|
The School Management Initiative (SMI), whose uniqueness differentiates itself from all other piece-meal programmes ever introduced into the local educational scene, could be viewed as an educational
change. That the implementation of change requires more attention to culture than structure is so often
neglected that numerous change efforts hitherto tried, both local and abroad, have either failed or been
distorted. This research tries to examine the interaction between organizational culture and change in
the implementation of the SMI. By drawing on two apparently extreme cases, the researcher hopes to
provide the practitioners of the SMI with an ethnographically informed dissertation whose 'thick'
qualitative data might shed light on the implementation process strategy-wise.
Introduction | Literature Review | Methodology and Data Collection | Data Display and Analysis | Discussion and Conclusion | References Discussion and Conclusion Return to TOP Measuring Change Benchmarks of Change As mentioned in the Literature Review, change in the two school sites will be measured against the Benchmarks of Change employed by the Illinois Coalition of Essential Schools quoted in Prestine and Bowen, 1993. The coalition model comprises of four benchmarks, namely Substantial agreement, Observable change, All-school participation, and Systematic leadership, which represent the four phases on an ideal path to successful change. Benchmarks of Change (Illinois Coalition of Essential Schools quoted in Prestine and Bowen, 1993)
Amendments have to be made for schools in Hong Kong, or at least the two schools under present investigation, when measuring change against the coalition model. If we define Substantial agreement as the understanding that the school has already opted for the SMI and thus irreversible, both Schools A and B have achieved this level; but if we take into considerations the effects attached, i.e. those who disagree will leave, then this will never be the case in Hong Kong, where teachers are used to stay even when they are extremely discontent with school policies. Having undergone three years, these Phase I schools are probably having some Observable change, e.g. some teaching staff members are noticeably doing something like the writing of programme plans. These identifiable teachers are usually panelchairs or administrators. Most rank and file teachers are still exempted from the extra workload imposed by the implementation of the SMI. 'We-they' conflicts are not serious as both schools under studies have long been able to maintain a harmonious relationship between the middle managers and the rank and file. All-school participation is thus at some distance, if not too far away. Some teachers are still not related to the SMI, as their panelchairs have done all the paperwork for them. Involvement, not to mention commitment, is yet to be upgraded, and Systematic leadership is more the goal of these schools than a nearby signpost. How is the SMI received or implemented at the school level? That the decision to join the SMI was made solely by the principal and/or the SMC eventually developed into a situation where rank and file teachers at site level, due to a lack of ownership, express widespread indifference, if not opposition. Broadbent et al. (1992)'s model of absorbing the SMI by setting up a task group and limit the impact within that cell group applies here. Both schools reported that only panelchairs are assigned with the role of writing programme plans and evaluation. This illustrates the magnitude of predicted resistance of the teaching staff and the principals' fear of triggering their discontent by an extra bit of workload. Does the SMI make any difference? Teaching and Learning Although the SMI is nearing the end of the third year of implementation, data collected in Schools A and B testifies that, besides more documents and meetings, teaching and learning at the classroom level has scarcely been affected. According to the literature reviewed, instructional reform is identified as essential by Sackney and Dibski (1994) as well as Wohlstetter and Odden (1992). However, nearly all teachers from both Schools A and B do not see any relationship between the SMI and pupils' learning. Some even show facial expressions of curiosity as if it is a peculiar idea to link the two. But if the SMI is unable to reach the pupils, who are supposedly our clients, what is the meaning of initiating such change? Does the SMI affect Organizational Culture? Although the prevailing literature on change has pinpointed that a successful change should be oriented towards changing the organizational culture, its difficulty is acknowledged at the same time. From what is presented above, change brought about by the SMI is very limited in scope and depth. Even with the full-scale top-down push from the central, change measured is minimal. The most important of them all is that change is not seen at classroom level; whether the so-called organizational change is really change or not depends indeed on people. If the frontline people, i.e. the teachers, do not change, and benefits on the clients, i.e. the pupils, are not seen, then how can we say that it is a successful school change? If we relate the change just described to the culture in the previous chapter, it is quite obvious that these minor changes do not alter even slightly the culture of the school. Change brought forth by documentation and meetings is apparently limited. Although some teachers in both schools admit that an increased exposure to policy-related documents and meetings does raised their knowledge about the running of the school, this elevation of understanding does not go further to upgrade their participation or alter their work attitude. The most centrally important document, the School Mission, is acknowledged by most teachers as sheer black and white and has nothing to do with educational practice. Evidence suggests that