week 2
Compare and contrast the three types of social control. Provide one best practice for each type of social control, noting how power, authority, and influence play a role in each.
Select the type of sanction you would use to establish and maintain social control in a school setting and explain why. Select one of the remaining two sanctions and provide an example where that type of sanction would best apply.
Select two of the characteristics of learning organizations depicted in Table 3.1, located in Chapter 3 of the textbook. Provide two examples that depict how these characteristics can be realized in a school setting of your choice.
CHAPTER 3 IS ATTACHED.
�
39
Bureaucracies Versus
Learning Organizations
If we are serious about having great schools for every child, we begin by trying to understand the schools we have and the rea-
sons they function as they do. Next, we try to imagine what schools
would look like if they were to function as they would need to for all
children to learn at high levels. This chapter provides a framework
for assisting leaders with both of these tasks.
This framework posits two modes of organization that can frame our thinking
about how schools should be organized and how they should function. The fi rst
of these is the bureaucracy , an organizational type initially described in detail by
Max Weber (1864 – 1920), a German sociologist who was particularly interested
in understanding the nature of large – scale organizations based on rational prin-
ciples, clearly differentiated roles, and hierarchically arranged systems of author-
ity. To assist him in this understanding, he employed the idea of bureaucracy as
an ideal type. Since Weber ’ s initial formulation, literally thousands of books and
articles have been written on the subject of bureaucracy.
Weber did not, however, invent bureaucracy or the idea of bureaucracy.
The term bureaucracy was fi rst used in France in reference to the operation of the
French government prior to the revolution of 1789. Weber transformed this term
into a tool for technical analysis by describing bureaucracy as an ideal type.
The second mode of organization is the learning organization , a relatively new
concept. Much of the original thinking underlying the notion of the learning
T H R E E
c h a p t e r
c03.indd 39 3/5/09 3:17:45 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning40
organization was developed by Peter Drucker as he struggled to understand and
explain how changes in the mode of work that typifi ed American industry were
creating a new type of worker — what he called the knowledge worker — and a
new type of organization — what he called the knowledge work organization . Peter
Senge built on this set of ideas and is probably the originator of the term learn-
ing organization . 1 Since the seminal work of Drucker and Senge, many others
have contributed to our understanding — and misunderstanding — of these ideas.
What I have to say in this chapter is therefore a compilation of the thinking of
many social theorists (there may even be an idea or two here that I can blame on
no one but myself ).
IDEAL TYPES: A TOOL FOR ANALYSIS
The effort to describe and explain the similarities and differences in organiza-
tions has occupied social scientists for many years. One of the most powerful
of the tools developed to support this work is the ideal type : efforts to present
in an idealized manner a model “ expressing in a pure — and therefore unreal —
form, the core characteristics of a pattern of conduct. ” Above all, ideal types are
efforts to state the patterned regularities that “ sustain an enduring system of
relationships. ” 2
Ideal types are intended to bring attention to factors that are worthy of notice
and should be considered when trying to understand a phenomenon; they are
not statements regarding the actual condition of the phenomenon. For example,
Max Weber used the rational bureaucracy as an ideal type to describe and explain
behavior in organizations with which he was concerned. As conceived by Weber,
rational bureaucracy is a means of organizing human activity so that the impact
of human emotion and sentiment is minimized, thereby ensuring rationality in
all decision – making processes. Few organizations attain this idealized state, but
it is important to consider the role that a preference for rationality plays in the
decision making of an organization and the creation of the systems that lead to
and reinforce decisions.
1See, for example, Peter Drucker, The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker ’ s
Essential Writings on Management (New York: HarperCollins, 2001). Peter Senge, The Fifth
Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1990).
2Everett Wilson, Sociology: Rules, Roles, and Relationships (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1971),
p. 64 4.
c03.indd 40 3/5/09 3:17:45 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 41
Another function of the ideal type is to provide a basis for considering the
extent to which an organization fi ts or deviates from any given model or type,
the difference such patterns make in the lives of people in the organization, and
the effects the organization has on the outside world. Organizations based on
bureaucratic assumptions, for example, always have trouble dealing with and tak-
ing advantage of persons whose primary tasks call on them to create or uniquely
apply technical knowledge and who function generally as what these days are
called knowledge workers, a term that appears to have been coined by Peter
Drucker. The productivity of knowledge worker has to do with employing ideas,
theories, and mental processes, in contrast to the activity of the manual worker,
which has more to do with the exercise of muscle and sinew. Bureaucracies
operate best when work is routine and the means of doing the job are rela-
tively well known and certain. They are not highly adaptive organizations and
do not encourage creativity. If adaptive behavior and creativity are required, a
learning organization is required.
In this book I use the notion of the school as a bureaucracy to show how a
preference for compliance and control has driven educators to model schools
after factories, aimed at the mass production of products like automobiles, and
governmental agencies and other types of organizations that give preference to
operating systems that refl ect compliance and control as core values.
The contrasting idea of the learning organization provides a way to describe
a more fl exible and creative mode of organization, one where working on and
working with knowledge and putting knowledge to work are primary modes of
operation. Peter Senge defi nes learning organizations as “ organizations where
people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire,
where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole
together. ” 3 Table 3.1 lists side by side the defi ning characteristics of these two
ideal types.
Are Schools Learning Organizations?
Are schools learning organizations? When asked this question, Peter Senge said,
“ Defi nitely not … . Most teachers feel oppressed trying to conform to all kinds of
rules, goals and objectives, many of which they don ’ t believe in. Teachers don ’ t
3Senge, The Fift h Discipline, p. 3.
c03.indd 41 3/5/09 3:17:46 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning42
Table 3.1
Characteristics of Schools Operating in a Bureaucratic
Versus a Learning Organization Context
Bureaucratic Schools Learning Organizations
The primary purpose of the school
is identifi ed in a way that defi nes
the student in a passive or submis-
sive role — for example, the student
as product, raw material, client, or
conscript.
Students are viewed as volunteers
rather than conscripts, and it is
assumed that for them to learn
what the community wants them
to learn, they must be provided
with work that has qualities and
characteristics that respond to the
students ’ own motives.
The willingness and ability of
students to comply with uniform
performance standards set by various
“ end users ” — such as the business
community or colleges and
universities — are usually of central
concern.
Student docility and compliance are
defi ned as virtues.
A well – articulated set of norms
places task engagement and
profound learning at the center of
the school ’ s system of values and
clearly defi nes the core business of
school as the creation of engaging
work for students. a
Teachers are customarily viewed as
employees and as lower – level
members of the adult hierarchy.
There is considerable separation
between employee groups and
management groups.
Teachers are viewed as leaders,
designers of work for students, and
guides to instruction.
The principal is usually viewed as a
fi rst – line supervisor, in the lower
echelon of management.
The principal is expected to be a
leader of leaders within the school,
as well as a member of the
superintendent ’ s administrative
team at the central offi ce level.
Routine, standardization, and
predictability of response are desired
end states.
