Structure on

Schools
Part 2
Hesvi dwi apriliska
Formal Structure in Schools
Loose Coupling Perspective
Professional and Bureaucracy Conflict
 Hall on
Bureacracy
structure
Formal Structure in
Hoy and
Schools Sweetland
on structure
Mintzberg on Structure
 (1) hierarchy of authority
Hall on (2) specialization
Bureaucratic (3) rules for incumbents

Structure (4) Procedure specifications

(5) Impersonality
(6) technical competence
 Hall on Bureaucratic
OrganizATION TYPES
Structure
Changing School Structure

1. Weberian Structure
2. Authoritarian
Structure
3. Professional
Structure
4. Chaotic Structure
 Hoy and Sweetland on Structure

Paul Adler and Bryan Borys (1996) offer a possible solution as they
interpret formalization as an organizational technology and identify two
types of formalization—enabling and coercive. In the Weberian sense,
formalization is the extent of written rules, regulations, procedures, and
instructions. The notion of enabling and coercive formalization is not
unlike Gouldner’s (1954) representative and punishment-centered rules.
Hoy and Sweetland (2000, 2001) build upon Adler and Borys’s (1996)
formulation of enabling and hindering formalization to examine the
structure of schools.
Two types of Formalization

Enabling formalization is  Coercive formalization is a

a set of procedures that set of procedures that
help employees deal more punishes and attempts to
effectively with inevitable force reluctant subordinates
problems. to comply.
centralization organizations
 Enabling centralization
helps employees solve
problems rather than getting
in the way of their work; it
is flexible, cooperative, and
collaborative rather than
rigid, autocratic, and
controlling.
 Hindering centralization
refers to a hierarchy and
administration that gets in
the way rather than helps
its participants solve
problems and do their
work
 Enabling School Structure
enabling school structure
• hierarchy that helps rather than hinders
and a system of rules and regulations that
guides problem solving rather than
punishes failure
• principals and teachers work cooperatively
across recognized authority boundaries
while retaining their distinctive roles
• rules and regulations are flexible guides
for problem solving rather than constraints
that create problems
• In such structures, both hierarchy and
rules are mechanisms to support teachers
rather than vehicles to enhance principal
power.
hindering school structure
• hierarchy that impedes and a system of
rules and regulations that is coercive
• The basic objective of hierarchy is
disciplined compliance of teachers; thus,
teacher behavior is closely managed and
strictly controlled
• Both the hierarchy and rules are used to
gain control and conformity.
• The structure is used to ensure that
reluctant, incompetent, and irresponsible
teachers do what administrators prescribe.
• The power of the principal is enhanced,
but the work of the teachers is diminished.
Mindful School
One goal of all school administrators should be to make their
schools mindful (Hoy, 2003). Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) first
introduced the notion of mindfulness to organizations as they
studied high-reliability organizations.
They found five processes that promoted mindfulness in
organizations:
1. preoccupation with failure
2. reluctance to simplify interpretations
3. sensitivity to basic operations
4. commitment to resilience
5. deference to expertise.
Enabling and Mindful School Structure
Enabling and mindful structures are complementary; they are not the same,
but they have much in common. Mindful organizations have a preoccupation
with failure, a resiliency, and sensitivity to the unexpected that some enabling
structures may lack. Yet, mindfulness and enabling structures go together
(Gage, 2004; Watts, 2009).
  Enabling Structure
  Promotes flexible rules and
Formalization procedures
Views problems as learning
opportunities
Values differences
Encourages initiative
Fosters trust
  Facilitates problem solving
  Promotes cooperation
Centralization Encourages openness
Protects teachers
Encourages innovation
Seeks collaboration
  Participative decision making
Processes Problem solving
  Teacher trust
Context Truthfulness and authenticity
Cohesiveness
Teacher sense of power
Hindering Structure
Enforces rigid rules and procedures
Views problems as constraints
Demands consensus
Punishes mistakes
Fosters suspicion
Demands compliance
Embraces control
Fosters mistrust
Punishes teachers
Discourages change
Rules autocratically
Unilateral decision making
Enforcement
Teacher distrust
Truth spinning and deception
Conflict
Teacher sense of powerlessness
Mintzberg on Structure
Henry Mintzberg (1979, 1980, 1981, 1. mutual adjustment
1983a, 1983b, 1989) provides another,
more comprehensive conceptual
2. direct supervision
framework for examining organizational 3. standardization of
structure. He describes structure simply work processes
as the ways in which an organization 4. standardization of
divides its labor into tasks and then outputs
achieves coordination among them. 5. standardization of
Five basic coordinating mechanisms are
the fundamental means organizations
worker skills.
use to monitor and control work:
 These five key parts of the organization and the five
Key Parts coordination mechanisms that hold them together serve as
the basis for five configurations:
• Simple structure: The strategic apex is the key part and
direct supervision is the central coordinating device
• Machine bureaucracy: The technostructure is the key
part and standardization of work processes is the central
coordinating device
• Professional bureaucracy: The operating core is the key
part and standardization of skills is the central coordinating
device
• Divisionalized form: The middle line is the key part and
standardization of outputs is the central coordinating
device
• Adhocracy: The support staff is the key part and mutual
adjustment is the central coordinating device.
Loose Coupling Perspective

Five decades ago Charles Bidwell (1965) analyzed

structural looseness in school organizations. He noted
that in order to deal with the problem of variability in
student abilities on a day-to-day basis, teachers need to
have freedom to make professional judgments.
Professional autonomy seems undeniable in schools.
Teachers work alone in their classrooms, are relatively
unobserved by colleagues and administrators, and possess
broad discretionary authority over their students.
Professional and Bureaucratic Conflict
Professional and Bureaucratic
Orientations in Schools
The characteristics of bureaucratic organizations
are not totally compatible with a professional
work group. Findings that many conflicts in
schools derive from more general conflict
between bureaucratic and professional principles
should not be surprising.
The conflict is between professional
expertise and autonomy and bureaucratic
discipline and control.
THANKS!
Any questions?
You can find me at: @username
myemail@domain.com