divergent perspec-
tives that didn’t fit neatly into an evolutionary frame-
work. Smircich (1983) proposed a cultural perspective
on organizations, while Pfeffer (1981) argued equally
strongly for a perspective that focused on power. Para-
digm diversity rather than easy consensus became the
norm. By the 1990s, Morgan’s popular Images of Organi-
zation (1991), shaped the teaching of organizational the-
ory along with Bolman and Deal’s (2003) “frame analy-
sis,” which identified four dominant paradigms in OT:
human relations, structural, political, and symbolic.
Perhaps because Bolman and Deal’s text was so acces-
sible (and was initially developed while teaching a class
at the Harvard Graduate School of Education), the “let
a thousand flowers bloom” perspective quickly domi-
nated introductory courses to OT in many departments
of educational leadership and administration. It would
be difficult not to agree with Pfeffer’s (1993) observa-
tion that “In general, the field of organizational studies
is characterized by a fairly low level of paradigm de-
velopment, particularly as compared to some adjacent
social sciences such as psychology, economics, and
even political science” (p. 607).
In sum, within 40 years the new-ish field of OT had
splintered, and the application of this theory to educa-
tion became equally fraught. Any hopes that a unifying
theory of how schools could be better organized col-
lapsed: Even a cursory examination of publications
from the 1980s and early 1990s in highly regarded edu-
cation journals or books that purported to deal with the
intersection of OT and schooling reveals that some fo-
cused on politics (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sharon,
1990; Barnett, 1984), others on structure (Rowan,
Raudenbush, & Kang, 1991; Tyler, 1985). Some em-
phasized the importance of culture and/or norms
(Cheng, 1993), while others, like Hoy & Woolfolk
10
(1993) adopted a human relations/social psychological
perspective. Still others used an institutional frame-
work that looked at commonalities in “real
school” (Rowan & Miskel, 1999)or the common
“grammar of schooling “ (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). At
the same time, additional theoretical perspectives on
school organization began to emerge that would gain
increasing traction in educational OT, although having
less impact in the OT field more broadly: (1) school
effectiveness research (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000), and
(2) critical theory, including post-modernism (Maxcy,
1995)1 and critical race theory, which examines the or-
ganizational residues of past injustice (Tate, 1997).2
Simplicity amid Complexity
The proliferation of different organizational theory par-
adigms in educational research has had less impact on
published research, where limited sets of frameworks
are apparent. First, sociological perspectives, both
quantitative and qualitative, continue to dominate over
those contributed by other disciplines (law, anthropolo-
gy, social psychology). This is not surprising, because it
reflects the general state of organization theory as re-
flected in journals such as Organization Science, Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, or the Academy of Management
journals. Within this general framework, priority is giv-
en to:
 School or department as the unit of analysis;
 Questions such as "Why is the school organized the
way it is?" and "What are the effects of school or-
ganization on [student performance, change, etc.]?”
 Structure and /or climate/culture as the focus of study
These priorities are apparent not only in research
that is implicitly or explicitly functionalist in perspec-
tive, but also in investigations that adopt a critical per-
spective. For example, even challenges to an old-
school rational model of school behavior, such as
Weick's (1976) classic article on loose coupling, were
predominantly functionalist in their assumption that
organizational goals are best met by structures that do
not look like a "classical Weberian bureaucracy" but are
modified webs or networks. The notion that hierarchy
is being replaced by networked organizations persists as
a theme in studies of both schools and other kinds of
organizations, but the questions associated with net-
worked analyses typically focus on questions that are
related to the functionalist assumptions indicated
Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.
above. To give just one example, the accumulating
work on networked schools and districts has focused
on the relationship between network structures inside
organizational units and information use/change (Daly
& Finnigan, 2011; Finnigan & Daly, 2012). While the
assumptions about structure are different, the underly-
ing question (relationship between structure and out-
come) are classic, and have been incorporated into criti-
cal organizational perspectives on race and class in U.S.
schools (Diamond, 2006; Oakes, 1985).
