Organization Analysis: School

Introduction

Success in organizations, regardless of their nature, is determined, to a great extent, by the nature of leadership and the communication channels that are used. In an institution such as XXXX School, regardless of being a complex organization, effective leadership and communication are the determinants of success or lack thereof. The analysis of the school is done in terms of the goals of the organization, the communication channels in use, leadership, and cultural agents that have a role to play in the working of the school. The goals are analyzed in terms of their achievement so far, with reasons given for those that have not been met. Using Morgan’s machine and organism metaphors, the way the school is viewed by their members is discussed. The views are based on two disciplines proposed by Senge (2014), personal mastery and mental models, making it plausible to understand the way the organization is considered. The two views have various strengths and weaknesses that are compared. Various styles of leadership are evident in the school to differing extents and with different strengths and weaknesses, autocratic, participative, and transformational. The leadership styles are founded on three of the remaining disciplines proposed by Senge (2014), team learning, common vision, and systems thinking. Different channels of communication are used at the school informing work processes, most of which have witnessed the application of ICTs. Based on the models of communication and leadership, the facilitators and inhibitors of organizational learning, the proposed areas of change and the plan for change are discussed.

Organizational Goals

The goals that the administration and the teachers at the XXXX School seek to meet are made at the top and passed down for the subordinates to implement. In fact, this is a kind of autocratic leadership where the main decisions in the management of the school are made using a top-down approach (Von Krogh, Nonaka, & Rechsteiner, 2012). There are two main goals that the teachers are expected to meet: to improve the achievement of the students in WRITING by May 2017 and ensuring that 70 percent of the teachers plan and implement AfL (Assessment for Learning) strategies (WALT, WILF, Think/Pair/Share, Thumbs up/Thumbs down feedback, open-ended questioning, critical thinking questioning) in their classroom by the time term 1 ends, 80 percent by term 2 and 100 percent by term 3. Evidence from the performance of the students in writing is clear that the teachers are working very hard to achieve the first goal. The teachers have implemented strategies to encourage the students to develop the writing skills such as creating writing centers. There is evidence of a relationship between the achievement of the students and the development of targeted assessment for learning by the teachers. Although the second objective has not been achieved, there is evidence of the continued efforts by the teachers to achieve it. The teachers are working together to define the ways of designing and implementing the teaching strategies outlined in the second objective.

Metaphors

There are always different perspectives of seeing the organization by those within it. Through mental models and personal mastery, the members of the organization, administrators, and teachers can explain their view of the organization. Indeed, this is based on understanding of the self and the relationships that exist therein, as well as the basic assumptions that are held by those within the school (Senge, 2014). There are two fundamental perspectives (metaphors) used in explaining the understanding of an organization based on the way it operates, Morgan’s machine and organism metaphors (Morgan, 2006). The metaphors indicate the different ways through which the organization is viewed (Digha, 2014). The organization as a machine is indicative of the organization (and hence, those operating within it) operating in a mechanical way to produce output efficiently. The mode of operation is mostly evident in bureaucratic organizations (Foropon & McLachlin, 2013). In this case, the teachers have to work according to the laid-down structures and rules, without much control. XXXX School has this metaphor at play where there are policies, emanating from within and outside, that the teachers are expected to operate accordingly. For example, at the school, the management expects the teachers to report at a certain time, operate throughout the day following some rules, and leave at a particular time.  A curriculum is developed at the national level that guides the operations of the teachers. The lack of control over the policies indicates the machine metaphor of the school.

The strength of the metaphor is evident in the efficiency of operations in the school and the commitment towards achieving the objectives of the school (Foropon & McLachlin, 2013). Because the structures are laid down, the teachers have an understanding of their roles and responsibilities and work towards achieving them. The measurement of the output (performance) from the input (resources offered to the teachers) is an important indicator of accountability (Barter & Russell, 2013). The metaphor has the weakness of encouraging rigidity and reluctance to support change even when the leadership is transformational in nature. The bureaucratic environment is also discouraging creativity, hence hindering organizational learning.

