|
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 Data Display and Analysis Return to TOP Diagnosing Organizational Culture The indicators employed in this section to diagnose organizational culture are mainly adapted from those cited by Deal and Kennedy (1982). Nine aspects of the espoused practices that reflect the gestalt, namely physical settings, greeting strangers, how do people spend their time, what is most talked about, school missions, getting along and working together, decision making process, staff mobility, and career ladder, are used to 'measure' organizational culture. Although these measurable ingredients are mostly concerned with the visible part of the culture, it is hoped that by synthesizing these aspects, a holistic picture will then be revealed by the end of the day. Physical Settings Although it is seemingly inappropriate to relate the 'bricks and mortar' directly to the culture of a local school, the physical setting of an organization inevitably affects people who are working inside. How the campus is designed at the very beginning may not be related to the school principal or his staff, but their reaction, or indifference to it tells much about their perception and thus their behaviour. School A was established almost a quarter of a century ago. The campus is, when measured against today's standard, very crowded, as described by many of their teachers. The layout of the staff room best illustrates how crowded the site is: although the room is an enlarged compartment of more than two normal classrooms, all 45 teachers are sitting in rows and columns, arranged very much like that of a classroom. The average space per person probably does not exceed that of a pupil. Privacy is almost non-existing: seldom can one hide anything from his neighbours as desks are so close to one another. Moving around the staff room is therefore fairly difficult. One might find feeling at ease extremely difficult there. So far, nothing effective has been done about this. On the contrary, School B has five staff rooms, with the smallest housing only three teachers. I am told that it is the original design of the architect that a staff room is made available on each floor. Seating arrangement alters year by year. Previously, teachers of the same subject were put together; but when feedback indicated that there were more conflicts than coordination, rearrangement was made: teachers teaching similar levels, e.g. S1 and S2, are sitting together (on the second floor) now. However, because of the lack of a common staff room, liaison among teachers is still very clumsy: a teacher has to visit more than two rooms, which means running up and down stairs of more than two floors, for a minor exchange. That indeed reduces to a considerable extent communication among teachers, and contributes at least partly to the looseness of the school. Greeting Strangers The way an organization reacts to external elements actually elucidates its strategy concerning change. No matter how well your entry is negotiated through the principal or even the supervisor, the researcher is still a complete stranger to nearly 95% of the personnel in the school. How you are greeted on the first day you step into the campus until the last minute you leave the site for good demonstrates their attitude towards externalities. Change like the one brought forth by the SMI is externally led. Perception of School personnel, from the principal to the rank and file, about extra-site influence, be it comes from the ED or the community, determines their reaction or behaviour. Of course, the principals of the two schools under investigation are undoubtedly quite open-minded, if not, they would not allow my entry to the sites and offer indispensable assistance. It is how the other members of the school receive the researcher that interests me. Most teachers in School A are quite used to meeting external guests, as told by one of the teachers; their behaviour towards the researcher also tells a similar story. However, familiarity does not necessarily mean welcome: although the researcher is treated fairly courteously, a couple of teachers nevertheless express distrust or disdain, though implicitly, against educational research, while some others are fairly reserved when speaking. Moreover, the researcher is still treated as alien by some of them most of the time. Teachers in School B are generally more nervous towards interviewing at the beginning, indicating that they are not that familiar with external researchers. However, the majority of them respond to the researcher's questions with minimal reservation. Many of them are willing to comment freely on even the principal. Informal chatting and conversation take place during recess time or after formal interviewing. On a couple of occasions, some teachers, without prior arrangement made by the principal or the vice-principals, invite the researcher to lunch. All these betoken that teachers are not afraid of the researcher as an external element injected out of the blue into the school. This openness, though partly a product of the looseness of the school, could have contributed to a more positive attitude towards change. How do teachers spend their time? Although most schools operate from 8 a.m. to around 4 p.m., what teachers do within school hours vary a great deal. Teachers are very much unlike their white-collar counterparts: their control of time is minimal, and subject to the bells that summon