The dominant models in educational have been
serviceable, adaptable and have produced a lot of good
research, as well as quite a few "useful" findings. For
example, the extensive implementation research studies
conducted in the 70s and early 80s have deeply affected
the structures and programs that educators attend to
when they design and put innovations into place. To-
day, investigations of professional community and com-
munities of practice (along with other work on adult
cultures within schools) have shifted the attention of
administrators away from the “hygiene” conditions of
teachers’ work to considerations about how structures
foster social and professional support, while research
on school cultures has resulted in extensive professional
development programs that are designed to sensitize
educators to institutional racism.
Organizational Theory: So, If It Ain’t
Broke, Why Fix It?
Even though the structural-functional perspective dom-
inates, its limitations are also apparent in the empirical
research that has emerged over the last several decades
– much of which has made use of the multiplicity of
paradigms in ways that do not pose an overt challenge
as much as a nagging sense of inconsistency.
Critical theory, although often conducted within a
structural functional framework, provides an explicit
challenge to the assumptions that (1) we can find good
models to explain the sources of “the Gap” (or other
indicators in inequality), which means that (2) we can
find the mechanisms (structures and programs) to re-
dress them. Instead, it is argued that racism (or other
assumptions about class or gender) is so deeply embed-
ded in our institutions that they require more than
tweaking structural and cultural components that can be
easily identified. A critical theory perspective may re-
quire looking at the socio-political context differently,
concentrating (for example) on ideology, technology,
and praxis in new ways (Steffy & Grimes, 1986).
11
However, this is still largely an empty cell in OT: a
JSTOR search for the intersection between
“organizational theory” and “critical theory” found
fewer than 100 published articles.
In education, a “humanistic” argument that focus-
es on human and community needs has been a part of
conversations for some time (Beck, 1994; Noddings,
1992; Passow, 1954), but has not had a deep impact
on organization theory. Murphy and Torre (2014)
bring the issue back into the conversation but are fo-
cused more on praxis than on organization theory.
Organization theory has, in general, failed to include a
community needs or communitarian perspective, alt-
hough it points to a needed value dimension to the
study of organizations that are inherently value-laden
and cultural artifacts (Morrill, 2008). However, neither
community nor culture has provided a basis for build-
ing a radically new organizational theory—community
and culture address some of the value goals of educa-
tion, but not all. A value-based organizational theory
needs to incorporate some attention to competing de-
mands for different kinds of goal attainment (a public
values approach) that so vividly differentiate the educa-
tional sector from many others. Community and cul-
ture as metaphors for a theory do not facilitate action to
address these demands.
Finally, a significant challenge, perhaps best exem-
plified by the work of Margaret Wheatley (1992, 1996),
suggests that OT should be recast around a basis of
chaos theory. The core paradigm for organizational
research that has dominated education "works" in set-
tings where rates of expected change are moderate.
However, it does not necessarily apply in situations
where the demands for change are unremitting and de-
manding of "third order change.” Drawing attention to
uncertainty builds on micro-political and “garbage can"
theories that argue that schools work/don't work be-
cause of their non-rational character and the competing
demands and interests mentioned above. While I enjoy
reading this work, it has had very limited impact on OT.
Most micro-political work ignores large-scale uncertain-
ty (preferring a focus on power regimes rather than cha-
os and power vacuums), and the applications of the
“garbage can” to OT have been relatively minimal, ex-
cept in the analysis of internal organizational dynamics.
Thus, in spite of their popularity, we have limited em-
pirical evidence of their utility in an increasingly uncer-
tain world. In addition, they ignore values for the most
part (and thus do not address the above challenge); and
they provide a limited basis for quasi-rational action,
except the mild assertions that the accumulation of a-
Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.
rational, self-interested behaviors will be positive (or at
least non-detrimental) in the long run.
A Central Problem and Question for OT
Although these challenges are real, I suggest that their
primary importance is because they draw our attention
to the matter of organizational purpose or outcomes.
As organizational theorists, we may or may not be com-
fortable with the current focus on measureable student
achievement as the determinant of organizational value.
However, we generally accept that OT exists because
organizations are expected to DO something (typically
something that produces social value for some group,
whether legitimate or not) and that what they do will
generate some CONSEQUENCES. In addition, be-
cause we work in an applied field, we hope that what
we know about organizational doing (and its conse-
quences) have some practical usefulness. In that sense,
there is very little traction for a truly post-positivist OT
theory either in the existing literature or on the horizon,
although a focus on organization action can promote a
renewed concern with the humanistic and moral side of
group work (Harmon & White, 1989).
