EDPL 670: Developing Learning Communities in …



EDLPS 551: Organizational Theory and Educational Change

Winter 2018

| | |

|Instructor: Meredith Honig |Meeting Times: Tuesdays: 2-4:20pm plus 6 weekly reading group meetings to be arranged |

|mihonig@uw.edu |Grading: Letter grades |

|Office: Miller 315D |Credits: 4 |

|Tel: 206.616.0679 | |

|Office Hours: By appointment |Access readings and other course materials: |

| | |

ABOUT 551

Many education reformers and researchers aim to realize meaningful and lasting change in school systems to address persistent educational inequities, but their approaches often do not reflect an understanding of why organizational systems so often do not change and conditions under which they do. This omission is problematic, especially since barriers to educational equity are systemic—rooted in how systems operate and perpetuate individual behavior.

This course starts from the premise that reformers and researchers would improve the relevance of their work to addressing educational equity with deeper knowledge of organizational theory and how to use theory to guide their strategies and scholarship.

Course readings introduce you to the inter-disciplinary research on organizations and its applicability to education. We contrast organizational theories, critique how others have used those theories to inform educational research and practice, and learn to work with organizational research to ground our own research and practice. Discussions also emphasize the function of conceptual frameworks in educational research and how educational leaders may use different theoretical frames to help them diagnose educational problems and craft improvement strategies.

Learning Objectives

This course aims to strengthen your:

• Knowledge of organizational theories from the birth of the field to the present

• Ability to identify and understand concepts from organizational theories across various disciplines and apply them to contemporary policy and leadership issues

• Use of organizational research to develop conceptual frameworks to guide research and practice

• Use of your own professional experience to inform your understanding of organizational theory

• Skills in writing analytical papers

Course Structure

We begin the course with an overview discussion of educational equity and how organizational theory can be a resource for deepening our understanding of it and shining a light forward. Our introductory sessions examine the early research literature on organizations. In the process we explore several concepts foundational to understanding organizations in practice and research: agency, structure, and environment. We pay special attention to how early organizational researchers conducted their research and the consequences of their choices for the knowledge they were able to generate. We also examine “bureaucracy” as a main mode of organizing in education and other social policy arenas and explore: How did early organizational theorists conceptualize bureaucracies and what are the pros and cons of those conceptualizations for our understanding of how educational systems behave?

Then, we sample organizational theories from disciplines foundational to organizational studies: economics, cognitive science, political science, and sociology. We practice arranging ideas from each theory into conceptual frameworks and using them to predict or explain the behavior of educational organizations. In the process, we compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of each theory as a guide for educational research and practice and explore the methodological demands each theory places on organizational analysts.

In addition to the Tuesday course meetings, you participate in weekly discussion groups in which you critically examine course readings in advance of class sessions.

COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY POLICIES

Academic Integrity Policy: The College of Education holds very high standards regarding academic integrity. Work submitted in this course must be the product of your own original effort. When you incorporate the works, words, or ideas of another, you must provide proper citations. If you are concerned about plagiarism, have questions about legitimate forms of collaboration, or are unclear about appropriate methods of citation, consult a style manual or the instructor. Along with plagiarism and unauthorized collaboration, other forms of academic misconduct include (but are not limited to)

falsifying attendance records and submitting the work of others as if it were your own. Violations of the Academic Integrity Policy will result in sanctions that can range from disciplinary warning, to probation or suspension, to – in the event of severe or repeated violations – dismissal from the University. For more information please refer to the College of Education’s Academic Integrity Policy and related procedures: .

Access and Accommodations:  Your experience in this class is important to me. If you have already established accommodations with Disability Resources for Students (DRS), please communicate your approved accommodations to me at your earliest convenience so we can discuss your needs in this course. If you have not yet established services through DRS, but have a temporary health condition or permanent disability that requires accommodations (conditions include but not limited to; mental health, attention-related, learning, vision, hearing, physical or health impacts), you are welcome to contact DRS at 206-543-8924 or uwdrs@uw.edu or disability.uw.edu. DRS offers resources and coordinates reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities and/or temporary health conditions.  Reasonable accommodations are established through an interactive process between you, your instructor(s) and DRS.  It is the policy and practice of the University of Washington to create inclusive and accessible learning environments consistent with federal and state law.