them to classrooms, every no and then; their working days are fragmented into lots of some thirty-five to forty minutes, hardly can they have an hour or two to settle on some tasks of, say, marking assignments or counselling pupils. On the average, the teaching load of a teacher may vary from 30 to 32 periods per cycle, with some deduction for those with administrative or other duties. From this, we can see that mere classroom attending time has already made up over 60% of their working hours. Doubtless, then, that most interviewees in both schools respond that teaching occupies most of their time and effort, especially the rank and file, although what they mean by teaching is apparently restricted to prep work (lesson planning), class time and marking assignments. At the management level, i.e. that of the principals and the vice-principals, communicating with teachers seems to be the most important task; a vice-principal of School A admits that he spends most of his time not on document but on dealing with people. Among the middle managers, from the discipline to the guidance personnel, these so-called special duties consume them most effort-wise. Both Discipline Masters of Schools A and B confess that discipline takes away most of them. A discipline team member of School A gives a very good description: Time-wise, teaching and marking assignments prevail; effort-wise, however, discipline over-rides everything. The experience of a teacher-turned administrator in School A best illustrates the profile across various level of school personnel: When I first entered this school, I was mostly engaged in marking exercise books; later, as the Discipline Mistress, I was more occupied with pupils; being a Vice-principal now, 90% of my time and effort are spent on administration and meeting people. Although we see a lot of similarities regarding how people spend their time in schools (some of them are indeed profession-wide), the two schools deviate in at least two places. First, discipline is more a problem for teachers in School B, especially the young and inexperienced who are assigned to the notorious junior forms. Classroom discipline precedes other things and becomes their major concern; even a veteran teacher says that discipline problem has emerged these few years: things were not like that in the Eighties. Secondly, extra-curricular activities, not mentioned at all in School A, occupy some of the teachers in School B most of the time. Although the Activity Coordinator in School B assesses the weightings of teaching and activities as 50/50, two other members of her team acknowledge the overwhelming of activities, which indeed outplays teaching. Indeed activities, be it called extra- curricular, have, for long, been taken, at least by some, as most important in School B. What is most talked about? Although there are meetings of various kinds (that of the subject panels, functional committees, and all teaching staff), only the administrative meeting, analyzed from more than 500 pages of minutes and other school documents from both schools, works as the central decision making device of the school. Lower level units such as panels and departments or committees are more executive than administrative in nature. They usually accomplish what has been decided in the administrative meeting or function as opinion receivers or working groups for particular projects. The all staff meeting, on the other hand, is more symbolic in essence, and often operates as the rubber stamp when all major decisions are indeed thoroughly discussed in the administrative meeting before hand. Scanning through minutes of the administrative meetings reveals the trivialities of the work of the administrators and the managers. Very often, they are occupied by minor but urgent matters. As revealed in the minutes of administrative meetings in School B, their weekly meetings in the principal's office are mostly dealing with departmental operational details such as setting exam time tables or handling pupils with extraordinarily unruly behaviour, etc. Circumstances in School A is more or less the same: reports from various departments and committees fill up the agendas, seldom are matters of holistic concern discussed. By and large, if we are to explore the major concerns of a school from their documents or formal meetings, routines on tests and exams, discipline and counselling, as well as extra-curricular activities are undoubtedly on the list. But whether this is really so off the record still remains sceptical. School Mission: What does the organization say about its culture? From my interviewing with the first few teachers in School B, I already feel, as a human instrument, that there has been a battle going on between exam results on one side, and activities on the other. The Academic Master and the Activity Coordinator have both expressed , though briefly, discontent, if not hostility, against the other party. Activities used to prevail in School B with the support of the sponsoring body. A person-in-charge of an activity has released that financial subsidy to a particular activity could mount up to hundreds of thousand dollars per year. However, due to a sharp drop in CE pass rates in the recent two years, the 'academics' have successfully persuaded the principal to spend more time and resources on exam results. Most teachers have reported receiving the message from speeches of the principal that the school is going to swing the pendulum