The central organizational problem for schools is
that no matter how educators try to change (only occa-
sionally based on good research), the global outcomes
don’t appear to improve very much. Schools, more
than perhaps any other social institution, are a living
example of “the more things change, the more they stay
the same.”
Thus, I argue that the central organizational prob-
lem of education today is change, and that any emer-
gent OT in education must take this as its central focus.
This is obviously no simple task, and it must respond to
the (now) classic observation that changing schools is
not as easy as contrasting top-down versus bottom up,
nor is it sufficient to increase the complexity and uncer-
tainty of roles and structures, which disrupt traditional
cultures (distributed leadership, etc.). Railing against
neo-liberal policies is popular, but doesn’t actually in-
crease our capacity to understand why systems respond
in different ways to the same stimulus (Louis & van
Velzen, 2012).
12
Slouching Toward a New Path:
Can OT Be Energized Through a
Learning Perspective? 3
The organizational learning frameworks that are popu-
lar in both education and business do not provide a so-
lution, but suggest some new directions that respond to
these challenges. Further, focusing on learning and
change can easily incorporate the value and non-
rationality challenges discussed above. Because organi-
zational learning maintains some features of the "old
paradigm" (a sociological underpinning and emphasis
on school structure and culture) it is likely to be an ac-
ceptable alternative that generates both theorizing and
research-to-practice work.
While there are many definitions of organizational
learning, I like a simple focus on the creation of socially
constructed interpretations of facts and ideas that enter
the organization from both the external environment or
are generated within. This definition includes several
assumptions:
 Adults learn most deeply in their organizational-
practice and not in classes or by reading;
 Learning is a process of forging individual identity
within an organization/community;
 Information gains meaning only within a socially
constructed setting; and
 Learning and changing are in a dynamic causal rela-
tionship. (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Schön, 1983)
In order to become a serious contributor to OT, an
organizational learning perspective must contribute to
addressing what I have identified as the central problem
of identifying DOING and CONSEQUENCES, as
well as the application of that knowledge in practice
(Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001).
Accumulating research evidence suggests that fo-
cusing on how information is turned into commonly
held knowledge that is actionable means thinking about
how people work with each other to change. First, in
order to create any basis for collective action (whether
determined by individual choice or by a plan), there
needs to be shared knowledge that contributes to the
reshaping and transformation of schooling (Hage, 1999;
Simsek & Louis, 1994). Second, whether formally iden-
tified or explicit, members of the school community
Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.
must recognize the cognitive understanding and skills
that they can access (which is often referred to as ab-
sorptive capacity) (Lewin, Massini, & Peeters, 2011;
Zahra & George, 2002) . Third, the implicit idea of
learning presumes an evolving knowledge base -- ac-
quired through random, incremental and more intellec-
tual action. Finally, knowledge acquisition behavior will
differentiate more effective from less effective teams in
schools and other organizations [using broad and multi-
ple measures of effectiveness] (Higgins, Weiner, &
Young, 2012; Yli-Renko, Autio, & Sapienza, 2001).
But creating patterns of doing that change organiza-
tional consequences is not an easy task, even in cutting
edge, high tech firms. In schools, which are not orga-
nized to be nimble, the challenges are greater. Most
schools lack an informal inventory of knowledge and
skills, which limits a school's ability to use new ideas
intelligently. Schools invest little in research and devel-
opment (typically hoping to find magic bullets in pur-
chased solutions) and staff development is generally
weak. These characteristics limit the absorptive capaci-
ty of school to take in and use new ideas. Even with
the recent emphasis on professional learning communi-
ties, the experience of members in building shared un-
derstandings and a subsequent shared knowledge base
is limited and infrequent. Thus, schools change all the
time and most teachers are highly adaptive in their
classrooms, but the changes don’t add up to collective
learning and improvement.
The available empirically based theory to support
the development of a focus on learning and change as a
place where fragmented elements of OT could find
common ground is in the earliest stages. Sharon Kruse
and I have laid out a simple framework for beginning to
think about organizational learning in schools that
points to features of both culture and structure that are
important, thus providing links between a new focus of
OT on change and improvement and the dominant
models (S.D. Kruse & Louis, 2009).
13
Memory
Memory acts as an essential feature of school culture.