The idea of continuous innovation
aimed at continuous improvement
is embraced as a core value, and
behavior is guided by clear moral
and aesthetic norms combined with
a fl uid set of technical norms. b
(Continued)
c03.indd 42 3/5/09 3:17:46 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 43
Table 3.1
(Continued)
Bureaucratic Schools Learning Organizations
Rules, procedures, and policies are
elaborate and rigidly enforced.
Local conventions place emphasis
on fairness, equity, excellence,
loyalty, courage, persistence,
constancy of purpose, and duty as
values that defi ne “ the way we do
business around here. ”
Communication fl ows from the
top down with little attention to
bottom – up communication or
horizontal communication.
Management by memorandum is
typical.
Coordination of effort is a
management function.
Conversation and dialogue about
the core business of the school and
its success in doing that business are
the primary tools for building and
maintaining the school culture and
ensuring the disciplined pursuit of a
shared vision of the future.
Carefully crafted job descriptions
are used to delegate and assign
responsibility and authority.
Boundary disputes are common,
especially between school faculties
and central offi ce personnel or
among middle – level operators and
semiautonomous operating units
such as departments within schools.
The central offi ce staff is expected
to work to develop the capacity
of both the school district and the
community to support and
sustain innovations that promise to
increase the quality of schoolwork
provided to students.
The superintendent is typically viewed
as a manager rather than as a leader
and is expected to carry out the
directives of bureaucratic superiors
(school boards, state offi cials) without
signifi cant input into the way such
directives are framed.
The superintendent is expected to
serve as a moral and intellectual
leader for the district, to continually
focus all participants on the
direction in which the schools are
heading, and to reinforce the
cultural and moral basis for
the direction that has been set.
(Continued)
c03.indd 43 3/5/09 3:17:46 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning44
work together; there ’ s very little sense of collective learning going on in most
schools. ” With regard to students, Senge continued:
We say school is about learning, but by and large schooling has tradi-
tionally been about people memorizing a lot of stuff that they really
don ’ t care too much about and the whole approach is quite frag-
mented. Really deep learning is a process that is inevitably driven by
the learner, not someone else. And it always moves back and forth
between a domain of thinking and a domain of action. So having
a student sit passively taking in information is hardly a very good
model for learning; it ’ s just what we ’ re used to. 4
Generally I agree with Senge when he asserts that schools are not learning
organizations. I do have some diffi cultly with his assertion that schools are not
Table 3.1
(Continued)
Bureaucratic Schools Learning Organizations
The role of the board of education is
typically defi ned as representative of
various stakeholders, particularly the
special interest groups, factions, and
parties that elect or appoint them.
The school board is expected to
establish a clear sense of community
for itself and to market the identity
it develops to constituencies as a
means of building a community of
interest around the schools and the
students served by the schools.
a By core business I mean the goals and activities that defi ne what the school is about. A core business is
identifi ed by answering the question, “ What do people do around here, and what meaning do they
attach to what they do? ”
b Moral norms have to do with judgments about good and bad, corrupt and honorable, purpose and
value. Aesthetic norms have to do with taste, standards of beauty, and so on. Technical norms have to
do with the way tasks are to be done, usually based on research and disciplined knowledge. Conven-
tions have to do with “ the way things are done around here ” and are justifi ed by tradition. These ideas
were fi rst suggested to me in Robin M. Williams ’ s now – classic book , American Society: A Sociological
Interpretation , 3rd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1972).
4John O ’ Neil, “ On Schools as Learning Organizations: A Conversation with Peter Senge, ”
Educational Leadership , Apr. 1995, p . 28.
c03.indd 44 3/5/09 3:17:47 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 45
learning focused. They are learning focused, but they are typically focused on
the wrong type of learning.
Senge is, however, concerned only with what he calls deep learning. (I usually refer
to this type of learning as profound learning , meaning learning that calls on the stu-
dent to think and reason as well as to remember.) The kind of learning that most
schools now promote tends to focus on a type of learning that can be produced by
forms of compliance not associated with engagement. 5 This type of learning is super-
fi cial but it does have the advantage of being easy to measure on standardized tests.
Profound learning requires that students remember what they learned over a
long period of time rather than just to pass a test. It thus provides them with a level
of mastery of what they have learned that is suffi cient to ensure that the knowledge
they gain or develop is of use in contexts beyond that in which it was learned.
Critical thinking is essential to the acquisition of profound knowledge, as are
refl ection, re – creation, and reconfi guration. Such learning seldom occurs when
the tasks that are intended to produce the learning have no inherent meaning or
value to the learner. For profound learning to occur, meaning, personal value,
and the engagement that result from these are essential ingredients.
One of the reasons that bureaucracy is so commonplace in American schools
is that the type of learning valued in schools can be most effi ciently produced by
inducing compliance through the use of extrinsic rewards and the threat of pun-
ishment. The pedagogical procedures needed to produce this type of compliance
are generally more certain and better understood and codifi ed than is the case
when the concern is to produce engaging work for students. Therefore, the pro-
cedures needed to produce superfi cial learning are relatively easy to rationalize
and standardize and submit to bureaucratic control.
Profound learning is more likely to result from compliance that comes about as
a result of students ’ fi nding meaning, personal signifi cance, and value in the tasks
they are asked to complete and their work products. The pedagogy that produces
this type of engaging work is less certain, more diffi cult to codify, and less predict-
able than is the pedagogy that produces more superfi cial forms of learning.
Bureaucracies are designed to organize and manage certainty and ensure pre-
dictability. Learning organizations are designed to create the type of leadership
5This is not an indictment of individual teachers. Many teachers, indeed most teachers, work hard
to ensure that students learn at profound levels in a system that often does not value profound
learning. The problem is that the bureaucracies in which they work neither expect nor support
these efforts, and thus the task of great teachers is made needlessly diffi cult.
c03.indd 45 3/5/09 3:17:47 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning46
structures needed to deal with uncertainty in disciplined, productive, and cre-
ative ways — to transform problems into possibilities and perplexities into
insight. The result is that bureaucratically organized schools tend to show a
strong preference for programs and activities that are designed to reliably pro-
duce superfi cial learning. Schools that are organized as learning organizations
are much more likely to be supportive of the kinds of pedagogical styles that will
result in greater creativity, problem – solving ability, and other so – called twenty –
fi rst – century s kills.
Which Systems Are Emphasized?
One of the most important differences between learning organizations and
bureaucracies has to do with which of the critical systems described in Chapter
Two receive the majority of leaders ’ attention. This prioritization is illustrated
in Figure 3.1 . Leaders in bureaucracies are primarily concerned with strengthen-
ing formal controls that support the enforcement of operational standards and
minimize disruption to routines. Leaders in learning organizations are primar-
ily concerned with establishing direction, creating and transmitting knowledge,
and developing people who are capable of self – direction and self – control. This
attention results in collateral differences with regard to the systems that are most
likely to be well developed and carefully defi ned.