back. Compulsory remedial classes are held for S1 and S5 after school. Targets on CE pass rates are set by the academic personnel according to internal exam results. Nevertheless, many teachers still perceive that activities are considered more important, neglecting the school's open switch of stance. Teachers report that: The principal wants to have a balance between exam results and activities, but teachers certainly favour the former. The principal has talked about balance and coordination, but teachers are pessimistic about solving the conflict. All these exhibit that the ongoing battle between the two departments is not yet over. We can also smell that the conflicts are two-fold: first of all, there is the perpetual battle between the two departments competing for resources; secondly, there is a deviation of preference between the principal and most teaching staff members on what is most important in the school. This lack of consensus in School B is one of the many shortcomings that we are going to uncover in due sections. On the contrary, teachers in School A, from the principal to the rank and file, have come to agree that what is most important is the all-round development of pupils. This pupil- centred orientation is revealed through responses of the majority of teachers as interviewees. Since most of the pupil intake are of Bands 4 and 5, teachers have accepted the reality, and started thinking about the strategy practically. Exam results seldom give unreasonable pressure onto teachers: they are only expecting a CE pass rate of not lower than the territory-wide average, approximately some 50- 60%. Unlike School B, which then totally turns to extra-curricular activities as the performance indicator, School A emphasizes on using co-curricular activities as a means to attain character-building and personal development, although most teachers agree that sports results are easier to be seen. School Mission The consented attitude of teachers in School A is best reflected in their school mission. Although some teachers criticize that the mission is too broad and general, and its implementation handicapped by the quality of its pupils, nearly all, with an exception of only one to two out of 24 interviewees, are able to spell out the mission statement, though briefly. This is because the teachers have spent a lot of time in discussing and finalizing the school mission. It was mentioned more than once in meetings and staff development days, and was used as the theme for bulletin board exhibition. By all means, it is the co- production of all teaching staff members, and a starting point for building a collaborative work culture. The mission statement invites a completely different feedback in School B. Without a sense of ownership, teachers are less friendly towards it . Nearly one-fourth of the interviewees forget or simply says that they have not read the school mission: responses vary from not aware of it, have not taken note of it, to have read but forget. Out of 25 responses, only one holds a positive attitude towards the mission statement. Others criticize it as vague, abstract and overgeneralized. One teacher points to the difference between the mission and the reality, others echo by minimizing the former to sheer black and white. The process of how the mission statement comes into being might explain why it renders such 'welcome' in School B. Unlike School A, the school mission of School B is set and finalized by the principal and the SMC. Although it was also mentioned in the staff development day, the feeling that it is written by them prevents teachers from attaching to it. Getting Along and Working Together How people get along with each other and work together in an organization or a school might be described in two domains, namely peer coordination and superior-subordinate communication. Coordination Coordination within panels and departments is reported to be okay in both schools. In small panels where there are only 2-3 members, teachers usually go their own ways with minimal intervention from the panelchairs; informal negotiations very often replace formal meetings, and only 2-3 meetings are held per year. Larger panels such as English, Chinese and Maths are more complicated: level coordinators usually take up the role of liaising horizontal units, as contrary opinions are inevitable. Disputes or conflicts are said to be solved by negotiation to compromise, vote countings seldom occur. Working relationship of teachers is seemingly satisfactory, teachers normally co-exist peacefully, rarely would teachers confront each other because of work; so long things are done, everything is negotiable. While coordination within the same level is admirable, that across panels or departments is almost zero. Teachers can hardly think of occasions when they cooperate with other panels or departments, except for extra-curricular activities. Although somebody should be responsible for connecting all subjects, School B's academic committee, in which all panelchairs meet, is said to be of little help. Even within the same panel, communication across levels is not ideal: multi-level meetings are seldom heard of. Conflicts between junior form teachers (who are mostly CMs) and senior form GMs are reported in both Schools A and B. Two teachers in School A have made separately inspiring remarks: Level meetings are normally dealing with such administrative trivialities as 'who-does-what?', never are teaching methods seriously discussed. 