Perspectives on District Organization

The following is just a reflection on a reading for my superintendent course. It's not very formal or cited. Actually, I couldn't read the source information on my copy of the piece. Like I said, it's just a reflection, but I think there's some good stuff in there I want to remember...

The chapter we read titled “Clarifying Assumptions: Three Perspectives” divides approaches to school district structures into three perspectives, viewing schools as: bureaucracy, community, and learning organization. Distinctions are made in areas of human nature as well as critical aspects of organization in order to define these perspectives. The school district as bureaucracy is generally traditional, authoritarian, and hierarchical in its approach. A school district as community is somewhat informal, democratic or laissez-faire, and personable. The district as learning organization seems to borrow from the other two to create a sort of hybrid. The learning organization is active, constructivist-based, and collaborative. There is even an idea of using all three perspectives as a fourth option that adjusts to the needs of a district as they arise.

As a superintendent, I would advocate for the school district as learning organization. This perspective combines the best aspects of both the bureaucracy and community views while not falling victim to their shortcomings. Also, by committing to the learning organization, one is able to have a clear and consistent approach as opposed to using multiple perspectives.

The school as bureaucracy is flawed in several ways as one studies the assumptions about human nature and critical aspects of organizations. Emphasizing extrinsic motivation and seeing the learning process as passive and one-sided would require a significant amount of micromanaging. The instructors and learners of a school district would wait for motivation to arrive or promised as opposed to taking initiative and accepting responsibility in the learning process. The assumptions of organization are not much better. District goals are limiting and finite. The bureaucracy is impersonal and creates a culture of competitiveness instead of one of collaboration. The school district as bureaucracy has a sense of tradition and conservatism in a time when schools need to be moving forward into the 21st century. This perspective of managing a school district is safe at best and stagnant at worst.

On the other hand, seeing the school as a community is open and free of structure. This can be a dangerous approach to a superintendency as well. A lot is left to chance as the perspective on motivation is thought to be solely intrinsic and the learner depends on stimulating environments. These are both the ideal, but they lack reality as many learners and teachers need some extrinsic motivation or a variety of stimulating environments. While the approach to organization seems all-inclusive, it lacks the accountability necessary in addressing the increased scrutiny of government and community. Additionally, the informal nature of this sort of organization can lead to inconsistency and mistrust down the road. The school as community lacks structure that helps insure success.

A school district viewed as a learning organization combines the two previous perspectives to create an approach that is adaptable and accountable. The assumptions of human nature in a learning organization emphasize both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Also, the individual is actively involved in the learning process in creating knowledge as opposed to be talked at or dependent on their environment. The assumptions concerning organization are incredibly more adaptable and collaborative than the bureaucracy. Conversely, this perspective provides structure and purpose that the laissez-faire approach of the community lacks. The school district as learning environment is accountable for itself as well as adaptable to the constant changes in education and the community at large.

The authors briefly mention using multiple perspectives as a way to address different issues or situations as they arise. While this may seem ideal, it is problematic in two ways. First, ignoring the effectiveness of a learning organization could lead to either extremes in decision-making. A superintendent might respond in an authoritarian way to one situation while taking a laissez-faire approach in another. Lost is the potential for collaboration present in the learning organization model. This leads into the second point which is a perception of inconsistency. The kiss of death for any leadership position is the perception that the leader is inconsistent. Trust is lost. Subordinates do not know where they stand and often limit risk-taking or innovation. Using multiple perspectives to run a school district lacks a clear vision forward.

Choosing the perspective of a school district as learning organization is helping me shape my own philosophies of instruction and administration. It has provided a label and meaning for what I want to establish in a district. It is a comprehensive approach to school leadership that should help me fill in some of the holes of my own philosophies. Collaboration and accountability seem to be at the core of this perspective. These values work together to create an environment of change and prosperity that are the ideal in every school district.