On the contrary, the school can be viewed as a living organism which operates to meet some needs by interacting with its environment (Suchman, 2011). As open systems, organizations are open systems expected to adapt to their environment for survival, lest they die (Digha, 2014). Such is the reason why some schools are able to adapt better than others under the same environment. The survival depends on the ability to meet the needs. At XXXX School, the metaphor applies, though at a different perspective from the machine metaphor. Teachers have their needs met by their capacity to form relationships created formally (during meetings) or informally (during social interactions). The meetings give the chance to work through challenges and defining better ways of meeting the individual and group objectives. They are also a source of social support for the new and old teachers. Social support plays an important role at the school.

The metaphor has the advantage of promoting the understanding of the school and the environment within which it operates. It also allows for greater adaptation of the organization to the environment, effectively meeting the needs for survival. The interactions aimed at meeting the needs also inform the success of the school (Barter & Russell, 2013). The view, unlike the mechanical perspective, informs the creativity and innovativeness of the teachers as they seek better ways of meeting their needs and those of the school in general. The metaphor, however, has the weakness of undermining the administrative form of leadership in the school. It assumes that in all situations, the teachers can form workable relationships which are not always possible (Foropon & McLachlin, 2013). It is possible for the metaphor to become an ideology forgetting that not all organizations have the potential to adapt to their environment.

Leadership

Autocratic leadership is one form of leadership evident in XXXX School, in which case there is the leader who makes all the decisions on the behalf of the entire school. The subordinates (teachers) are only expected to implement the decisions without questioning them. From this point of view, even where teachers work in teams, they have minimal input in decision making (Ghuman & Aswathappa, 2010). The rules, regulations, and policies are made at the administrative level. The style has the strength in ensuring that decisions are made and implemented very fast as there is no room to consider the opinions of others. For instance, in a case where a decision is needed within a short time avoiding the politics of the school would work better with this leadership style. If there is a school meeting, the principal will assign duties to the teachers and give deadlines, ensuring that everything is done on time. The style is effective because the leader is sure that all tasks are assigned and that they will all be accomplished in a timely manner (Ferraro, 2014). However, the model has some drawbacks, among them being a lack of motivation in team working because of the inadequate consultations. It breeds a lack of trust between the administrator and the teachers. In addition, the approach hinders creativity and innovativeness as it ignores the potential of the teachers in decision making.

Nonetheless, authoritarian leadership is not the only form of leadership style that is at play in the school. Participative (shared) leadership is the other style where the teachers have the opportunity to participate in the process of making decisions. The style of leadership is the opposite of authoritative leadership because, in this style, the decisions are made in a decentralized manner, with opinions coming from the teams (Samad, 2012). One advantage of the leadership is that the process of decision making is more effective where participative leadership is at play. The goals of the organization are more effectively met where the members feel a sense of ownership of the decision-making process (Samad, 2012). Innovativeness and creativity are enhanced where the opinions of the teachers are taken seriously.

Shared Vision is most commonly realized in participative leadership as the members of the teams work towards developing and achieving the shared vision and objectives. In the school, the administrators work together with the teachers in seeking what is for the benefit of the school. The leadership is a source of motivation for the teachers because of the involvement in the running of the school. Just like other leadership styles, participative leadership has weaknesses, including the limited situations where the leadership applies to the school. For instance, where the leader wants things to be done promptly and effectively, there would be no time to involve all the teachers because this would delay the decisions and their implementation (Ibrahim & Al-Taneiji, 2012). Hence, in this case, the leadership style cannot apply.

Transformational leadership is another leadership style that is evident in the school. The style is aimed at working with the members of the organization to implement changes affecting individuals and the entire school (Alsalami, Behery & Abdullah, 2014). Positive change is the focus of the leadership. Team Learning is the discipline applicable to this leadership style. The leader allows for what can be considered as the efforts to think together, sharing insights, experience, skills and knowledge (Senge et al., 2012). The vision for change is something that the teams work together to implement. The main advantage of the model of leadership at the school is the increased morale and motivation towards seeing that the organization performs better (Alsalami, Behery & Abdullah, 2014). Organizational learning is more effective under this style of leadership because the teams work more effectively through sharing and communicating knowledge. However, the style has some weaknesses in that it can only work with a leader who is able to enforce change and the learning process (Alsalami, Behery & Abdullah, 2014). Without such leadership, it becomes impossible for the teams to work towards achieving the objectives.