'Democratic' discussions are held, but at the end it is always 'safer' to follow the leader. These two comments reveal limitations to the seemingly good coordination with frequent meetings and discussions. Things get done, but are teachers really trying their best for the sake of the pupils? Communication with the Principal Described as open, or, according to another teacher, seemingly open, Mr Y, the principal of School A, does not have so much direct interaction with his teachers as one might expect. More than half of the interviewees say that they do not have much contact with the principal although the channel is there. Frank comments by some senior administrators do provide the clues: The Principal is able and experienced, but he does not have enough time to spend in school: he has too many extra- school activities. I have no complaint against Mr Y as a supervisor, he is supportive, he never says no; but as a principal, Mr Y is not very clear about the daily operation of the school because he is very busy externally and is often not available. . . . Delegation without supervision means instruction not followed. However, these complaints do not have much negative effect on the principal's authority: most administrators and teachers still show due respect for him as the leader and head of the school. Mr Z, the principal of School B, has been in the educational field for more than a quarter of a century. Being such a veteran educational worker, few teachers challenge him openly. However, very similar to Mr Y, Mr Z is also very busy with external affairs. Most of the teachers get the impression that their principal has a lot of public duties. Comments on the principal are somewhat mixed. His way of managing is perceived by some as old-styled: The principal is hierarchical and bureaucratic. On the scale between democracy and dictatorship, the principal is inclined to the latter. One veteran rank and file teacher gets the impression that the principal only interacts with panelchairs; although this is not exactly the case, at least in these few years when many teachers, especially new ones, do report having direct contacts with him on various occasions; perhaps he interacts more frequently with the panelchairs, as reported by another teacher, and does not really understand the frontline, as commented by a new teacher. A teacher even complains that she has no chance to enter the principal's office, except for signing annual employment contract. However, some teachers evaluate him as considerate and a nice senior. Nevertheless, people change. Although one of the senior administrators once said that the principal does not change, the principal does change in these two years: more presence is observed this year in patrolling classrooms and attending morning assemblies. He is even seen interviewing pupils and parents, too. Mr Z is better described as an open monarch: he never turns teachers away (although you must make appointment in advance), and he is willing to listen to teachers' opinions (although he might not necessarily accept their views). From the researcher's own experience, Mr Z is very happy with the image of being open-minded, and definitely believes himself to be so. Communication with other Administrators The 9 administrators, 2 vice-principals, and the principal altogether make up the management of School B. Although there is evidence that inter-departmental harmony may not be that good, as revealed previously, administrators are more friendly to teachers when compared to the principal. Administrators are generally praised for being not bureaucratic. Mr C, one of the two vice-principals who is in charge of the academic results, is described as a friend, very open-minded, casual, and tolerant. Mr K, the other vice-principal, is also considered by some teachers as a friend or a colleague, unlike the principal who is the employer. The Activity Coordinator is described as a friend, a workaholic and serious at work by her subordinates. The Academic Master is assessed as democratic and willing to listen to teachers. This layer of management indeed helps the principal in holding the teachers together, though not as a cohesive whole, but as mid- sized castles. Teachers in School A, on the other hand, are more cautious in commenting on their supervisors, partly perhaps they have all been working in the same organization for quite some time and know each other too well. Mr U, one of three vice-principals, is de jure and de facto the number two man in the school. Being the Academic Master and the Maths panelchair as well, Mr U is personally involved in almost every aspect of the administration, from curriculum innovation to hosting monthly assemblies. Addressed in his initials by some teachers, the vice-principal is positively appraised as holding clear views of issues, consistent, and encouraging new ideas; willing to let teachers try; not bureaucratic and always asks for teachers' opinions. As the principal is not always, if not always not, in the campus, Mr U automatically takes up most of his duties; and since he has been in this school for some 15 years, though not the longest serving teacher, he has already established well his leadership, and is thus able to compensate what the principal misses in the past, the present and the future. Ms R, another vice-principal who is in charge of the implementation of the SMI in School A, is only newly promoted to this capacity. Being the