Figure 3.1
Relative Dominance of Systems
Boundaries
Recruitment
and Induction
Knowledge
Development and
Transmission
Direction
Evaluation
Bureaucracy
Power and Authority
Recruitment and
Induction
Boundaries
Evaluation
Power and
Authority
Knowledge Development
and Transmission
Learning Organization
Direction
c03.indd 46 3/5/09 3:17:47 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 47
Power, authority, evaluation, and boundaries are all more closely associated
with formal control than are the directional, knowledge development and trans-
mission, and recruitment and induction systems. Bureaucratic leaders are con-
cerned with such questions as these:
Who is in charge?
What are they in charge of?
Who decides, and how are things decided?
What are the standards for performance?
Who judges t his p erformance?
What are the metrics to be used in rendering these judgments?
Leaders in learning organizations are concerned with questions such as these:
What kind of organization are we, and what do we want to become?
What accomplishments will make us most proud?
What will it take to satisfy those we intend to serve?
What are the core values and beliefs we want to ensure that new members will
embrace and uphold?
How do we identify, import, and develop the knowledge we need to engage in
the kinds of continuous innovation required to survive and thrive in a con-
stantly changing environment?
How will we know when we succeed, and how will we measure success?
Unlike leaders in learning organizations, bureaucrats are seldom visionaries;
they are more often functionaries. Typically they have little concern about vision
or direction, for the direction of bureaucracies is generally determined by agen-
cies external to the bureaucracy itself, for example, by a state legislature. Leaders
in learning organizations spend much of their time communicating clear visions
to others and inspiring others to join them in the pursuit of those visions. (In
schools organized as learning organizations, teachers as well as administrators
are looked on as leaders. See Chapter Four and Chapter Five .)
In fact, bureaucrats usually have little patience with discussions of direction
and matters related to direction, whereas issues of direction are of central con-
cern to leaders in learning organizations. In bureaucratically oriented schools,
strategic planning usually involves nothing more than a ritualistic bow to the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c03.indd 47 3/5/09 3:17:48 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning48
need to “ have a vision statement, ” followed by detailed attention to the develop-
ment of clear and measurable goals that may themselves be directionless or may
lead in many directions simultaneously.
Indeed, the closest some bureaucratically oriented school leaders come to dis-
cussing issues of direction is when they endeavor to establish indicators of prog-
ress toward goals that have been established, often paying little or no attention to
the direction these goals may imply. It is therefore not uncommon for bureaucratic
goals to compete with each other, one goal leading in one direction and the other in
another direction. And one of the unfortunate consequences of this lack of atten-
tion to direction is that often the direction taken leads only to more bureaucracy.
In learning organizations, discussions of direction always take precedence
over those of goals. Goal setting is often the responsibility of the individuals who
will become responsible for them, with the caveat that the goals selected make
an important contribution to the pursuit of a direction that has been collectively
agreed on.
Because control is so important in bureaucracies, bureaucratic leaders tend to
defi ne many problems as boundary problems. If the new knowledge imported
into the system is not congruent with the existing power and authority arrange-
ments, then the system that is of most value to them — the power and author-
ity system — may be threatened or disrupted. Therefore, the new knowledge and
those who are trying to import it are seen as boundary threats. Indeed, changes
in the knowledge development and transmission system will be tolerated only
if these changes do not let unsettling knowledge cross the boundaries, or if the
means of generating the knowledge does not threaten the existing internal power
arrangements. (The examples of the National Science Foundation projects and
the Trump plan presented in Chapter Two illustrate this point.)
In learning organizations, leaders take an entirely different view of matters.
The power and authority system is almost always subordinate to the directional
system. In learning organizations, when power arrangements become barriers to
the introduction of a promising innovation, leaders are more likely to change the
power arrangement than they are to domesticate the innovation so that it fi ts
the system of power and authority. In a learning organization, power and
authority are viewed as shared resources for maintaining direction. They are
not a means of exercising control in a system that may be without direction yet
dominated by attention to often competing operational and strategic goals, each
of which may be leading in a different direction.
c03.indd 48 3/5/09 3:17:48 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 49
Leaders in learning organizations also recognize that energy and resources spent
on recruitment and induction decrease the need for supervision, formal evalua-
tions, and inspection. When self – control is present, the need for formal control
is decreased. When all employees share and embrace performance standards,
the informal controls exercised by peers who are committed to these standards
will be a more powerful means of ensuring needed compliance than can ever be
gained by compliance – focused evaluation systems.
In bureaucracies, the formal understandings on which the organization proceeds
are usually made available through policy manuals, memoranda, corporate brief-
ings, management – dominated conferences, committee meetings, and announce-
ments. In learning organizations, the understandings on which the organization
proceeds are likely to be enshrined in myths, lore, stories, and semisacred traditions
and transmitted through fully developed induction processes. (This is not to say
that learning organizations do not have policies and policy manuals, for they do,
but such materials do not have the prominence that they have in bureaucracies.)
To function well and effi ciently, bureaucracies depend on the application
of negative sanctions and differential access to status and the rewards associ-
ated with it. The systems that facilitate this formal control — power and author-
ity, evaluation, and boundary systems — thus receive the most attention. In the
absence of shared beliefs and values to provide direction, uniformity is most
likely to be maintained through the use of power.
Furthermore, in a bureaucracy, the way the power and authority, evaluation,
and boundary systems are structured will determine the way the induction, knowl-
edge development and transmission, and directional systems are and will con-
tinue to be structured and how they function. Induction, for example, will likely
be dominated by attention to the way formal evaluations are conducted and
direction by those who have formal authority. Control of knowledge and infor-
mation will be carefully regulated so that departmental boundaries are honored
and the status of prominent individuals is reinforced, or at least not threatened.
In brief, the structure and culture of bureaucracies are defi ned by the way
power and authority are distributed, the way evaluations are conducted, and the
way internal and external boundaries are determined — and the other systems
are shaped to respond to these dominant structures. Offi cial status is power; title
and position, rather than knowledge, determine who is empowered to act. People
can act only if they occupy positions that formally entitle them to act, regardless
of what they know and what others know they know.
c03.indd 49 3/5/09 3:17:48 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning50
In a learning organization, authority follows knowledge. Knowledge indeed is
power. Those who are most knowledgeable are empowered to act on what they
know, regardless of their position or title. Because those who know what needs
to be done are empowered to act, learning organizations are nimble in the face
of novelty. Bureaucracies, in contrast, are often slow and cumbersome because
novel situations do not have rules, and action without rules is frowned on.
Furthermore, those who are authorized to make or legitimize rules are usually
far removed from the point of action.
Appendix A provides detailed matrices that contrast the bureaucratic and
learning organization types. These tables are organized around the six systems
presented in Chapter Two . These more detailed descriptions are useful tools for
those who are interested in more fully understanding the way their own school
or school district operates. It has also been useful in helping school leaders assess
where their organizations now stand with regard to their organizational form.
HOW IS SOCIAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED?
The effectiveness of any formal organization depends on the ability of leaders to
maintain direction, mobilize efforts in pursuit of common goals, and coordinate
those efforts in an effective and effi cient manner. This means establishing social
control: the means by which groups and organizations induce their members to
engage in tasks, fulfi ll roles, and support norms that are important to the sur-
vival of the group or the achievement of organizational goals.