Positive memories from previous learning situations are
attached to current situations. The memories enhance
change efforts while negative memories, when jointly
held by many members of the school organization, act
as barriers to new learning efforts (Huber, 1991). The
absence of memory can inhibit change (for example, in
schools with very high turnover of teachers, administra-
tors and/or students) (Higgins et al., 2012). Without an
adequate base of experience from which to draw, teach-
ers can be reticent to begin new learning activities. De-
veloping memory is a cultural endeavor, typically linked
with story-telling, consultation, and informal exchanges,
particularly with members who have access to the or-
ganizational history (Rusaw, 2004).
Knowledge Base
A knowledge base includes individually held knowledge:
Teachers, through both pre-service and in-service expe-
riences, enter schools equipped with disparate founda-
tions of information related to content and pedagogy.
Such individually held knowledge is often difficult for
colleagues to access and utilize. It also includes
knowledge and vocabulary generated by school-based anal-
ysis: The results of self-study efforts can generate com-
monly-held knowledge about the purposes and goals of
schooling that, in turn, can provide a common vocabu-
lary that fosters continued organizational learning pro-
cess. Schools also search for knowledge, and react to infor-
mation that is gained by organized search efforts:
When school personnel collectively engage in systemat-
ic searches for new information to improve perfor-
Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.
mance, knowledge is generated that both further de-
fines the problem and suggests alternative actions.
Schools may also be provided with information (data) that
becomes grist for interpreting what is known. Alt-
hough a great deal of emphasis has been placed on for-
mal data-driven decision making in schools in recent
years, attention to all four kinds of knowledge develop-
ment is important in considering how schools (and dis-
tricts or systems) determine what they do (Nonaka &
Georg von, 2009).
Information Distribution and Interpretation
Data warehouses may add to the capacity of states and
districts to provide knowledge from different sources to
schools. However, this knowledge will be useless until
it stimulates new understandings. This means that it
must be shared and incorporated with other sources of
internal and external knowledge. Sharing should not be
taken for granted, particularly in an age of information
overload. Natural sharing systems in most organiza-
tions mean that some people and groups are infor-
mation rich, while others are out of the loop, and being
out of the loop also means weak learning processes
(Daly & Finnigan, 2011). Beyond simple sharing,
schools need protocols to ensure that information is
processed and interpreted. Information is not neutral,
but lands in or is generated by a specific context, where
it will be processed through individual and collective
belief structures, frames of reference and organization-
ally based social constructions, the cues and feedback
related to organizational symbols and shared under-
standings, or the process of unlearning old, now re-
placed, practices and beliefs (Argote & Miron-Spektor,
2011). Because knowledge and “data” in education
(even student achievement data) are usually ambiguous
and contestable, the cultural norms about information
processes are particularly critical (Mahler, 1997).
Reflections on Evolutionary Change in
Organizational Theory
One reason to support a focus on organizational learn-
ing is that it does not require throwing out what we have
learned about what makes some schools more adaptive
and potentially effective, while others remain
“stuck.” (Rosenholtz, 1991). For example, we know
that decentralization/shared decision-making is associat-
ed with both learning and traditional measures of school
effectiveness, as are communication structures, support-
ive leadership, stability, and “information richness.” As
an adaptive framework, organizational learning allows us
14
to attend to values and to incorporate critical perspec-
tives, including attention both to iatrogenic features of
school cultures, as well as non-rational or a-rational be-
haviors of schools and school systems. In addition, or-
ganizational learning focuses our attention on aspects of
OT that make us relevant to practitioners and policy
makers: how schools change and improve. No one
who is attached to the big sociological categories of
structure and culture needs to exit or complain of being
left out. Even some of the key questions can be familiar
-- for example, why are schools organized the way they
are, and what is the impact of that organization? Or,
how can schools organize to become more responsive
to information and more able to act on it? Finally the
learning framework points to obvious questions about
effects of learning and change on students, teachers, etc.
The units of analysis can be flexible: We can theorize
about organizational systems (districts), individual
schools or school types, or even organizational subunits
(departments, grade levels, etc.).