English panelchair for some years, she is well known for her hardworking and carefulness, as commented by the principal as well as her subordinates. However, because of her inexperience at senior management level, she has seemingly not yet established herself as a department head with a strong and supporting team of subordinates. This might well handicap the implementation of the SMI in School A, since she is supposedly the one in charge. The modes of teacher-administrator interaction in the two schools are very different: the days of like a family has long gone in School A; instead, teachers are engaged in a more formal relationship which has proven to be workable. School B's looseness, attributed by the friendliness of its administrators, though pleases the teachers, contributes to a lack of consensus. Decision Making Process The decision making processes of Schools A and B are quite different. Although we cannot simply apply the term centralization or decentralization at a glance, the extent of participation could serve as an indicator. Both schools allow a certain degree of teacher participation, though very differently, and some, no matter how small, dictatorship of the principal. Teachers in School A are proud of their democratic tradition. Two teachers cited the School Regulations Amendment Committee as the example: not only teachers, but also pupils are involved. Meetings in School A are really arenas for ideas and opinions. Although there are always people who do not say a word, quite some teachers speak up. The researcher had the opportunity to attend as observer meetings at various levels, from the Maths panel meeting, Academic committee meeting, Administrative meeting to the Staff meeting. Teachers are virtually free to speak up or even argue in these meetings. Sometimes, voting is needed. Maturity of teachers in participatory decision making is best illustrated in the way how teachers of different groups sell their ideas in order to win over their colleagues. Members of the Counselling committee once discussed in a committee meeting observed by the researcher the strategy to be employed to persuade other teachers to accept their view concerning a certain issue instead of an opposing one held by the Discipline committee. This kind of competition for consensus of the majority doubtless transcends the political struggle that prevails in School B. Conflicts are dissolved in the coming to terms with the masses who make the final decision. Nevertheless, some decisions are not made in meetings. They are simply not on the agenda. Some teachers challenge the criteria, or the absence of criteria, for the selection of issues to be discussed and voted. The principal admits that it is up to his own personal and/or professional judgement that who will decide what, since, as one teacher has put it, some teachers are not willing to shoulder the responsibility in case of some very important decisions. The decision making process in School B, on the other hand, is extremely hierarchical. For the most important issues, the principal makes the decision, although the principal will sometimes consult the 2 vice-principals; in some other cases, the principal will call formal or informal administrative meetings, in which the 2 vice-principals and the 9 administrators are present. Nevertheless, even in the latter instances, the principal has the final say, and few teachers are involved. Unlike School A, staff meetings in School B are actually one-way reporting by the principal and the administrators. There is an official channel of upward communication, as a teacher recites: Teachers may reflect their opinions to the panelchairs, who then reflect to the administrators. However, the system breaks down when even the administrators dare not speak up during the administrative meeting but turn to gossip with the teachers afterwards, as an administrator reveals. Another administrator elaborates further how things are actually done: teachers may voice to their department heads; but actually, they just talk around here and there and these voices eventually reach the principal's ears. The grapevine proves to be more efficient and effective than the official channel. Even the administrators sometimes have to make use of it to air their grievances. And when these voices reached the principal, adjustment in policies are often made. Recently, a decision to promote an under-qualified teacher to SGM best illustrates how this informal mechanism works. But when we come to the opting for the SMI, both schools have not involved their teachers in the final decision making. Mr Y of School A had introduced the idea of the SMI in one or two meetings, but teachers simply did not have a chance to veto the proposal before the principal recommended the scheme to the SMC and the latter accepted it. Many teachers were indeed quite reserved in joining the scheme in its Phase I, but they were informed of the option only after formal registration was made. Mr Z of School B decided to join the SMI solely on his own. Even the administrators said that they were notified only afterwards. Nevertheless, little response was stirred: perhaps teachers just do not care, as one senior administrator guesses. Coincidentally, both principals were appointed members of the advisory committee of the SMI. Staff Mobility Staff mobility is generally perceived as low in School A: only 3 to 5 teachers left per year. Some teachers attribute this to the convenient site of