Drawing on research on high-reliability organizations, this interview-based qualitative case study employs four characteristics of such organizations as a lens for analyzing the operations of one very successful K–5 public school. Results suggest that the school had processes similar to those characteristic of high-reliability organizations: a commitment to a “dual bottom line” that clarifies what to achieve and what to avoid; reliance on “skeptical standardization” to bring consistency to the school's instruction; simultaneous use of “constrained improvisation” that empowered teaches to adapt standard procedures in response to student learning difficulties; and strategies for combining standardized and improvisational strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartonM., & SutcliffeK. (2009). Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: Organizational safety as a social achievement. Human Relations, 62(9), 1327–1356.
2.
BellamyT. (2011). High reliability and leadership for organizational change. In Mid-Continent Research for Education, and Learning (Ed.), Noteworthy perspectives: High reliability organizations in education.Denver, CO: Author.
3.
BellamyG. T., CrawfordL., Huber-MarshallL., & CoulterG. (2005). The fail-safe schools challenge: Leadership possibilities from high reliability organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 4(3), 383–412.
4.
BidwellC. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations. Sociology of Education (extra issue), 100–114.
5.
BigleyG., & RobertsK. (2001). The incident command system: High reliability organizing for highly volatile and complex environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1281–1299.
6.
BoudettK. P., CityE. A., & MurnaneR. J. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
7.
CameronK. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.
8.
CameronK., QuinnR., DeGraffJ., & ThakorA. (2006). Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations.Northampton, MA: Elgar.
9.
CoburnC. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 7, 211–244.
10.
DuFourR., & EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement.Bloomington, IA: National Education Service.
11.
ElmoreR. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute, American Federation of Teachers.
12.
FiolC. M., PrattM. G., & O'ConnorE. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflict. Academy of Management Review, 34, 32–55.
13.
FuchsD., FuchsL., & SteckerP. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new system of general education placements. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323.
14.
GrossmanP., WineburgS., & WoolworthS. (2000). What makes teacher community different from a gathering of teachers?Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
15.
HalversonR., GriggJ., PrichettR., & ThomasD. A. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159–194.
16.
JenkinsJ., SchillerE., BlackorbyJ., ThayerS. K., & TillyD. (in press). Responsiveness to intervention in reading: Architecture and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly.
17.
JohnsonS. M., & DonaldsonM. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 8–13.
18.
LampertM. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
LaPorteT. (1996). High reliability organizations: Unlikely, demanding, and at risk. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 4(2), 60–71.
20.
LevineT. H., & MarcusA. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher collaboration: Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 116–138.
21.
LewisM. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760–776.
22.
LiebermanA., & MaceD. P. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 77–88.
23.
LiebermanA., & MillerL. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning.New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
O'ReillyC., & TushmanM. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
25.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
ResarR. (2006). Practical applications of reliability theory: Making noncatastrophic health care processes reliable. Health Services Research, 41(4), 1677–1689.
27.
RobertsK. (1990). Managing high reliability organizations. California Management Review, 32, 101–113.
28.
RobertsK. H., YuK., & Van StralenD. (2004). Patient safety as an organizational systems issue: Lessons from a variety of industries. In YoungbergB., & HatlieM. (Eds.), Patient safety handbook (pp. 169–186). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
29.
RobinsonV., HoepaM., & LloydC. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why.Auckland: University of Auckland and New Zealand Ministry of Education.
30.
RowanB. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. In CazdenC. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 353–389). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
31.
SmithW. K., & LewisM. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
32.
SpillaneJ., & BurchP. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education (pp. 87–102). In MeyerH. D., & RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education.Albany: SUNY Press.
33.
SpillaneJ. P., PariseL. M., & ShererJ. Z. (2010). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.3102/0002831210385102
34.
StringfieldS., ReynoldsD., & SchafferE. (2010). Improving secondary students’ academic achievement through a focus on reform reliability. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(4), 409–428.
StringfieldS., & Yakimowski-SrebnickM. (2005). Promise, progress, problems, and paradoxes of three phases of accountability: A longitudinal case study of the Baltimore City Public Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 43–75.
37.
WeickK. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29, 112–127.
38.
WeickK. (2011). Organizing for transient reliability: The production of dynamic non-events. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(1), 21–27.
39.
WeickK., & SutcliffeK. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40.
WeickK., SutcliffeK., & ObstfeldD. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Process of collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 81–123.
41.
WellmanB., & LiptonL. (2004). Data-driven dialogue: A facilitator's guide to collaborative inquiry.Arlington, MA: MiraVia.