Sociologists commonly distinguish three types of social control:
1. Formal control, where offi cial sanctions, rewards, and punishments are in
play.
2. Informal control, where peer groups and informal networks enforce agreed –
on rules and norms through the use of such devices as humor, embarrass-
ment, corrective feedback, and personal confrontation. In these situations,
group members have internalized the norms to the point that they take
responsibility for enforcing them, up to and including bringing members
who deviate from the norms into line.
3. Self – control, where individuals have internalized the norms that regulate
behavior in the group to the extent that they feel personally obligated to
do what they are expected to and regulate their behavior accordingly.
c03.indd 50 3/5/09 3:17:49 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 51
Bureaucracies are heavily dependent on formal control; learning organiza-
tions rely more on informal control and self – control.
Social control usually involves the exercise of power and authority and may
also involve the exercise of personal infl uence. As should be clear from the pre-
ceding discussion, how power and authority are distributed and exercised, and the
way infl uence is viewed and dealt with, defi ne many of the differences between
bureaucracies and learning organizations. It is therefore useful to be clear about
the way the concepts of power, authority, and infl uence are used in this book:
Power has to do with the ability to gain acceptance of directives and support
for norms that are held as important in the life of the organization. Power
in organizations is based on access to organizational resources, for example,
fi nancial resources, personnel resources, and the symbolic rewards the orga-
nization has to offer.
Authority has to do with the right to exercise power. To say that one has
authority is to say that one has the offi cially condoned and legitimized right
to impose sanctions and distribute rewards. In other words, it refers to the
recognized right to exercise the power made available through the physical,
fi scal, and symbolic resources the organization controls.
Infl uence has to do with personalities and personal relationships. Unlike power
and authority, it is not embedded in the formal structure of the organization.
People have infl uence due to who they are and what they do with and for oth-
ers rather than because of the authority assigned to the positions they occupy.
Types of Power and Sanctions
Amitai Etzioni, a highly regarded sociologist, has described three types of power:
normative, remunerative, and coercive power. 6 On this typology, he suggests three
types of sanctions that might be used to establish and maintain social control:
Normative sanctions, which are based on the assumption that participants
have internalized the values of the organization so deeply that symbolic acts
•
•
•
•
6In his early career, Etzioni wrote a book in which he used power and compliance as critical ele-
ments in the classifi cation of differences between and among organizations. I drew on his ideas in
the fi rst book I wrote in 1976, and I see no reason to abandon these ideas now. See Amitai Etzioni,
A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement and Their Correlates
(New York: Free Press, 1961).
c03.indd 51 3/5/09 3:17:49 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning52
that support norms (for example, praise and support from colleagues) are
suffi cient to maintain direction. In such situations, self – control, informal con-
trols, and peer infl uence are the primary sources of control.
Remunerative sanctions, which are based on such considerations as receiving
or being denied bonuses, promotions, and other material benefi ts. Usually
these sanctions are formally administered and carefully defi ned within the
authority structure. Generally, remunerative sanctions are related to the idea
of extrinsic rewards, whereas normative sanctions are associated with what
are sometimes referred to as intrinsic rewards.
Coercive sanctions, which are based on the ability to infl ict physical or psy-
chological pain, deny mobility, or preclude access. Dismissal for poor perfor-
mance (denial of access), furloughs, and detention are all forms of coercion,
as are public humiliation and offi cial ridicule.
Clearly there is a great deal of variability between and among organizations
with regard to the extent to which these sanctions are available and are likely
to be used. Bureaucracies usually rely little on normative sanctions, whereas
learning organizations are heavily dependent on normative sanctions to main-
tain control. The reason this is so is that normative power depends on the ability
of the organization to develop affective ties between and among participants, as
well as emotional attachments to the beliefs and values on which the organiza-
tion is based. Sociologists often distinguish between expressive functions and
instrumental functions, by which they mean, and I mean here, functions that are
value loaded and not easily observed or rationalized (expressive) and functions
that have to do with ends that are more or less concrete, observable, usable, and
subject to rationalization (instrumental). Normative power requires careful atten-
tion to the expressive functions of the organization.
Bureaucracies are designed to suppress the effects of personal sentiments.
Moreover, they emphasize instrumental relationships more than personal ones.
Bureaucracies are based on the assumption that emotion, personal attachments,
and affect lead to lack of objectivity and interfere with the kind of rational deci-
sion making that bureaucracies are designed to foster.
Learning organizations, in contrast, are dependent on the capacity to develop
and maintain shared commitments to common beliefs and shared meanings
regarding the good, bad, beautiful, and ugly. They require a common attach-
ment to shared symbols and the creation of a common identity. They proceed
•
•
c03.indd 52 3/5/09 3:17:49 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 53
on the assumption that all members have a shared understanding of duties and
obligations that membership imposes on them, as well as a shared understand-
ing of the rights and privileges that membership ensures. Consequently, it is
incumbent on leaders of learning organizations to give a great deal of attention
to recruitment, retention, and symbolic acts that signify continuing support for
established members.
Leaders in bureaucracies are less likely to attend to systematic approaches to
induction or continuing support for staff other than executives and offi cers. 7
They are more likely to orient new staff and explain the rules to them than pur-
posefully induct them into the culture of the organization. Bureaucratic man-
agers are more likely to teach by exception — that is, when a rule is violated, to
punish the violator — than to teach by example.
Bureaucratic managers are concerned with developing systems for rational-
izing the way remunerative rewards are distributed, promotions are gained, and
punitive measures can be applied than with developing the sentiments of staff
toward the moral order of the organization. This is so because bureaucracies
are designed to control for the messiness that human emotion introduces into
the life of organizations. Learning organizations, to the contrary, are designed
to capitalize on the creativity that human sentiments, controlled by disciplined
discourse and reason, can produce. They are as dependent on commitment to
the moral order that characterizes the organization as they are to the exercise of
technical skills, for it is through shared commitments to this order that social
control is exercised.
Principles of Authority
Max Weber identifi ed three types of authority: scientifi c – rational, traditional,
and charismatic. 8 Scientifi c – rational authority is based on rules, procedures, and
processes that have been rationalized and codifi ed into job descriptions, policy
manuals, and specifi ed technical procedures. It is the authority on which bureau-
cracies proceed. Traditional authority has to do with deeply embedded and often
7Clearly this generalization has many exceptions. The military, for example, is in many ways quite
bureaucratic, and induction, especially among the offi cer corps, is a major concern. Indeed, as the
fi ghting of war has required more knowledge work, many areas of military life are being trans-
formed into organizational forms more like that of a learning organization.
8Max Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Guenther Ross and Claus Wittich
(Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978).
c03.indd 53 3/5/09 3:17:50 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning54
tacitly understood ways of doing things. The basis for such authority is often
shrouded in mystery and myth and is sometimes provided legitimacy through
religious sanctions and long – standing habit. Families and small communities are
illustrative of systems that typically proceed on the basis of traditional authority.
Charismatic authority has to do with authority that derives from some per-
ceived special attribute of the person who is assigned whatever authority there
is to assign. Historically and in primitive cultures, such an attribute was (is)
thought to have to do with a special relationship with a divine spirit or a god.
