1. Appreciation is expressed to Professor R. Jean Hills of the University of British Columbia for a thoughtful critique.

2. W. L. Boyd and R. L. Crowson, "The Changing Conception and Practice of Public School Administration," in Review of Research in Education, 9, D. C. Berliner, ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1981).

3. N. J. Boyan, "The Administration of Educational Institutions," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 5th ed., H. E. Mitzel, J. H. Best, and W. Rabinowitz, eds. (New York: Macmillan, forthcoming).

4. An issue for some arises over regularities of interactions versus configurations of roles. See H. Willmott, "The Structure of Organizational Structure: A Note," Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (September 1981). However, there is no reason why structure should not encompass both. A more basic issue is a question in what might be called organizational ontology: in this case, whether organizations are more than collections of people.

5. A typical use of the narrow definition in educational research is W. W. Charters, Jr., Measuring the Implementation of Differentiated Staffing (Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1973).

6. For another approach to organizational structures see J. Hage and M. Aiken's discussion of complexity, centralization, formalization, and stratification in Social Change in Complex Organizations (New York: Random House, 1970). The Aston group used such variables and others in their research on the relation of context and structures. See D. J. Hickson, D. S. Pugh, and D. C. Pheysey, "Operations Technology and Organizational Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal," Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (September 1969); and D. S. Pugh, D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, and C. Turner, "The Context of Organization Structures," Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (March 1969). These studies often use operational definitions that boil down to organizational demographics such as size, job titles, type of technology, number of different types of units, statements in manuals of rules, and so on. A current debate is over the relative influence of size and technology on structure. For a broad review, see D. Gerwin, "Relationships Between Structure and Technology," in Handbook of Organizational Design, P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981). In education, studies of this general type include L. K. Bishop and J. R. George, "Organizational Structure: A Factor Analysis of Structural Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools," Educational Administration Quarterly 9, 3 (Fall 1973); and C. G. Miskel, R. Fevurly, and J. Stewart, "Organizational Structures and Processes, Perceived School Effectiveness, Loyalty and Job Satisfaction," Educational Administration Quarterly 15, 3 (Fall 1979).

7. For example, M. B. Miles, "Some Properties of Schools as Social Systems," in Change in School Systems, G. Watson, ed. (Washington: National Training Laboratories, 1967); D. J. Willower, "The Teacher Subculture and Curriculum Change," Samplings 1 (April 1968); Idem., "Social Control in Schools," in Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 8, L. C. Deighton, ed. (New York: Macmillan and the Free Press, 1971); and R. Elboim-Dror, "Organizational Characteristics of the Educational System," Journal of Educational Administration 11 (May 1973). My treatment of school organizations follows "Social Control in Schools" more closely than the others. See it and the sources cited therein for a more complete statement than is given here.

8. This concept is from C. J. Friedrick, Constitutional Government and Politics (New York: Harper, 1937).

9. J. D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).

10. T. Parsons. "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organization," in Administrative Theory in Education, A. W. Halpin, ed. (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958).

11. On prestige in the teacher group, see D. C. Lortie, Schoolteacher (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975).

12. The socialization study examining pupil control that has covered the longest time is J. McArthur, The First Five Years of Teaching (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, ERDC Report No. 30, 1981).

13. J. W. Licata and D. J. Willower, "Student Brinkmanship and the School as a Social System," Educational Administration Quarterly 11,2 (Spring 1975).

14. An excellent recent study is A. Peshkin, Growing Up American (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).

15. See, for example, J. S. Tarr, "Students in Groups: The Impact of Friendship and Values on the High School," Administrator's Notebook 25 (April 1977).

16. The classic treatment is A. B. Hollingshead, Elmtown's Youth (New York: Wiley, 1949). Many British studies use this perspective. Some of them focus on youth cultures outside of school. See M. Brake, The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures (London: Routeledge and Kegan Paul, 1980).

17. For a discussion of some of the literature on change and of the part played by theoretical perspectives, see W. A. Firestone and R. E. Herriott, "Images of Organization and the Promotion of Educational Change, " in Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, Vol. 2, R. Corwin, ed. (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1981).

18. For example, assumptions about system imperatives or organizational survival have been avoided. There are a number of concepts that can be used to account for behavior directed towards survival outside of organismic-type thinking. Status or discretion enhancement, adherence to norms of rationality, or even loyalty or identification with organizational goals or traditions are all possibilities. Some of them are discussed in Thompson, Organizations in Action.

19. R. B. Glassman, "Persistence and Loose Coupling in Living Systems," Behavioral Science 18 (March 1973).

20. G. J. Klir, An Approach to General Systems Theory (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969).

21. Parsons, "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organization."

22. C. E. Bidwell, "The School as a Formal Organization," in Handbdok of Organizations, J. G. March, ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965).

23. K. E. Weick, "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems," Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (March 1976).

24. Ibid., p. 16.

25. J. G. March and J. P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (Bergen-Oslo-Tromso: Universitetforlaget, 1976).

26. K. E. Weick, "Loosely Coupled Systems: Relaxed Meanings and Thick Interpretations" (Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, 1980).

27. J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan, "The Structure of Educational Organizations," in Environments and Organizations, M. W. Meyer and Associates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978); and Idem., "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony," American Journal of Sociology 83 (September 1977).

28. Weick notes his use of a similar kind of concept, the "presumption of logic." See Weick, "Relaxed Meanings," p. 24.

29. S. Abramowitz and E. Tenenbaum, High School '77 (Washington: National Institute of Education, 1978).

30. J. W. Meyer, W. R. Scott, S. Cole, and J. K. Intili, "Instructional Dissensus and Institutional Consensus in Schools," in M. W. Meyer and Associates, Environments and Organizations.