So, what needs to change? First, organization
theory must be attentive to knowledge/learning, or-
ganizational DOING and the CONSEQUENCES of
doing. This is not a new focus, but it draws our atten-
tion more clearly to the dynamics of organizational
structure and culture, and to a more interpretive per-
spective. If we focus on doing, we need to understand
not only how people behave as they do, but why. We
also need to understand how they think about their be-
havior (as well as the behavior of others). This does not
imply a singular methodology, but it does have implica-
tions for how we conceptualize the basic units of school
organization. In addition, a focus on organizational
learning demands more serious attention to conse-
quences. Organizational learning both causes and is a
result of behaviors, but also stimulates teachers, admin-
istrators, and pupils to adapt. It is an inherently non-
mechanistic perspective that privileges local understand-
ings, culture and patterns that are present in so much
educational research, but that have been less clearly inte-
grated into OT.
In sum, I propose a modest and temporary middle
ground between comprehensive classifications that inte-
grates competing or alternative paradigms and celebra-
tions of the thousand blooming flowers that we see in
the field. Rather than A THEORY, we need to work
on creating some common assumptions that help us to
THEORIZE core issues facing schools as organiza-
tions, while helping those who work in and around
them to acquire navigational tools to chart a course in
Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.
the uncertain seas of changing expectations as they steer
toward destinations that are off the map of current “best
practice.”
References
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organiza-
tional learning: From experience to knowledge.
Organization Science, 22(5), 1123-1137. doi:
10.2307/41303106
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learn-
ing: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Ad-
dison-Wesley.
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Sharon, C. (1990).
Professionals and workplace control: Organiza-
tional and demographic models of teacher mili-
tancy. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43(5),
570-586. doi: 10.2307/2523329
Barnard, C. (1968). The functions of the executive.
Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
Barnett, B. G. (1984). Subordinate teacher power in
school organizations. Sociology of Education, 57(1),
43-55. doi: 10.2307/2112467
Beck, L. G. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration
as a caring profession. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study
of interpersonal relations in two government agencies. Chi-
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organi-
zations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boulding, K. E. (1952). Implications for general eco-
nomics of more realistic theories of the firm. The
American Economic Review, 42(2), 35-44. doi:
10.2307/1910583
Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmod-
ernism? Reflections and tentative directions. The
Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 649-671. doi:
10.2307/259347
Cheng, Y. C. (1993). Profiles of organizational cul-
ture and effective schools. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 4(2), 85-110.
Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2011). The ebb and flow
of social network ties between district leaders un-
der high stakes accountability. American Education
Research Journal, 49(a), 39-79.
Diamond, J. B. (2006). Still separate and unequal:
Examining race, opportunity, and school achieve-
ment in "integrated" suburbs. The Journal of Negro
Education, 75(3), 495-505. doi: 10.2307/40026817
15
Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Mind the gap:
Organizational learning and improvement in an
underperforming urban system. American Journal
of Education, 119(1), 41-71.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucra-
cy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hage, J. T. (1999). Organizational innovation and
organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology,
25, 597-622. doi: 10.2307/223518
Harmon, M. M., & White, J. D. (1989). “Decision”
and “action” as contrasting perspectives in organi-
zation theory. Public Administration Review, 49(2),
144-152. doi: 10.2307/977334
Higgins, M. C., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Im-
plementation teams: A new lever for organization-
al change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3),
366-388. doi: 10.2307/41415760
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers'
sense of efficacy and the organizational health of
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-
372. doi: 10.2307/1002017
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The
Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Or-
ganization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Kruse, S. D. (2001). Creating communities of reform:
continuous improvement planning teams. Journal
of Educational Administration, 39(4), 359 - 383.
Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Teacher teaming
in middle school: Dilemmas for school-wide
community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33
(3), 261-281.
Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (2009). Strong cultures: A
school leader's guide to change. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Mi-
crofoundations of internal and external absorptive
capacity routines. Organization Science, 22(1), 81-98.
doi: 10.2307/20868848
Louis, K. S. (2006). Organizational learning and high
performance learning communities. In K. S. Lou-
is (Ed.), Organizing for School Change (pp. 95-108).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Louis, K. S. (2010). Better schools through better
knowledge? New understanding, new uncertainty.
In A. Hargreaves, D. Hopkins, M. Fullan & A.
Lieberman (Eds.), International Handbook of Educa-
tional Change (2nd ed., pp. 3-28). NL: Kluwer.
Louis, K. S., & van Velzen, B. A. M. (Eds.). (2012).