College of Education Writing Support: The College of Education partners with the Odegaard Writing & Research Center to provide writing support for CoE students. Conveniently located in Miller Hall 207, this satellite site provides one-to-one tutoring, and our tutors work with writers at any stage of writing, including outlining, drafting, research, and revision. The CoE branch is staffed with undergraduate and graduate peer tutors who are familiar with the College of Education and who can support writers’ ideas and projects throughout their writing process. For more information or to schedule an appointment, please visit our website at .

OVERVIEW OF COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING

Note: A rubric that specifies standards for grading will be distributed separately.

|REQUIREMENTS |PERCENT OF GRADE |DUE DATE |

|BRIEF PROFESSIONAL BIO | |FRIDAY JANUARY 12TH BY 5PM |

|I ask you for this brief bio to help me quickly understand some of the experiences you | |THROUGH CANVAS |

|bring to this course and to hear some of your expectations for this quarter. The bio | | |

|also aims to prompt your own thinking about how you will direct your efforts in this | | |

|course. | | |

| | | |

|Instructions | | |

|In no more than 1-2 single-spaced pages, please tell me: | | |

|What 1-2 professional or personal experiences do you view as important to your | | |

|participation in this particular course? Why those? | | |

|What are 2-3 of your main goals for your participation in this course and why? What is| | |

|your current thinking about how you might use your participation in this course each | | |

|week and in the written assignment to help you realize your goals? | | |

|If applicable: What is the status of your doctoral dissertation, masters thesis or | | |

|other major degree project and how, if at all, might this course help you advance that | | |

|work? | | |

|Anything else you would like me to know? Please tell me—here or in person soon. | | |

| | | |

|Advice | | |

|Be selective. Do not cut and paste or attach your resume or submit a bio you may have |50 | |

|prepared for another course, including EDLPS 550. Rather, highlight 2-3 significant | | |

|points that you think are most relevant to your participation in this particular | | |

|course. | | |

|Review the syllabus before you write your bio and use your bio to reflect on how you | | |

|will direct your efforts in this course. | | |

|CLASS PARTICIPATION | |Each class meeting |

|Participation depends on your careful completion of assigned readings using the | | |

|questions in the syllabus as a guide. Participation also includes your engagement in | | |

|course discussions each Tuesday and in weekly discussion groups. Class sessions have | | |

|been developed with the expectation that you have completed the assigned reading and | | |

|participated in your discussion group prior to each session. | | |

|Discussion Groups | |Discussion Group Report due 6 |

|Your participation in a weekly discussion group six times during the quarter is a | |times through Canvas each |

|formal expectation of the course and factored into your participation grade. You form | |Monday by 5pm before each class|

|your own discussion group and meet to discuss the readings in advance of each class | |session. |

|meeting. To adequately discuss each reading each week, you will need around an hour and| | |

|a half for each group meeting. You generate a written record of your discussion using | | |

|the “Discussion Group Report” template. | | |

| | | |

|Do not simply pass reading notes back and forth and consider that a discussion group | | |

|meeting. I expect that you will engage with each other in an active discussion either | | |

|in person or through technology that allows you to exchange dialog in real time. | | |

| | | |

|The meeting and record must be completed and the record submitted by 5 on Monday before| | |

|each class session. When planning your discussion group meetings, please be sure to | | |

|take into account that there are only seven sessions with assigned reading so you have | | |

|7 opportunities to complete the 6 required discussion group meetings. | | |

|Organizational Analysis Paper | | |

|This 10-page, double-spaced paper asks you to apply concepts from the course to an | | |

|organizational issue of interest to you. | | |

| | | |

|SEE THE ASSIGNMENT SHEET AND GRADING RUBRIC FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. ALL INSTALLMENTS | | |