Over the years, the word charisma has come to stand for any type of authority
that fl ows from the perception that a person is specially and uniquely endowed
or blessed as a leader. Social movements are sometimes organized around indi-
vidual leaders who are believed to have special qualities that entitle them to
authority. Adolf Hitler was certainly charismatic, but so were many people of
more noble character, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In education, it is com-
mon to attribute the success of effective principals to charisma. If charisma is
essential to principal success, this does not bode well for schools. Charisma can-
not be taught or learned; it just is.
Weber ’ s distinction among rational, traditional, and charismatic authority is
not, of course, the only means of framing the issue of authority. Indeed, politi-
cal scientists spend much time and energy in discussions on the nature of author-
ity derived from democratic principles, that is, authority based on the will of the
people. They contrast this type of authority with the kind of authority one fi nds in
autocratic regimes, that is, authority based on the will of a dictator or ruling party.
John French and Bertram Raven, for example, have described fi ve types of
power: coercive, reward, referent, legitimate, and expert. 9 (Later they added two
additional types.) Their discussion is useful and provocative, but their framework,
as well as several other variations of that framework I might have chosen to use,
confuse power and authority in ways that are not useful for my purposes. In my
view, authority is best thought of as the legitimized right to exercise power.
Power has to do with resources, symbolic and material. Authority involves the
right to use these resources and distribute them to others. Coercive power, for
example, can be legitimate or illegitimate. The principal who assigns a student
to detention is exercising legitimate coercive power in that he or she is exercising
9See, for example, John French and Bertram Raven, “ The Bases of Social Power, ” in D. Cartwright,
Studies in Social Power (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1959).
c03.indd 54 3/5/09 3:17:50 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 55
the right to limit the mobility of the student. The student may be assigned deten-
tion because he too employed coercive power when he engaged in a fi ght on the
playground, but his exercise of coercive power was not legitimate.
The type of authority one has is determined by what is used to legitimize the
granting of authority. In a bureaucracy, for example, authority is usually granted
based on rationalized principles. Those principles often include the assump-
tion of expertise as the basis of gaining access to a power position. In contrast,
charismatic authority is granted based on the assumption that the person who
is granted the right to exercise power is entitled to it by virtue of his or her own
unique characteristics or unique relationship with mystical forces and sources.
Charismatic authority therefore is extraorganizational in nature, and the per-
son who exercises it does not base his or her claim to power on the authority
assigned to the position he or she occupies in the system. Traditional authority is
based on honorifi c positions that entitle one to claim deference from others, for
example, the authority of the parent over the child, elders in tribal communities,
and religious leaders in sacred societies. (It is not without signifi cance that the
effort of teachers to base their authority on professional expertise has become
more prominent as the tradition – based authority of the teacher as sacred com-
munity fi gure and surrogate parent has been eroded by the same forces that have
eroded the sense of community that defi nes many schools.)
Consensual Authority
It is my view that participation in the life of a learning organization requires
embracing an authority principle that may be compatible with many of the exist-
ing models of power and authority but is a suffi ciently different phenomenon to
deserve a different label. I refer to this type of authority as consensual authority.
Consensual authority has some elements in common with rational author-
ity and some in common with democratic authority. It involves some aspects of
what French and Raven refer to as connectional power , meaning authority that
derives from the trust built through networks and relationships. It also has some
of the dimensions that French and Raven refer to as expert authority. Groups
may learn to turn to persons for direction where previous experience with the
person indicates he or she has superior understanding in the area of concern.
Consensual authority gives high priority to the idea that the basis of decisions
needs to be transparent and submitted to public inspection and verifi cation.
c03.indd 55 3/5/09 3:17:50 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning56
Hidden agendas are taboo in learning organizations. Open discussion, conversa-
tion, and dialogue are the primary means of making decisions. Persuasive argu-
mentation, where facts are mustered, values are expressed, and meanings are
explored is the lifeblood of a learning organization.
In bureaucracies, facts and data are weapons for exercising control and
inducing compliance. In learning organizations, facts are viewed as tools with
which ideas are disciplined rather than as weapons with which adversaries are
dispatched.
In learning organizations, personal values and biases are assumed to be among
the facts one must consider when determining the merit and worth of an argu-
ment. Unlike the scientifi c – rational frame, however, consensual authority does not
try to discount unique insights that come from inspiration rather than research.
It simply insists that these ideas and their likely consequences be submitted to the
discipline of public discourse. Ideas and values drive learning organizations.
The categorization, manipulation, and codifi cation of facts and data are the
driving passion of bureaucracies and bureaucrats. Facts and data are important
in a learning organization, but ideas are prized above facts, and advances are
made on the basis of ideas disciplined by facts. This is why disciplined conversa-
tions are so critical in learning organizations and why issues of personal charac-
ter and integrity are so important. It is also why bureaucracies tend to bleed the
life out of facts and the excitement and imagination out of research.
Unlike organizations based on rational authority, organizations based on con-
sensual authority honor values and traditions and openly embrace the notion
that culture, as well as structure, is important to the life of the organization.
Moral and aesthetic norms are as important to those who proceed on the basis
of consensual authority as are technical norms. In organizations where consen-
sual authority reigns supreme, people and their value are at the center of deci-
sions as much as or more than are processes and their value.
Passion and empathy are given space and honor, as are logic and objectivity.
Although the participants in the life of learning organizations are adept at test-
ing hypotheses and developing theories, they are equally adept at making the
case and telling the story. They are as interested in the journalistic values of fair-
ness, accuracy, completeness, and balance as they are in the scientifi c values of
validity, reliability, and objectivity.
In organizations based on consensual authority, individual men and women
have authority not because it is assigned to them by bureaucratic superiors,
c03.indd 56 3/5/09 3:17:51 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 57
granted through traditional entitlement, or bestowed by some mystical or
unique attribute. Rather, they have earned the right to act on behalf of others
through their proven judgment, commitment, and fi delity to the values of the
organization and to the welfare of those who are dependent on it. They are enti-
tled because others have learned to respect them rather than because a title was
bestowed by superordinates.
Consensual authority emerges out of conversation, dialogue, and arguments
aimed at seeking a common course of action and empowering people to act.
Men and women with special talents are more likely to be empowered to act
than are those without needed talents, but the traditions of a learning organiza-
tion will bestow honor on all who participate in the life of the organization and
contribute to that life. The talents of all are valued, no matter how meager these
talents may seem to be.
Learning organizations celebrate the human spirit and strive to inspire the
creativity that men and women possess. They nurture strong personal bonds
and community sentiments, which are essential to the authority from which
learning organizations proceed. This is why the systematic induction of students
and staff is so critical in schools that function as learning organizations. It is also
the reason that induction is usually only an afterthought in many bureaucrati-
cally organized schools. It is the reason that storytelling, myths, and legends are
important in learning organizations, for much of the genius of the organization
is stored in these symbols.