decentralization does extend in both Schools A and B, though in quite different ways. However, it is confined at the most to the middle management in both schools. Rank and file teachers are still not involved in deciding on major concerns, or even to know the so-called confidential matters; and pityingly, most of them are content with that. This cramped PDM is doomed to have very minimal effect on the working relationship between different parties in the school, and thus scarcely affects 'the way things are done around there'. The staff appraisal system included in the SMI package affects little the criteria or procedure of promotion: it is mutually agreed by principals and teachers alike in Schools A and B as well as many SMI schools as not being a performance indicator. However, whether its developmental essence actually does good to building team spirits or collaborative work cultures remains unknown. By and large, we can conclude that change (i.e. the implementation of the SMI) has only a minimal effect in scope and magnitude upon the culture of the organization. Rather, evidence shows that the existing culture of the school determines how the school receives the SMI and thus its resulting change, no matter how small the latter is. [How] does the Organizational Culture affect the Implementation of the SMI? Synthesizing data from Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.9, we are able to describe the organizational cultures of Schools A and B respectively. And when we relate them to the SMI, it is quite clear that organizational cultures affect to quite a large extent the implementation of the SMI. Let's take a look at various aspects of the cultures and their corresponding effects on change. School A Judging from how teachers spend their time and what is considered to be most important, we may be able to know whether the school has set for itself long-term goals and started working towards them. Although the mission of School A is, without exception, a very brief statement of cliché, that it is drafted and finalized with full participation of all teaching staff gives the black and white a Midas touch. With this agreed common aim of helping pupils develop their all-round personality, teachers show concerted effort generally because of a sense of ownership in the mission statement. This positive attitude provides the basis for further organizational or cultural change. The ways things are done in School A also facilitate the implementation of the SMI. Although coordination is not fully extended across panels and departments, the democratic tradition of discussing major concerns at the grassroots level is well established. Inter-departmental cooperation is made possible with the open administrative meetings. All teaching staff agree that a pupil-centred orientation overrides other considerations. Formal meetings in which different opinions are reflected and conclusion reached by majority rules compensate the diminishing family-like ambience. This strong participation in decision making makes teachers move from low-level political struggle to selling their ideas to the masses who are entitled to vote. Although different parties are still to give up their group interests, no evidence shows that these interests are growing or have overridden that of the pupils. With the establishment of more rules and procedures ensuring fairness and openness in promotion and else, School A is clearly on the way towards building a collaborative school culture. Low staff mobility in School A offers a healthy and steady input of new and fresh ideas without the risk of loosing the cumulating assets of school tradition. Teachers, especially new comers, are then more confident in taking this workplace as their career ground. With a more open and fair promotion mechanism being set up this year, long-term professional growth for individual teachers is made possible. This naturally leads to better morale which in turn contributes to better teacher performance. By and large, although it may not be well supported by data to say that what the SMI is asking for has long been doing in School A, as the principal and many of their teachers have commented, we may conclude with the help of the evidence from the above sections that the organizational culture of School A facilitates positively the implementation of the SMI. School B The case in School B is very different. That the School Mission is set by the principal and the sponsoring body creates the conflict of 'us and them'. The mission statement is viewed by teachers as sheer words that cannot be achieved. Instead, teachers are doing what each of them thinks is correct. This lack of consensus not only contributes to the looseness of the school but also leads to the political battle between departments competing for power and resources. Without long-term vision, the school is hard to undergo organizational change which usually takes 3 to 5 years just to get started. Teachers will be annoyed by the impending pressure of, say, paperwork that leads to near-zero short-term benefits. This unavoidably affects the implementation of the SMI. The working relationship of teachers in School B is far away from the collaborative work culture that change needs. Within-level coordination is reported to be okay, but it is confined to 'doing things right' and seldom extended to 'doing the right things'. Without a common vision, teachers would be inclined to solving problems without doing harm to their short-term benefits. Departmental conflicts, as reflected in the 'exam results vs. activities' discord, make cooperation less favourable. Decision making is done through not consultation but demonstration of power or discontent. Competition instead of cooperation prevails. The school is not a cohesive one but competing units. Very often, the majority of the teaching staff are dissidents. Team spirits, if any, are confined to departments, and rarely extends to the whole school. Although