the school, the absence of pressure on the teachers concerning exam results, and the free hands given by the principal. Nevertheless, this low mobility also means ageing of the teaching staff; fortunately, many veteran teachers in this school are not without innovative ideas, as shown in their initiation reflected in meetings. School B suffers a more serious teacher turnover. More than 10% of its teaching staff left last year. It is also reported that some 10 to 20 teachers, including a vice-principal and some administrators left for a new secondary school sponsored by the same governing body 3-4 years ago. Emigration and deteriorating pupils' quality also contribute to the large turnover. Frustrated and disappointed new teachers are easier to quit, say several teachers; a senior administrator attributes the high staff mobility to the lack of safety valve and inadequate induction for new teachers. Even worse, a new teacher is assigned form teacher of an S2 class, as told by a junior form teacher; it so happens that S2 is the worst level respecting pupil behaviour, she further explains. Career Ladder: Who really gets ahead? Criteria for promotion, either actual or as perceived by teachers, and the decision making process that involved contribute to an important part of the school culture. Whether promotion is fair or not affects very much employees' morale; how a particular teacher perceive his or her chance of promotion determines one's performance and behaviour. Empirically, teachers very often do not get these information from the school management. Not until recently, promotion seems a taboo in both Schools A and B. No one, except the principal knows the criteria or procedure for selection; the whole process is operating in a black box. Since under the present system, promotion to SGM or AM means a big jump in salaries, some up to 70% increase; and salaries and promotion are seldom openly talked about among local teachers. Very often the decision making process is kept confidential until final approval from the ED is granted. A senior administrator in School B admits that there is no agreed criteria: one has to choose between seniority and performance. Nevertheless, teachers in School B are usually promoted after a service of some 6 to 7 years, although more recently, some promotions are made in 3 to 4 years, as a teacher tells me. Another teacher also confirms that although the principal has a 100% say, those promoted are usually experienced teachers. Quite many teachers doubt the fairness of it mainly because they do not see an objective set of rules governing the procedure. In addition, judging from those who were already promoted, at least some are not really justified apart from their seniority. When asked about what a teacher should do if he or she wants a promotion, a veteran teacher suggests he or she to keep in touch more frequently with the principal and the vice-principals, work 'openly', and 'join the groups'. Another teacher says that she heard that promotion is based on performance, but then she defines performance as whether you 'know how to do' things. During the month when the researcher was in the field, there was a big deal (according to the words of an administrator) which vividly illustrated the decision making process for promotion. A relatively junior teacher was nominated for promotion instead of her many senior colleagues, probably because of her outstanding performance in extra-curricular activities; however, this stirred serious discontent not only among teachers but also the administrators. Ms T, working in School B for the third year, had not yet finished her Dip.Ed. training, and was thus not up to ED's minimum requirement for promotion to SGM. Although the principal could submit this application in the form of an acting post, the fact that acting SGMs are paid 100% of the post as well means promotion de facto salary- wise. By making use of the informal channel of expressing opinion as mentioned earlier in Section 4.2.7, the case soon became the talk of the town: almost every teacher was commenting on the wrong doing made by the principal, and these voices, or more precisely noises, reached the principal's ears very soon. By the time the researcher left the field, preliminary decision as heard was that the original promotion was held back. Sharply contrary to School B, School A has recently announced a brand new method concerning promotion. The number of senior posts, i.e. SGMs and AMs, is made known to all teaching staff, together with an official procedure for application, either by nomination by panelchairs or self- recommendation. Criteria for selection is also announced: final decision is to be made by the principal and the 3 vice-principals on the basis of performance, school need and seniority according to respective priority. Although the selection process is still subject to implementation, it is very different from the days when the principal alone decided everything. Whether this is a product of the SMI remains unknown, but teachers' response is quite positive: one teacher admits that he has applied for promotion, showing his confidence in the new method; others perceive this as at least a step forward from the previous way which some teachers labels as black box operation. Diagnosing Organizational Cultures
Home : Introduction | Previous : Methodology and Data Collection | Next : Discussion and Conclusion | 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. |