Whatever leadership is applied, Systems Thinking is a critical framework because it determines the associations that drive the complicated situations within the school (Senge et al., 2012). The discipline contends that it is not possible for learning to take place without adequate inter-relationships between the members of different teams. When some changes occur within the school, the discipline will indicate the causes and effects. The main strength of this discipline in organizational learning is the focus of relationships which makes leadership and teams stronger. However, the view has a weakness in that it emphasizes on relationships between teams. Hence, it cannot work where there are no relationships.

Communication

There are different forms and channels of communication at the school. Communication occurs within the school, between the administrators and the teachers, amongst the teachers and between the administrators and teachers with the students and outside the school, with parents and the wider community (Lunenburg, 2010). Effective communication is the basis for the successful running of the school (Habaci et al., 2013). At XXXX School, both formal and informal communication channels are at play. The formal channels include the use of meetings, the school website, telephone and emails among others, while the informal channels include social media, telephone and informal meetings among others platforms (Lunenburg, 2010). Written communication is the most commonly used form of communication in XXXX School. Oral communication is also used in meetings, speeches, and lectures.

The school implements the three channels of communication, vertical, horizontal, and diagonal all of which depends on the style of leadership at play in particular situations (Lunenburg, 2010). In authoritarian leadership, vertical leadership plays out where the decisions have to be passed down from the top leadership to the subordinates. While the delivery of the message can be lengthy with this leadership style, it does not apply to the school since the number of staff is small (about 33 staff).  Upwards communication is at play where information has to be passed from the subordinates to the leaders, a good example being where the progress report has to be given to the principal and vice-principal. Horizontal communication occurs between the members of the different teams, while diagonal communication takes place at different levels and in all directions.

Effective communication has a positive effect on organizational learning because there is effective flow of the information, knowledge, and skills necessary for the learning to take place (Habaci et al. 2013). Communication creates a culture of learning by enhancing the socialization process. Leadership becomes operational in an environment where communication is well structured and occurs at all levels. On the contrary, ineffective communication hinders learning due to ineffectiveness in sharing of information and knowledge and social disintegration (Habaci et al., 2013). The environment also hinders change due to the possibility of conflict.

Work Processes

Teachers are expected to work towards achieving the objectives and among the ways of doing this is collaborating once a week to develop lesson plans and student assessments. Teachers in common subjects in the same grade are expected to collaborate more. The process also involves ensuring that resources are adequately available to the subject teachers. Various teams also meet regularly to discuss challenges and work towards addressing them. Important changes are made during the committee meetings. However, work processes are not always effective in the school because of the competing goals and opinions. To be effective, there will be need to change the prevailing culture of the school.

Factors That Facilitate or Inhibit Organizational Learning

The Facilitators

Leadership is the main facilitator of change in the school. The nature of leadership, especially transformative leadership amid a supportive culture has the potential for supporting learning within the school. The style of leadership facilitates learning as it focuses on the change towards shared vision and objectives (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012). It also enhances commitment towards the objectives such that the teachers can work in teams to meet the common goals and fulfill the needs of the members.

Effective communication is the other facilitator of learning within the school. Where the school has effective forms of communication, it makes sharing of information and knowledge more effective, thus enhancing organizational learning (Nair, 2012). It is necessary to ensure that communication is effectively flowing in all directions.

The Inhibitors

Autocratic leadership is an inhibitor of organizational learning because it hinders the effective flow of information and knowledge. The style of leadership also hinders creativity because the teachers are not expected to have an opinion in decision making. The view of the organization as a machine hinders the potential of the teachers and hence hampers the learning process.

Ineffective communication, particularly based on the autocratic leadership where top-down channel is the sole model can hinder effective organizational learning. For successful learning, communication has to flow in all directions.

Areas of change

The three necessary areas of change are the style of leadership, communication, and the view of the organization (metaphors). Where there is use of authoritative leadership, it is critical for change to take place. For effective learning, it is necessary for the teachers to take part in making the decisions and policies affecting their practice. More effective leadership, including shared and transactional leadership should be adopted alongside the transformational leadership.