|ARE DUE THROUGH CANVAS | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |50 | |

| |Paper topic statement | |February 2 by 5pm |

| | | | |

| |Required Paper Draft | |March 10 by 5pm |

| |Final Paper | |March 17 by 5pm |

| | | | |

SCHEDULE OF READINGS

January 9 Course Introduction

In this session, we begin to explore the main questions that undergird this course: What is organizational studies as a field of research and practice and why is it such an important source of knowledge when it comes to educational equity? How can the knowledge and analytical tools in this field help inform the research and practice of educational organizations? Drawing on the knowledge and tools from this field means not simply making organizations the topic of your work but thinking and acting like an organizational theorist. But how do organizational theorists think and act? We will start to practice taking that stance with an initial case.

I. Early Research

Virtually all theories of organizational behavior advance certain claims about the nature of the relationship among human agency, formal and informal structures, and organizational environments. Many contemporary organizational theories are direct or indirect responses to early research in the field about these main aspects of organizations, especially research focused on bureaucratic organizations. Accordingly we will become more able readers of contemporary organizational research if we have some familiarity with these early classic conceptions and readings.

January 16 Early Research on Organizations as Rational, Natural, and Open Systems

The first formal research on organizations typically fell into one of two camps, which leading organizational scholar Richard Scott refers to as rational or natural systems theories. Early open systems theories began to consider how external organizational environments shaped organizational behavior. During this session, we read primary texts from each camp to deepen our understanding of: (1) How these perspectives are similar/different especially with regard to their treatment of three main dimensions of organizational life: agency, structure, and environment and (2) How early theorists’ different choices about research methods led them to particular findings about how organizations behave. We also start getting in the habit of reading primary texts from the literature on organizational behavior (rather than textbook summaries or cases).

Please prepare for this session by completing following readings using these guiding questions:

• What questions did Taylor, Mayo, and Zald use to ground their research?

• What research methods did they use to explore those questions?

• What did they find, particularly regarding the extent to which agency, structure and organizational environments influence organizational behavior?

Early Research in the Rational Tradition

Taylor, F.W. (1916, December). Principles of scientific management. Bulletin of the Taylor Society. Reprinted in: Shafritz, J.M., & Ott, J. S. (1992). Classics of organization theory, 3rd Edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 69-80.

Early Research in the Natural Tradition

a. Mayo-- Two brief pieces from The Economist

b. Mayo, E. (1930). The human effect of mechanization. The American Economic Review, 20(1), 156-176.

(Continued)

Early Research on Organizations as Open Systems

Zald, M.N., & Denton, P. (1963). From evangelism to general service: The transformation of the YMCA. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 214-234.

January 23 Bureaucratic Organizations

Bureaucracy is an enduring organizational form in U.S. education— and the root of many complaints about these and other systems. Such negative associations with bureaucracy have become so common that one definition of “bureaucracy” in English language dictionaries is “red-tape.” However, organizational research hardly paints “bureaucracy” as a universal organizational problem or as an organizational form impervious to change. (And if you look up bureaucracy in the dictionary you will see that “red-tape” tends not to be the first or second definition of “bureaucracy.”) Accordingly, an important set of orienting ideas for organizational theorists is that bureaucracies are far more complex and varied in their functioning than suggested by some common uses of the term, bureaucracy.

Given the prevalence of bureaucracies as an organizational form in education, the following classic readings provide important further foundation for our work with organizational theory. Please complete the following readings and come to class prepared to discuss:

• How did early rational systems theorists (represented by Weber), natural systems theorists (represented by Blau), and open systems theorists (represented by Weick) describe what a bureaucracy is and how it should and does operate?

• How did each author define and view agency, structure, and environment as influences on bureaucratic behavior? [Note that not all the authors explicitly define these terms. So to answer this question you may need to mine the readings for implied definitions.]

• Why do you think the term “bureaucracy” is sometimes used in a pejorative sense? What might Weber, Blau, and Weick say are the downsides and upsides of bureaucracy as a mode of organizing, especially when it comes to public education?

