Organizational Leadership
- Alice Prophete
- Feb 15
- 3 min read
Educational leadership is capable of action. It anticipates change, is ethical and transformational.
Brainstorming: Do educational institutions operate according to a mechanistic logic?
Many dimensions of educational institutions operate according to a mechanical logic. For example, ministries of education, school boards, administrations, and unions constitute organizational forms to ensure standardization of policies and procedures.
In fact, when we consider the organizational character of educational institutions in their modes of management and administration, we can admit that they function according to the logic of large companies that emphasize detailed regulations and advocate hierarchical control in order to be efficient in their services (Morgan, 2003). Thus, they correspond to the bureaucratic logic of the organization argued by Max Weber[1]. Indeed, whether at the level of ministries of education or at the level of school boards and schools, planning, coordination and control seem to be essential in the management of resources for the greatest success of the system in terms of better school performance. Operating in this way, they correspond to the classical school of management as a bureaucratic organization that functions with great precision as a machine with a network of parts: functional departments interrelated by hierarchy (Morgan, 1999).This organizational structure, advocated by Fayol, Mooney and Urwick[2]. This organizational structure, as advocated by Fayol, Mooney and Urwick, «must operate as precisely as possible through patterns of authority, such as job responsibilities or the right to give orders and demand obedience» (Morgan, 1999, p.19).
The truth is that in educational institutions, the administration is very hierarchically structured by having different departments that control human resources while defining their role and function, financial resources and material resources. Each branch has an «expert» who plans absolutely everything. Take, for example, the decision-makers (professionals) in curriculum development in ministries of education. They plan the content of the curricula, the amount of hours for each subject, the standardized tests to measure the content, etc., all of which are related to the policies and aims of education, which have been decided and developed by others higher up in the hierarchy. This structure is reproduced in the day-to-day administration of a school in terms of the division of tasks and functions such as principals, deputies,
The mechanistic logic in educational institutions is, on the one hand, beneficial in terms of guaranteed and stable success in ensuring qualified personnel in each department (including teachers) and in the implementation of curricula. All of this helps to perpetuate and maintain a mental model/social representation of education/school that makes the power and political dimension of the school system look good to society. On the other hand, while the mechanical structure empowers each actor, it also takes away the autonomy of the latter. On the other hand, mechanistic logic makes it possible to understand and clearly see the distinct power and role of each actor involved in the education system, to determine, among other things, the incompetence and inefficiency of each. Thus, it is easy and quick to replace the incompetent with other experts in order to counteract any failure. Educational institutions, in a business and administrative logic, can manage human, economic and material resources efficiently.
What about the educational objective in all this? Where does it lie in the mechanical machinery?
As Morgan (1997) argues, mechanistic organizations « have great difficulty adapting to changing circumstances because they are designed to achieve predetermined goals; they are not designed for innovation» (p.27). While one of the missions of schools is socialization, which prepares young people to become active individuals and citizens, this is perhaps even more vital in a rapidly changing world...
References
Morgan, G. (1999). Images of the organization. 2nd Edition. Quebec City, QC: Les Presses de l'Université Laval.
[1] "The first general definition of bureaucracy as an organization" by Max Weber, reported by Morgan (1999).
[2] A Frenchman, Henri Fayol and an American, F.W. Mooney, Colonel Lyndall Urwick are the three representatives of the classical school of management cited in Morgan (1999).
Comentários