More effective channels of communication should be implemented to facilitate learning at the school. It is necessary to change the culture of the organization such that more formal channels are emphasized, while the information should flow in all directions not only the use of the top-down approach.

The view of the organization as a machine should also change based on the development of more effective mental models. The view should be such that it is better placed to cater for the needs of the members and to achieve the objectives of the school.

Plan for Improvement

Although participative and transformational leadership is in practice at the school, they are limited by the presence of autocratic rule. Hence, the priority in the proposed plan for change is targeted on the style of leadership (Gallistel, 2013). Leadership is the most important tool in enhancing learning because it eradicates the barriers through the commitment to change in mental models and personal mastery. Effective leadership is also the basis for effective communication and team working within the school. Leadership is the process of involving the teachers in creating a learning school. The plan for change is founded on Sergiovanni (2001) framework (cited in Buono & Jamieson, 2010). The model designs clear relationships between the different players, individual, the school, the workflow as well as the political systems that have a direct or indirect impact on the school. The plan will change based on the five disciplines of a learning organization as proposed by Senge (2014). The table below shows the planned process for the proposed change.

 Conclusion

The analysis provides the real picture of the current situation of the XXXX School in terms of leadership and communication. There are areas where the organization is doing great in support for organizational learning, but there are various areas where there is a critical need for change. Leadership and communication, depending on their nature, have an impact on the process. The proposal for change is founded on the assessment of the organization using the Senge disciplines of organizational learning, pointing to the areas in need for change.

References

Alsalami, E., Behery, M., & Abdullah, S. (2014). Transformational leadership and its effects on organizational learning and innovation: evidence from Dubai. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 19(4), 61.

Barter, N., & Russell, S. (2013). Organizational metaphors and sustainable development: enabling or inhibiting?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 4(2),       145-162.doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-Jan-2012-0002

Buono, A., & Jamieson, D. (2010). Consultation for organizational change. North Carolina:         IAP Publishing.

Digha, M. N. (2014). Morgan’s Images of Organizations Analysis. International Journal of          Innovative Research and Development|| ISSN 2278–0211, 3(13). Retrieved from             www.researchgate.net/profile/Menidin_Digha/publication/277477383_Morgan’s_Im            ges_of_Organizations_Analysis/links/556be91e08aeccd7773a1f27/Morgans-Images          of-Organizations-Analysis.pdf

Ferraro, J. (2014). The Strategic Project Leader: Mastering Service-Based Project Leadership, Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Foropon, C., &McLachlin, R. (2013). Metaphors in operations management theory             building. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(2), 181-            196.doi:10.1108/01443571311295626

Gallistel, C. R. (2013). The organization of action: A new synthesis. Psychology Press.

García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of business research, 65(7), 1040-1050.

Ghuman, K., & Aswathappa, K. (2010). Management: Concept, practice and cases. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.

Habaci, I., Habaci, M., Çelik, E. E., Adigüzelli, F., & Kurt, S. (2013). Effective Communication in Educational Administration, US-China Education Review, 3(9), 690-702

Ibrahim, A., & Al-Taneiji, S. (2012). Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2(1).

Lunenburg, F.C. (2010). Communication: The Process, Barriers, And Improving Effectiveness, Schooling, 1(1), 1-11

Lunenburg, F.C. (2010). Formal Communication Channels: Upward, Downward, Horizontal, and External, Schooling4(1), 1-7

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers         & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nair, B. (2012). The role of effective communication in school achievement. Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 1(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/0837-0160102

Samad, S. (2012). The influence of innovation and transformational leadership on organizational performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 486-493.

Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Crown Business.

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., & Smith, B.  (2012). Schools that learn (Updated and Revised): A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education (1st ed., pp. 1-608). New York: Crown Publishing Group.

Suchman, A. L. (2011). Organizations as machines, organizations as conversations: two core metaphors and their consequences. Medical Care, 49, S43-S48.

Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in organizational knowledge creation: a review and framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 240-277.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order