Rational Systems perspective

Weber, M. (1946). Bureaucracy. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (Eds.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in: Shafritz, J.M., & Ott, J. S. (1992). Classics of organization theory, 3rd Edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, pp. 81-86.

Natural Systems perspective

Blau, P.M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-15; 121-143.

Open Systems perspective

Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.

II. Contemporary Theories of Organizational Behavior

January 30 Economic Theories: Principal-Agent

Principal-agent theory draws on basic concepts from micro-economics to help predict and explain organizational behavior. This theory rests on assumptions that organizations consist of different types of actors, principals and agents, each of whom are driven by self-interest to maximize their benefits including their control over their situation. In this view, organizational behavior depends largely on predictable patterns of principal-agent relationships.

First, read the Waterman and Meier piece about how principal-agent relationships play out in public bureaucracies. Come to the session prepared to discuss:

• What are the main basic assumptions about human behavior on which principal-agent theory rests?

• How do Waterman and Meier apply those ideas to public bureaucracies? What patterns of bureaucratic behavior do they highlight?

The other two authors use principal-agent theory to predict or explain organizational dynamics. As you read each article, please consider:

• How does each author represent principal-agent theory?

o Which concepts do they privilege?

o Which do they omit?

o How do they use those concepts to predict or explain organizational behavior in their case?

• Assuming that Waterman & Meier provide a thorough representation of the theory, what advice would you give each author (Ferris and Toma) about how to improve their application of principal-agent theory?

• Thinking across the readings, what do you think are the pros and cons of using principal-agent theory to understand organizational dynamics?

Waterman, R.W. & Meier, K.J., (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), p.173-202.

Ferris, J.M. (1992). School-based decision making: A principal-agent perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 333-346.

Toma, E.F. (1986). State university boards of trustees: A principal-agent perspective. Public Choice, 49(2), 155-163.

February 6 Cognitive Theories: Sensemaking

A main line of organizational theory applies theories of individual and social cognition to predict and explain organizational behavior. One branch of this line, anchored by Herbert Simon and James G. March originally out of Carnegie Mellon University, elaborated how “bounded rationality” as a mode of decision-making affects organizational behavior and how organizations shape decision-making. Weick and colleagues at the University of Michigan focus on social engagement as main influences on organizational behavior.

In this session, we explore these ideas as frameworks for predicting or explaining organizational behavior.

Please use the following questions to anchor your reading:

• When March and Simon (in Perrow) say that organizational behavior is boundedly rational, what do they mean?

o When organizational actors make decisions that reflect bounded rationality, what are dimensions of the process of decision-making?

o What conditions influence that decision-making?

o How do organizations matter to that decision-making?

• When Weick and colleagues say that organizational behavior is a process of sense-making, what do they mean?

o When organizational actors engage in sensemaking, what do they do?

o What conditions influence sensemaking processes?

o How do organizations matter to sensemaking?

• How did Coburn use sensemaking theory to explain the implementation of reading policy?

o Which concepts did she privilege?

o Which did she omit?

o What advice, if any, would you give Coburn about how to improve her application of sensemaking theory?

• What do you think are the pros and cons of using sensemaking theory to understand the organizational dynamics in the two cases?

Summary of Simon and March in: Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay, 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Random House, pp. 119-131.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

Coburn, C.E., (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional community. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.

February 13 Political Theories: Resource Dependence

Resource Dependence Theory (RDT), like principal-agent theory, focuses on the importance of struggles for autonomy and power as essential to understanding organizational behavior. However, RDT focuses less on how such struggles play out inter-personally and more on how they matter to inter-organizational relationships. RDT also takes a broader view than principal-agent theory of the kinds of resources that matter to how autonomy and power play out. Pfeffer & Salancik authored some of the earliest foundational pieces in this line of research.

• According to Pfeffer & Salancik, what are sources of autonomy and power within and among organizations and how do they shape organizational dynamics?

• What are 1-2 examples of these dynamics in educational organizations you care about?

