Using two case studies, this article amends Gouldner's findings about the effects of succession on bureaucracy in three ways. First, the introduction of an outside chief executive does not necessarily lead to increased bureaucracy; increased professionalism can also result. Second, the outcomes of change cannot be unilaterally determined by the superintendent. They result from negotiations with teachers and the board as conditioned by the actions of the state. Finally, organizational change need not be the tactical adjustment Gouldner described; formal structural changes are also possible. Implications of these findings for current efforts to restructure schools are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bacharach, S., B. , & Conley, S. C. (1989). Uncertainty and decisionmaking in teaching: Implications for managing line professionals. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 312-328). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Bacharach, S. B. , & Mitchell, S. M. (1987). The generation of practical theory: Schools as political organizations. In J. Lorsch (Ed.) Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 405-418). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3.
Bamard, C. 1. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Burlingame, M. (1988). The politics of education and educational policy: The local level. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 439-452). New York:Longman.
5.
Carlson, R. 0. (1972). School superintendents: Careers and performance. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
6.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
7.
David, J. L. (1989). Restructuring in progress: Lessons from pioneering districts. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
8.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
9.
Firestone, W. A. , & Bader, B. D. (In press). The hidden dilemma of restructuring teaching. Albany: State University of New York Press.
10.
Firestone, W. A. , Fuhrman, S. H., & Kirst, M. W. (1989). The progress of reform: An appraisal of state education initiatives (CPRE Research Report Series, State University of New Jersey). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education.
11.
Gerth, H. H. , & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.
13.
Herriott, R. E. , & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12, 4-19.
14.
Holmes Group, Inc. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.
15.
Hord, S. M. , Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (April, 1983). Principals don't do it alone: The role of the consigliere. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
16.
Ianaconne, L. , & Lutz, F. W. (1970). Politics, power, and policy. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
17.
Johnson, S. M. , & Nelson, N.C.W. (1987). Teaching reform in an active voice. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 591-598.
18.
Lanier, J. E. , & Sedlak, M. W. (1989). Teacher efficacy and quality schooling. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 119-131). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
Leithwood, K. A. , & Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in principals' problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 126-161.
20.
Merton, R. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
21.
Meyer, J. W. , & Rowan, B. (1978). Notes on the structure of educational organization. In M. Meyer and colleagues (Eds.), Studies of organization and environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Michels, R. (1949). Political parties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
23.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
Miskel, C. &Cosgrove, D. (1985). Leader succession in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 55, 87-105.
25.
Mitchell, D. E. (1989). Alternative approaches to labor-management relations for public school teachers and administrators. In J. Hannaway & R. Crowson (Eds.), The politics of reforming school administration (pp. 161-182). New York: Falmer.
26.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Murphy, J. , & Hallinger, P. (1984). Policy analysis at the local level: A framework for expanded investigation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6, 5-15.
28.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at riskWashington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
National Education Association. (1989). Ranking the states. Washington, DC: Author.
30.
Olson, L. (1988, November). The "restructuring" puzzle: Ideas for revamping "egg-crate" schools abound, but to what end?Education Week.
31.
Pfeffer, J. (1978). Who governs. Arlington Heights, IL: AHM Publishing Corp.
32.
Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elementary School Journal, 83, 335-351.
33.
Rowan, B. , & Denk, C. E. (1984). Management succession, school sociometric context, and basic skills achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 517-537.
34.
Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
36.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