The Importance of Infl uence
Consensual authority derives from a synthesis of rational, traditional, charis-
matic, and democratic authority. Furthermore, as with any other true synthesis,
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Consensual authority is author-
ity by consent, but it is not authority by consensus or even by vote. Consensual
authority involves power, that is, the control of resources, but it is also based on
personal infl uence.
In a learning organization, people have power because they have infl uence.
When they cease to have infl uence and must resort to the use of power to gain
support from others, they will lose the right to exercise power. In a bureaucracy,
those who have power are likely to try to barter their power for infl uence, for it
is through personal infl uence developed through the strategic use of power that
bureaucrats become entrenched.
c03.indd 57 3/5/09 3:17:51 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning58
For this reason, bureaucracies often treat personal infl uence as a problem,
because such infl uence is diffi cult to control by formal means. In bureaucratic
systems, in fact, informal networks sometimes develop that are bent on subvert-
ing the formal authority system. For example, strategies intended to increase
productivity through piecework incentives are often subverted by groups of
workers who reach informal agreements that set the upper limit of permissible
performance well below that which a competent individual could produce, and
they then use informal means of infl uence (humor, embarrassment, and shun-
ning, for example) to sanction “ rate busters. ” Another favorite ploy of disaffected
workers in bureaucracies is to work to the rule, which means doing exactly what
the rules require regardless of the contradictions and ineffi ciencies introduced.
Militant union action sometimes uses such strategies in lieu of strikes.
Sometimes these informal agreements and understandings, while technically in
violation of rules, make it possible to solve problems the bureaucracy has otherwise
been unable to solve. In fact, if it were not for the willingness of members of infor-
mal networks to support deviations from the offi cial rules, changes in the external
environment would almost certainly overwhelm bureaucracies. For example, in one
school district in which I was conducting research, the board of education, in the
effort to encourage teachers to engage in professional development activities, had
made it possible for teachers to gain salary increments through participating in
training activities approved by the principal. This was called in – service credit. In this
same school district, it had also been a common practice for principals to assume
they had the authority to assign teachers, without additional remuneration, to do
extra – duty activities such as monitoring athletic events and chaperoning dances.
When a new union contract required such duties to be paid and principals
discovered that the money budgeted to pay teachers was nowhere near the
amount required to pay for the level of work customarily assigned on a non-
voluntary basis they began to offer “ in – service credit ” to teachers who “ volun-
teered. ” This made it possible to comply with the union contract and at the same
time get the necessary work done.
This practice was not exactly illegal or in violation of policy, but it was cer-
tainly not consistent with the intent of providing in – service credit. This practice
became part of the lore that experienced principals passed along to new princi-
pals as they brought these neophytes into their informal networks.
Because the subtleties of such deviations are complex and the rules do not
appear in the operational manuals of the system, much of the induction of new
c03.indd 58 3/5/09 3:17:51 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 59
members in a bureaucracy has to do with established members and informal
networks helping new members understand “ what we really do around here, ”
especially when the rules make no sense in the real life of the organization.
Sometimes these informal socializing networks become much more powerful
in communicating the culture of the organization than are offi cial orientation
efforts. Such practices can also be used to subvert the intentions of offi cial lead-
ers as well as to make an otherwise unworkable system work passably.
Unlike bureaucracies, learning organizations encourage the development of
informal networks among infl uential individuals. Indeed, such networks serve as
one of the primary means by which social control is established and maintained.
Given that self – control, rather than formal control, is valued in learning organi-
zations, this is not surprising. It is also not surprising that learning organizations
are much more attentive to providing systematic induction of new employees,
for it is through such induction that organizational norms become internalized
and informal networks supportive of the beliefs and values of the organization
are established and maintained.
In a learning organization, for example, persons who are recognized by their
colleagues as exemplars of practice are most likely to be those designated to be
mentors and trainers for new recruits. They will also be likely to serve as con-
tinuing leaders of learning communities as well as exemplars and status leaders
in the organization more generally. That is, they are given consensual authority.
In bureaucracies, mentors and trainers are more likely to be those who have
job seniority and occupy offi cial positions in the bureaucratic hierarchy that
manages human resources, training, or staff development. The de facto mentors,
however, will likely be powerful members of the informal groups that defi ne “ how
we really do business around here. ” Thus, in learning organizations, informal sta-
tus and reputation are affi rmed by job assignments, whereas in bureaucracies, job
assignments are determined by the position one occupies in the hierarchy.
Infl uence, like power, has to do with the ability to gain acceptance of direc-
tives and support for norms, but infl uence is based on personal attributes and
personal relationships. Personal reputation and informal status among colleagues
and peers determine infl uence. People who have authority may use it to generate
infl uence; for example, sometimes people in authority overlook minor infrac-
tions of rules which may generate a certain amount of social exchange infl u-
ence with subordinates. (Social exchange theory refers to the idea that human
interactions can be viewed as exchanges, much like economic interactions can be
c03.indd 59 3/5/09 3:17:52 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning60
viewed as exchanges.) Similarly, those who develop a great deal of infl uence are
likely to be assigned responsibilities that bring with them considerable authority.
Thus, power, authority, and infl uence interact in ways that are sometimes subtle
and sometimes blatantly obvious.
Commitment and Involvement
Many years ago, following ideas developed by Amitai Etzioni, I suggested that
there were three ways that school employees and students might relate to the
culture of the schools with which they are involved: moral involvement, calcula-
tive involvement, or alienation. 10
Morally involved individuals fi nd meaning and signifi cance in the life of the
school. They have a feeling of belonging and a sense of obligation and duty
toward the school, and they embrace its symbols and its activities. They respond
positively to the symbolic rewards associated with affi liation and membership in
the life of the school and are not particularly concerned with the utilitarian value
of these rewards outside the context of the school and its culture.
Calculatively involved individuals are involved in a way that refl ects an
emphasis on social exchange values. They are likely to participate in school activ-
ities because their participation promises to produce some extrinsic benefi t they
value. For example, student athletes often comply with the expectations of their
teachers for no reason other than that they want to remain eligible for varsity
athletics. Good students frequently do tasks they fi nd meaningless for no reason
other than the desire to please their parents or gain entry into college. Teachers
frequently attend seminars for no other reason than to accumulate certifi cate
renewal credits.
Alienation can produce at least two types of responses, one passive and the
other active. The passive response is generally congenial, accompanied by an
“ if – you – don ’ t – bother – me – I – won ’ t – bother – you ” attitude. A more active response
might be overt refusal to comply with expectations, open rebellion, or the sub-
stitution of a course of activity more to the liking of the alienated individual.
For example, in some middle schools, there are many alienated students who go
through the day unnoticed because the take a passive posture — they just “ hang
out and chill. ” Others become aggressive and are treated as discipline problems.
10See Phillip C. Schlechty, Teaching and Social Behavior: Toward an Organizational Theory of
Instruction (Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1976).
c03.indd 60 3/5/09 3:17:52 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 61
Bureaucracies depend on calculative involvement to ensure compliance, and
in the face of extreme alienation, they are likely to apply some form of coercion.