no evidence indicates that sub-cultures have taken over, the situation is seen to be deteriorating: no sign of compromise is found between departments nor is the principal's effort of reconciliation seen. Decision making remains hierarchical with very limited formal consultation, not to mention participation. The case of the withheld promotion of Ms T only diminishes the authority of the principal and encourages administrators and teachers to resist further unreasonable decisions. One would wonder how School B is able to set up PDM, as required by the SMI, taken into consideration the hitherto limited delegation of power by the principal and the inexperience of the rank and file teachers in participation. Apparently, once the hierarchy breaks down, confusion and chaos are more likely to take place than an orderly transfer of the decision making power. High teacher turnover rate aggravates uncertainty. Planning is therefore farther away from reality, and trust more difficult to build with so many teachers come and go. Having friends leaving inevitably makes one reassess his own stay or go. Morale is seriously affected by the perception that the procedure and criteria for promotion are unfair and subjective, especially when quite a many of those promoted cannot acquire the necessary recognition from other colleagues. (Section 4.2.9) Although we have not tested whether the SMI is an appropriate cure to reengineer or reactivate School B, as one of the administrators has thought, the existing (weak) culture of the school definitely affects the implementation of the SMI negatively. In other words, the way that things are done in School B is so different from those suggested by the SMI that some of the preliminary changes are received with resistance or indifference; even if everything went fine, it would still take the school a long and winding road to arrive at the destination. Summing up the previous chapters and sections, the relationship between organizational culture and change is obviously seen as illustrated in the above two schools. Being an externally injected element, the introduction of the SMI has only a fairly minimal and partial effect on existing school cultures. On the contrary, the implementation of change is significantly affected by the school's organizational culture. Therefore, in order to initiate effective change, efforts should be oriented towards building collaborative work cultures or changing existing (weak) cultures. Implications for Theory and Practice The purpose of this investigation, apart from being part fulfilment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Education, is two-folded: first, to append to the existing malnutritious local knowledge base of the SMI, and to complement the parent longitudinal research 'The impact of the SMI on some Hong Kong aided secondary schools'. Secondly, to inform educational practitioners strategically respecting the implementation of the SMI. Although I am not going to elaborate on the functions of educational research and argue here about the distinction between decision-oriented and conclusion-oriented inquiries (Jackson, 1990), it is hoped that readers of this dissertation would actually benefit from the findings and eventually do good to the delivery of educational services. And it is upon this that the following implications for theory and practice are formulated. Educational Researchers This investigation is undoubtedly small-scaled and therefore limited in scope and depth owing to the poverty of time and money. With two cases at hand, the researcher tries to illustrate that although the interaction between organizational culture and change is two-way, the effect of the former on the latter is much stronger than the vice versa in the implementation of the SMI. Practically speaking, more efforts and resources should then be spent on moderating, if not controlling, organizational culture in order to facilitate change. Existing literature stops short, however, at citing cultural change as a means of institutionalizing reform for good; little is said about how that can be achieved practically. Further research may therefore explore, if resources allow, the know-how's of changing culture so as to inform educational practitioners who are already on the road or are planning to join the mega-trend of School-Based Management reforms or other change programmes. Longitudinal inquiry on change brought forward by the SMI is also worth more attention of the academics as a means to evaluate its implementation. Stepping into the fourth year, the impact of the SMI can certainly be better measured. Hopefully, findings from this qualitative research of mine could contribute to complement the parent longitudinal research in a more thorough interpretation of the data collected over numerous sites. Educational Practitioners On the practical edge, however, changing organizational cultures may seem too distant from the daily operation of schools, and the implementation of the SMI at the school level means little more than extra doses of documents or meetings to many teachers. Nevertheless, if School-Based Management is really taken by the SMI as the means to achieving Effective School status, school management frameworks that allows PDM should be set up according to formal procedures. (EMB and ED, 1991: 37) Although it may still take principals and teachers alike further effort for the so-called empowerment of teachers to materialize, the ED as the central change agent probably need to do more than merely dealing with the black and white in ensuring PDM. Home : Introduction | Previous : Data Display and Analysis | References * This is a shortened, ready-to-publish version of my M.Ed. dissertation completed at the University of Hong Kong in 1994. Return to TOP This dissertation was last updated on December 25, 2001 and made available at http://www.anthonyng.com/dissertation Copyright © 1994-2001 Anthony NG All rights reserved. |