31. J. Hannaway and L. S. Sproull, "Who's Running the Show: Coordination and Control in Educational Organizations," Administrator's Notebook 27 (May 1979).

32. B. Rowan, "The Effects of Institutionalized Rules on Administrators," in Organizational Behavior in Schools and School Districts, S. B. Bacharach, ed. (New York: Praeger, 1981).

33. Weick, "Relaxed Meanings," p. 35.

34. C. G. Miskel, D. G. McDonald, and S. E. Bloom, "A Study to Establish the Reliability and Validity Estimates for Three Measures of Structural Coupling in Schools" (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981).

35. Weick, "Relaxed Meanings," p. 27.

36. L. Metcalfe, "Designing Precarious Partnerships," in Nystrom and Starbuck, eds., Handbook of Organizational Design. The citation to H. A. Simon is "The Architecture of Complexity," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106 (1962).

37. See D. J. Willower, "Educational Administration: Some Philosophical and Other Considerations" (Paper presented at the Conference for Lecturers in Educational Administration, Melbourne, Australia, August 1981) and Journal of Educational Administration, forthcoming.

38. W. Waller, The Sociology of Teaching (New York: Wiley, 1932).

39. For an interesting treatment of this matter, see W. Handel, "Normative Expectations and the Emergence of Meaning as Solutions to Problems: Convergence of Structural and Interactionist Views," American Journal of Sociology 84 (January 1979).

40. Willower, "Some Philosophical and Other Considerations," also treats this and some later points.

41. D. C. Lortie, "The Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School Teaching," in The Semi-Professions and Their Organization, A. Etzioni, ed. (New York: Free Press, 1967).

42. W. J. Martin and D. J. Willower, "The Managerial Behavior of High School Principals," Educational Administration Quarterly 17,1 (Winter 1981); and D. J. Willower and J. T. Kmetz, "The Managerial Behavior of Elementary School Principals" (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, March 1982).

43. The citation is E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual (New York: Doubleday-Anchor, 1967).

44. Meyer and Rowan, "The Structure of Educational Organizations," p. 102.

45. Ibid., p. 94.

46. On recent criticisms of public education, see Boyd and Crowson, "The Changing Conception."

47. School athletics can enhance community identity as well, especially if many traditional rivals are played. They might also affect student alienation. Several school administrators have told me that school vandalism decreases during winning football seasons and increases during losing ones.

48. R. Bates. "Power and the Educational Administrator: Bureaucracy, Loose Coupling or Cultural Negotiation?" (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981).

49. J. B. Michaelsen, "The Political Economy of School District Administration," Educational Administration Quarterly 17,3 (Summer 1981).

50. W. G. Ouchi, "Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans," Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (March 1980); and J. M. Beyer, "Ideologies, Values, and Decision Making in Organizations," in Nystrom and Starbuck, eds., Handbook of Organizational Design.

51. R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1968). An example is Rowan's treatment of the demands of the institutional environment as a variable. See Rowan, "The Effects of Institutionalized Rules."

52. H. Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (New York: Harper and Row, 1973). Mintzberg's sample of managers included one school superintendent.

53. P. Duignan, "Administrative Behavior of School Superintendents: A Descriptive Study," Journal of Educational Administration 18 (May 1980); L. L. Larson, R. S. Bussom, and W. M. Vicars, The Nature of a School Superintendent's Work (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University, Final Technical Report, March 1981); and N. J. Pitner, "A Descriptive Study of the Superintendency" (Paper presented at the American Association of School Administrators' Meeting, New Orleans, 1979) reports on three male, midwestern superintendents, and those data are combined with some gathered later from three female west coast superintendents as well as with Ogawa's interview data from 20 Ohio superintendents in N. J. Pitner and R. T. Ogawa, "Organizational Leadership: The Case of the School Superintendent," Educational Administration Quarterly 17,2 (Spring 1981).

54. Martin and Willower, "The Managerial Behavior of High School Principals"; K. O'Dempsey, "Time Analysis of Activities, Work Patterns and Roles of High School Principals," Administrators' Bulletin 7 (November 1976); and Q. Willis, "The Work Activity of School Principals: An Observational Study," Journal of Educational Administration 18 (May 1980).

55. Willower and Kmetz, "The Managerial Behavior of Elementary School Principals"; and L. S. Sproull, "Managing Educational Programs: A Micro-behavioral Analysis," Human Organization 40 (Summer 1981).

56. In imposing this limitation for purposes of critical analysis, numerous important observational studies of principals have been omitted. For example, R. L. Crowson and C. Porter-Gehrie, "The Discretionary Behavior of Principals in Large City Schools," Educational Administration Quarterly 16,1 (Winter 1980); K. Peterson, "The Principal's Tasks," Administrator's Notebook 26 (April 1978); and H. F. Wolcott, The Man in the Principal's Office (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973).

57. March and Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations.

58. E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1959).

59. Mintzberg discussed ten roles in three categories. They were: the interpersonal roles—leader, figurehead, and liaison; the informational roles—spokesman, monitor, and disseminator; and the decisional roles—disturbance handler, resource allocator, entrepreneur, and negotiator. See The Nature of Managerial Work.

60. Willower, "Some Philosophic and Other Considerations," p. 18.

61. Larson, Bussom, and Vicars, "The Nature of a School Superintendent's Work," p. 39.

62. W. L. Boyd, "The Public, the Professionals, and Educational Policy Making: Who Governs?" Teachers College Record 77 (May 1976).

63. G. D. Bau and D. J. Willower, "The Wisdom of the Elders: Retired School Superintendents on Their Work" (Submitted for publication).

64. W. A. Firestone and R. E. Herriott in "Images of Organization and the Promotion of Change" use three theoretical frameworks to examine change in an educational setting.

School Organizations: Perspectives in Juxtaposition

Abstract

Get full access to this article