Educational policy in an international context: Political
culture and its effects. New York, NY: Palgrave/
MacMillan.
Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, April 16, 2015. Volume 1, Number 1.
Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of organizational cul-
ture on learning in public agencies. Journal of Pub-
lic Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 7(4),
519-540.
Maxcy, B. (1995). Democracy, chaos, and the new school
order. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of an organization (2 ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morrill, C. (2008). Culture and organization theory.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 619, 15-40. doi: 10.2307/40375793
Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Creating productive
cultures in schools: For students, teachers, and parents.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools : an
alternative approach to education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Nonaka, I., & Georg von, K. (2009). Tacit knowledge
and knowledge conversion: Controversy and ad-
vancement in organizational knowledge creation
theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635-652. doi:
10.2307/25614679
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure ine-
quality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Passow, A. H. (1954). Organization and procedures
for curriculum improvement. Review of Educational
Research, 24(3), 221-236. doi: 10.2307/1168947
Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological
view. Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S.
(2001). Studying organizational change and devel-
opment: Challenges for future research. The Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713. doi:
10.2307/3069411
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. New York,
NY: HarperCollins.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organi-
zational science: Paradigm development as a de-
pendent variable. The Academy of Management Re-
view, 18(4), 599-620. doi: 10.2307/258592
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The social
organization of schools. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. (1999). Institutional theory
and the study of educational organizations. In J.
Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research
on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 359-384).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S., & Kang, S. J. (1991).
Organizational design in high schools: A multi-
level analysis. American Journal of Education, 99(2),
238-260.
16
Rusaw, A. C. (2004). How downsizing affects organ-
izational memory in government: Some implica-
tions for professional and organizational develop-
ment. Public Administration Quarterly, 28(3/4), 482-
500. doi: 10.2307/41288231
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London,
England: Temple.
Scott, W. R. (1968). Organizations: Natural, rational and
open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Simsek, H., & Louis, K. S. (1994). Organizational
change as paradigm shift: Analysis of the change
process in a large, public university. The Journal of
Higher Education, 65(6), 670-695. doi:
10.2307/2943824
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organi-
zational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28
(3), 339-358. doi: 10.2307/2392246
Smithburg, D. W. (1951). Political theory and public
administration. The Journal of Politics, 13(1), 59-69.
doi: 10.2307/2126122
Steffy, B. D. & Grimes, A. J. (1986). A critical theory
of organization science. The Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 11(2), 322-336. doi: 10.2307/258463
Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and educa-
tion: history: Theory, and implications. Review of
Research in Education, 22, 195-247. doi:
10.2307/1167376
Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (Eds.). (2000). The inter-
national handbook of school effectiveness research. New
York, NY: Falmer.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of
schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?
American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-
479.
Tyler, W. B. (1985). The organizational structure of
the school. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 49-73.
doi: 10.2307/2083285
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society; an outline of in-
terpretive sociology. New York, NY: Bedminster
Press.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science (1st
ed. Vol. Berrett-Koehler).
Wheatley, M. (1996). The irresistible future of organ-
izing. 1-8. doi:
http://www.margaretwheatly.com/articles/
irresistiblefuture.com
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001).
Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and
knowledge exploitation in young technology-
based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7),
587-613. doi: 10.2307/3094322
 17

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capaci-

ty: A review, reconceptualization, and extension.
The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
doi: 10.2307/4134351

1Post-modernism has had very limited traction in general organizational theory. For example, an article on post-modernist
theory in one of the most highly ranked journals (Academy of Management Review) by two well-regarded scholars received
only one citation since its publication (Calás & Smircich, 1999).

2Note that critical race theory did not enter the educational research field with any force until Tate’s 1997 review.

3This section draws heavily on work that I have done over many years with Sharon D. Kruse. Some of our conversations have
turned into publications in which pieces of these ideas appear (S.D Kruse, 2001; S.D. Kruse & Louis, 1997, 2009); others are
influenced by her work, but not co-authored (Louis, 2006, 2010).

JOTE is a publication sponsored by the AERA Organizational Theory Special Interest Group. By virtue of their
appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other
non-commercial settings 90 days after initial publication. Copyright for articles published in JOTE is retained by
the authors. More information is available on the JOTE Web site: www.organizationaltheoryineducation.com