The Casciaro & Piskorski piece aims to extend Pfeffer & Salancik’s original conceptualization. This piece is not easy to read but typical of pieces in ASQ, a main source of articles on organizational theory, so a good chance to practice our org. theory reading skills. As you read, do not worry about the empirical tests but focus on the discussion of the theory (pp. 167-181; 191-).

• What are the authors’ main concerns with RDT as originally conceptualized by Pfeffer & Salancik?

• What, in your own words, are the authors’ main extensions of the original theory?

• What is one example from your own experience or knowledge that illustrates each extension?

(If you aren’t doing so already, I strongly recommend you write out responses to these questions.)

Shenhav uses RDT to demonstrate how a university’s dependence on particular funding sources influences a particular resource, the professional autonomy of university professors. As you read this piece, consider:

• What is the main question the author poses about institutions of higher education?

• What are the main findings?

• How did the author use ideas from RDT to explain their findings and draw conclusions about how institutions of higher education behave?

• What do you think are the pros and cons of the author’s application of RDT? (Here, you might review the EDLPS 551 grading rubric and give Shenhav a grade and set of comments justifying your assessment.)

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, pp. 39-61.

Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M.J., (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at Resource Dependence Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 167-199.

Shenhav, Y.A. (1986). Dependency and compliance in academic research infrastructures. Sociological Perspectives, 29(1), 29-51.

February 20 Sociological Theories: The New Institutionalism in Sociology

The New Institutionalism in Sociology (NIS) argues, in part, that organizations are driven not mainly by cognitive processes or the quest for efficiency (per economic theories) or control (per political theories). Rather, organizations strive for legitimacy. The classic pieces by DiMaggio & Powell and Meyer & Rowan examine these dynamics as they play out between organizations. The Barley piece shows how these dynamics unfold within organizations in ways that are consequential to organizational performance.

Please first read the Meyer & Rowan and DiMaggio & Powell pieces with the following questions as guides:

• What is an institution and how do institutions matter to organizational behavior?

• What are Meyer & Rowan referring to when they talk about organizational “myths”? What is an example of a myth from an organization you are familiar with?

• What is organizational isomorphism? When an organization demonstrates isomorphism, what more specifically is it doing? Under what conditions are organizations likely to demonstrate isomorphism?

Then please read the Barley piece and consider:

• What are organizational scripts and how are they similar to or different from “institutions” or “myths”?

• How do scripts influence behavior within organizations?

• Under what conditions are organizational actors more or less likely to follow scripts? Which scripts?

Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-60.

Barley, S.R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108.

February 27 More Sociological Theories: Diffusion

Theories of diffusion from organizational sociology aim in part to predict and explain the adoption and diffusion of ideas, organizational forms, innovations, etc. within and across organizations. The following concepts are central to these explanations: periphery and core; early and late adopters; and legitimacy. As you read, please consider:

• How is each of these terms defined in each of the assigned readings?

• What are the main outcomes in each article that the authors aim to explain?

• What concepts from diffusion theory do they draw on to explain those outcomes?

• How do they apply those concepts to actually explain the outcomes of their focal case?

Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker, L. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structures of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reforms 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22-39.

Edelman, L.B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531-1576.

March 6 Organizational Analysis Paper Workshop

Please come to class with the sources you will use to create the conceptual framework for your organizational analysis paper. Please make sure you have read those sources carefully and that you are prepared to discuss the questions listed below. I strongly suggest you write out answers to these questions and bring them to class to help with your discussion.

• What are 2-3 reasons why you have chosen the focal theory for your organizational analysis paper?

• What are 2-3 reasons why you have not chosen the other theories featured in the second main section of the syllabus? (Hint: Focus your reasons on what each theory buys or does not buy you when it comes to your particular case.)

• In each of your chosen readings, what are the main concepts highlighted by each author? Of those concepts, which ones are most relevant to your case? How is each relevant?

• What questions do you have about these readings and their application to your case that you would like to discuss with others?

Readings to be determined by you.

March 13 Wrap Up

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download