While providing stability and uniformity, organizational routines can foster continuous change. Using Feldman's (2000) performative model of routinized action theory, coupled with leadership succession research, we examined how three successive administrations in a California high school revised a student attendance (tardy-monitoring) routine over 7 years. Although the changes made by the different leaders did not translate into large shifts in action and behaviors, each administration altered the way that tardies were monitored, thus demonstrating routines’ continuous and dynamic nature. Administrators also shifted resources to accommodate changes. Given our findings, we draw implications to help new leaders better understand change in daily school routines.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Accrediting Commission for Schools. (2005, April). Western Association of Schools and Colleges Visiting Committee report.Burlingame, CA: Author.
2.
CharmazK. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In GubriumJ. F., & HolsteinJ. S. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
CohenM., & BacdayanP. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.
4.
ConleyS., & EnomotoE. K. (2005). Routines in school organizations: Creating stability and change. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 9–21.
5.
ConleyS., & EnomotoE. K. (2009). Organizational routines in flux: A case study of change in recording and monitoring student attendance. Education and Urban Society, 41(3), 364–386.
6.
CyertR. M., & MarchJ. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
EnomotoE. K., & ConleyS. (2007). Harnessing technology for school accountability. A case study of implementing a management information system. Planning and Changing, 38, 164–180.
8.
FeldmanM. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.
9.
FeldmanM. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15(3), 295–309.
10.
FeldmanM. S., & PentlandB. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.
11.
FeldmanM. S., & RafaeliA. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331.
12.
FinkD., & BraymanC. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62–89.
13.
GersickC. J. G., & HackmanJ. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97.
14.
GladwellM. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference.Boston: Little, Brown.
15.
GreenfieldW. D. (1985). Developing an instructional role for the assistant principal. Education and Urban Society, 18(1), 85–92.
16.
HansonE. M. (1991). Educational administration and organizational behavior.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
HargreavesA., & GoodsonI. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41.
18.
HartA. W. (1993). Principal succession: Establishing leadership in schools.New York: State University of New York.
19.
HoyW. K., & MiskelC. G. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
20.
LevittB., & MarchJ. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
21.
MacmillanR. (2000). Leadership succession: Cultures of teaching and educational change. In BasciaN., & HargreavesA. (Eds.), The sharp edge of education change: Teaching, leading and the realities of reform (pp. 52–71). London: Routledge & Falmer.
22.
MarchJ. G., & SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations.New York: Wiley.
23.
MeierD. (2003). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an era of testing and standardization.Boston: Beacon.
24.
MerriamS. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. and exp. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
MerriamS. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
MerzC., & FurmanG. C. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox.New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.
27.
NelsonR. R., & WinterS. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
28.
OgawaR. T. (1991). Enchantment, disenchantment, and accommodation: How a faculty made sense of the succession of its principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 30–60.
29.
PentlandB. T. (1995). Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organizational Science, 6(5), 541–556.
30.
PentlandB. T., & FeldmanM. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 793–815.
31.
PentlandB. T., & ReuterH. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.
32.
QuinnT. (2002). Succession planning: Start today.Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
33.
RabyR., & DomitrekJ. (2007). Slippery as fish … but already caught? Secondary students’ engagement with school rules. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 931–958.
34.
ReitzugU. C., & ReevesJ. E. (1992). “Miss Lincoln doesn't teach here”: A descriptive narrative and conceptual analysis of a principal's symbolic leadership behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 185–219.
35.
ScottW. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
SergivoanniT. J. (1994). Building community in schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
SewellW. F. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.
38.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind.Washington, DC: Author.
40.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
41.
WolcottH. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Designs and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