Learning organizations seek moral involvement, and leaders spend much time
and attention on the management of symbols and the design of engaging activi-
ties that tend to bind participants to the moral order of the school. That is why
induction of students as well as of faculty is so important in schools that are
being transformed into learning organizations. It is through such induction that
moral norms are internalized and the value of the symbolic rewards available in
culture is enhanced.
WHAT IS THE SCHOOL ’ S FUNCTION?
Like other formal organizations, schools are purposefully established to serve val-
ued functions or attain certain ends. Sometimes these functions are announced
and offi cially proclaimed, and sometimes they are only tacitly understood, if rec-
ognized at all. Among the most frequently articulated of these are the following:
Providing students with experiences that promote intellectual and moral
development and support the transmission of culture
Ensuring that nearly all students meet the performance standards set for them
by those who make and enforce policy related to schools and schooling
Supporting and assisting in the distribution of talent (meaning such things as
labeling, grading, and recommending students) as that talent is represented in
the graduates of the school
Satisfying custodial needs by providing students a place to be and a time to be
there under safe conditions
Ensuring d iscipline a nd o rder
Discussions regarding issues related to cultural transmission, performance
standards, and the distribution of talent occupy much of the attention of those
concerned with school reform today. Such discussions are often cast in terms
of what students should know and be able to do. Sometimes they are framed
around economic needs, such as the need for the schools to produce a “ world –
class workforce. ” Sometimes they fasten on real or perceived problems such as
grade infl ation, or the fact that too few students are enrolling in math and sci-
ence courses. Such discussions are increasingly shaped by the notion that schools
•
•
•
•
•
c03.indd 61 3/5/09 3:17:52 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning62
need to ensure that all children are prepared to meet college entrance require-
ments. The failure of schools to meet this standard is viewed by some with great
alarm.
As increasing numbers of children come from families where both parents
work outside the home, the custodial function of schools is becoming ever more
apparent. In fact, it is not uncommon for schools to develop before – school and
after – school programs as well as summer school programs that are ostensibly to
serve academic ends, but are in fact intended primarily to meet the child care
needs of parents working outside the home. Indeed, latchkey child and extended
care are now common terms that educators have created to help categorize chil-
dren in need of this custodial care.
For parents and others concerned about the day – to – day operation of schools,
discipline and order are clearly understood to be matters of great importance.
Indeed, the absence of discipline and order in schools is viewed as a critical
matter, both within schools and among the public generally. Nothing so harms
public confi dence in the schools as does the perception that schools, especially
inner – city high schools, are places of violence and disorder.
Keys to Direction
In schools, as in other purposeful organizations, goals are important. They serve
to orient action, provide standards for assessing progress, and help to coordinate
effort. Goals do differ, however, and the way they differ sometimes has more to
do with the functions they serve than with the actions they inspire. Some goals
are conditioned by moral and aesthetic choices and are stated in ways that clearly
express the values that are intended to guide all that is done in the school. R. T.
Pascale and A. G. Athos, well – regarded management consultants, refer to these
direction – setting goals as superordinate goals, by which they mean the goal or
goal set that provides “ the signifi cant meanings or guiding concepts that . . . [the
school] imbues in its members. ” 11
Other goals are more utilitarian and are conditioned more by assessments
of opportunities and problems. These goals serve to defi ne the short – term and
long – term action agendas of the organization. Such goals commonly carry such
labels as strategic goals , operational goals , and action goals .
11R. T. Pascale and A. G. Athos, The Art of Japanese Management: Applications for American
Executives (New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 125.
c03.indd 62 3/5/09 3:17:53 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 63
Superordinate Goals The way leaders prioritize the critical functions to be
served by the schools they lead goes far toward determining what they will view
as the superordinate goal of the school, which will determine how the core busi-
ness of the organization comes to be defi ned. Because learning organizations are
inherently value expressive, leaders who are striving to transform their schools
into learning organizations are likely to be especially attentive to superordinate
goals. It is, after all, these goals that give order and coherence to all the other ele-
ments of the system of direction.
Leaders in bureaucratic schools tend to be uninterested in issues of direction.
Consequently, they often become impatient with discussions of superordinate
goals, considering such discussions too philosophical and not suffi ciently practi-
cal and preferring to concern themselves with matters that have more to do with
power and authority, boundaries, and evaluation.
Indeed, because bureaucratically organized schools are rarely intentional in
determining superordinate goals, such goals often go unrecognized, even by
leaders. These goals are, however, just as powerful as if they were consciously
chosen. The old saw that says, “ If you don ’ t know where you are going, you will
probably wind up where you are headed — and you probably won ’ t like it when
you get there, ” is illustrative of this commonplace problem in bureaucracies.
Defi ning the Core Business The core business of an organization has to do
with the essential activities it engages in as superordinate goals are being pur-
sued. The answer to the question, “ What is your core business? ” sets out the most
important things you are trying to accomplish or produce and what you do to
accomplish those things.
Whether schools are organized on the principles of learning organizations or
on the principles of bureaucracies depends in large measure on the way lead-
ers defi ne the means by which they intend to go about defi ning and prioritiz-
ing the functions the school or schools are intended to serve. These defi nitions
in turn identify the core business of the organization and provide answers to
such questions as, “ What are the most important things we do around here? ”
The answers defi ne whether the school is likely to function as a learning orga-
nization or a bureaucracy; they also defi ne the way the principles underly-
ing each of these organizational types will be applied. Table 3.2 illustrates
the way functions, superordinate goals, and the core business of schools are
related.
c03.indd 63 3/5/09 3:17:53 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning64
Table 3.2
Relationship Among School ’ s Perceived Function, Superordinate
Goal, and Core Business
Function Superordinate Goal Core Business
Promoting intel-
lectual, aesthetic,
and moral devel-
opment and the
transmission of
culture.
Provide students with
engaging tasks that result in
their learning those things
of most value to themselves,
their parents, and the larger
society.
Designing engaging
work for students
that calls on them to
complete intellectually
demanding tasks and
leading students in the
successful completion
of these tasks so that
students learn those
things it is intended
that they learn.
Ensuring con-
formance with
performance
expectations.
Ensure that the needs of
individual students, as
determined by externally
defi ned standards, are the
primary determinants of
actions taken.
Diagnosis, prescrip-
tion, intervention, and
treatment.
Distributing tal-
ent and develop-
ing a productive
workforce .
Support and assist in the
distribution of talent as that
talent is represented in the
graduates of the school and
provide operating processes
that ensure uniformity and
the enforcement of product
standards set by external
customers.
Shaping, molding,
testing, placement,
and reporting.
Providing custo-
dial care.
Provide students a place to
be and a time to be there
and ensure safety for those
who are being “ stored
away. ”
Labeling, categoriz-
ing, containing, and
entertaining.
Ensuring disci-
pline and control.
Ensure tight supervision
and the maintenance of
decorum and order.
Containment, monitor-
ing, corrective action,
and punishment.
c03.indd 64 3/5/09 3:17:54 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 65
In a school organized as a learning organization, leaders assume that the core
business of the school is designing engaging work for students — work that calls
on students to complete intellectually demanding tasks — and leading students in
the successful completion of those tasks. In a school organized as a bureaucracy,
where compliance rather than engagement is the major concern, the core busi-
ness is more likely to be seen quite differently.
