School structures need not be rigid, controlling, and coercive; in fact, they can be just the opposite. Enabling school structures are centralized and formalized in ways that promote problem solving, collaboration, flexibility, change, and professional judgment. The current research demonstrates the importance of both collegial leadership of the principal and organizational commitment of the faculty in the development of enabling school structures. Building an enabling structure is likely a key to promoting quality school organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerP. S. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 36–49.
2.
AdlerP. S., & BorysB. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.
3.
AikenM., & HageJ. (1968). Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review, 33, 912–930.
4.
ArchesJ. (1991). Social structure, burnout, and job satisfaction. Social Work, 36(3), 202–206.
5.
GouldnerA. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy.New York: Free Press.
6.
HirschhornL. (1997). Reworking authority: Leading and following in a postmodern organization.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
HoyW. K., BlazovskyR., & NewlandW. (1983). Bureaucracy and alienation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 21, 109–121.
8.
HoyW. K., SmithP. A., & SweetlandS. R. (2001). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. Working Paper, Educational Policy and Leadership, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
9.
HoyW. K., & SweetlandS. R. (2000). School bureaucracies that work: Enabling, not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 525–541.
10.
HoyW. K., & SweetlandS. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296–321.
11.
HoyW. K., TarterC. J., & KottkampR. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
12.
IsherwoodG., & HoyW. K. (1973). Bureaucracy, powerlessness, and teacher work values. Journal of Educational Administration, 9, 124–138.
13.
KakabadseA. (1986). Organizational alienation and job climate. Small Group Behavior, 17, 458–471.
14.
MintzbergH. (1979). The structuring of organizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
MintzbergH. (1983). Power in and around organizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
MowdayR. T., SteersR. M., & PorterL. W. (1979). The measure of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
17.
PorterL. W., SteersR. M., MowdayR. T., & BoulianP. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–309.
18.
RousseauD. M. (1978). Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals: Context for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 521–540.
19.
SteersR. M. (1977). Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view.Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
20.
WeberM. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (HendersonA. M., Trans., and ParsonsT., Trans. Ed.). New York: Free Press.