Clearly, the decision regarding the priority order of the various functions of
the school will determine the superordinate goal of the school, and this in turn
will determine the way resources are allocated and energy is invested. It will also
shape the way decisions are made and the meaning that is given to those decisions.
For example, in schools where discipline and control are the superordinate goals,
efforts to increase student or staff commitment and engagement will be evaluated
in terms of their potential impact on existing patterns of discipline and control.
Of course schools that emphasize engagement nonetheless need to attend to
discipline and control. After all, the idea of order and discipline is inherent in
the life of all organizations, regardless of their type or mission. Without order
and some degree of predictability in relationships, there is no organization. In a
school where student engagement is given high priority, however, actions taken
to ensure discipline will always be evaluated in terms of their impact on student
and staff engagement and commitment.
Goal Confl ict and Goal Displacement
Goal confl ict occurs when the pursuit of one goal requires the commitment of
resources (time, people, space, information, technology) already considered essential
to the pursuit of another goal that has, or is perceived to have, equivalent legitimacy
in the school. For example, some states have set goals for smaller class size, result-
ing in requirements that a class be reconstituted (broken into two classes) when it
reaches a threshold number. But it is also generally accepted that students, because
of the attachments they develop to their teacher and classmates in the fi rst few weeks
of school, need the assurance of a stable environment and that this assurance is an
important determinant of later success. Thus, many schools have also implicitly or
explicitly adopted a goal of ensuring stability in classroom assignments.
Students do not, however, enroll in school in convenient batches of fi fteen,
twenty, twenty – fi ve, or even thirty students. Moreover, they do not always enroll
when school starts and initial class rolls are developed. A class that is under
threshold at the beginning of the school year may go over threshold three to six
c03.indd 65 3/5/09 3:17:54 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning66
weeks into the school year. In such a case, the principal and teachers are con-
fronted with a confl ict embedded in the goal system. On the one hand, there are
bureaucratic compliance goals, and on the other hand, there are goals having to
do with the welfare of students. If the class is reconstituted, the need of children
for stability will be dishonored, but if the class is not reconstituted, state laws will
be violated. This is goal confl ict.
Goal displacement occurs when a goal that has offi cial sanction within the
directional system is replaced by goals and actions that have greater real or
perceived support from those who have offi cial authority in the system. It also
occurs when those who are assigned responsibility for a goal become inattentive
to the goal and the actions needed to support it.
Because leaders are sometimes unclear about direction and priorities, they
may overlook or look past some goals and give preference to other goals. It also
happens occasionally that goals that have been offi cially endorsed as legitimate
within the organization are replaced by unoffi cial goals that may not be sanc-
tioned by the offi cial directional system but have great support within the power
and authority system. It is commonplace, for example, for superintendents to
complain that the demands of individual school board members on the time of
the superintendent and his or her immediate staff become so burdensome that
there is little time left to do those things it was assumed the superintendent was
hired to do. This is goal displacement.
An equally important illustration of goal displacement is the tendency of the
maintenance needs of school organizations to overwhelm developmental needs,
leading to the tendency of school district offi cials to co – opt resources offi cially
assigned to support developmental activity and the installation of innovations
for the purposes of supporting and sustaining ongoing operating systems. For
example, it is not uncommon for grant money intended to be used to provide
staff support to train teachers in new teaching techniques and administrative
processes to be diverted over time to providing staff support for existing pro-
grams. I fi rst observed and reported on practices such as these when conducting
a large – scale study of the management of staff development programs in a large
urban school district. 12 Others have made similar observations. Indeed, this type
12See, for example, Phillip Schlechty and Betty Lou Whitford, “ The Organizational Context of
School Systems and the Functions of Staff Development, ” in G. Griffi n (ed.), Staff Development:
Eighty – Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1983).
c03.indd 66 3/5/09 3:17:54 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bureaucracies Versus Learning Organizations 67
of practice is so common that some philanthropic foundations now directly pro-
vide technical assistance to schools with which they become involved rather than
give the schools fl exible dollars to employ consultants or supplemental staff.
In schools where the superordinate goal has to do with ensuring standards are
met, it is likely that teachers will see most of their work as having to do with test-
ing, diagnosis, and remediation. In schools where the priority goal is distribu-
tion of talent, testing will also be present, but the purpose of the testing will be
more for student placement than for diagnosis and treatment. In schools where
discipline and order are the superordinate goals, attention is likely to be given to
behavior modifi cation strategies and the systematic application of sanctions
to signs of misbehavior.
When leaders are unclear regarding which functions should be given prior-
ity, confusion regarding superordinate goals, and the core business as well, will
be likely. One of the most frequently heard laments from classroom teachers
today is that the shift of the attention of schools from learning to testing has
caused educators to be less concerned with whether students have learned what
it is intended they learn and more concerned that all students can meet minimal
performance standards on state – mandated tests.
It is not, in fact, uncommon for school leaders who are under pressure to
ensure that a predetermined percentage of students meet standards on a state-
wide test to engage in practices that are at best dubious if the goal is to ensure
optimal educational experiences for all children. The goal of substantive learning
becomes displaced by the goal of performance on tests.
Some schools have taken up a practice that critics refer to as “ educational tri-
age, ” categorizing students into three categories: those who will undoubtedly
meet the standard, those who will undoubtedly not meet the standard even with
strenuous intervention, and those who are “ on the bubble ” and may get over the
threshold with considerable coaching and individual support. 13 The preferred
strategy becomes concentration of efforts on the third group, because that is
where the payoff is for the teacher and for the school.
Such practices illustrate why many educators are concerned about the direc-
tion of school reform in America today. The rhetoric leads to the belief that the
intent is to improve the capacity of schools to develop the intellectual, moral,
13Jennifer Booher – Jennings, “ Below the Bubble: Educational Triage and the Texas Accountability
System, ” American Educational Research Journal, 2005, 42, 231 – 268.
c03.indd 67 3/5/09 3:17:55 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leading for Learning68
and cultural abilities of the young. But the activities that are sometimes encour-
aged make it clear that the core business assumed by some reformers is far
removed from what it would need to be if the superordinate goal were creating
engaging work for students.
IMAGES OF SCHOOL
The next two chapters continue this discussion of the differences between the
bureaucratic and learning organization types by examining metaphors that
are often used to describe schools. The intent of this discussion is to illustrate
the need for transformation. As will become clear as the remainder of this book
unfolds, I am persuaded that metaphors and their systematic use are one of the
most powerful tools available to leaders seeking to transform schools.
It is not my intent to provide a defi nitive description of school types. Rather,
I suggest metaphors that can be used to reveal some of the more salient features
of different types of schools. Certainly the metaphors I use are not the only pos-
sibilities. However, taken as a set, they illuminate many of the important features of
school life and help to make even clearer why bureaucracy is not now and never has
been an appropriate form for schooling and why the idea of the school as a learning
organization points the way to a brighter future for democratic education.
c03.indd 68 3/5/09 3:17:55 PM
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.