Leading Holistically

How Schools, Districts, and States Improve Systemically

Haim Shaked, Chen Schechter, Alan James Daly, Haim Shaked, Chen Schechter, Alan James Daly

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351362184
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Leading Holistically explores systems thinking in educational leadership—a comprehensive framework that enables leaders to improve their practice by taking a holistic perspective, instead of relying on a one-size-fits-all solution to discrete aspects of their organization. Aiming to expand the existing literature on systems thinking in educational leadership and policy, renowned educational leadership scholars come together in this valuable book to examine systems thinking at the school, district, and state/national levels, providing strategies to guide educators toward success. This important book unpacks the complexity and nuances of systems thinking in educational leadership and policy, helping educators face the growing complexity, change, and diversity in education to realize the promise of improvement for all those connected to and involved in the important endeavor of education.

PART I

Systems Thinking at the School Level

1

SYSTEM SELF-REGULATION AND STATIC EQUILIBRIA

How Socio-Cognitive Control Processes Regulate School Responses to External Reform

Ebony N. Bridwell-Mitchell

The phrase “school system” commonly refers to the set of schools and related services or supports under the jurisdiction of a particular governing body, such as a district, board of education, or state education agency. This usage is not incorrect. Nevertheless, this usage focusing on the elements comprising the system – schools, services, supports – obscures what is arguably the key implication of the phrase – the existence of particular dynamics, which make schools a “system” and, in fact, make each individual school in that system a (sub)system unto itself.

A system, particularly a complex adaptive system, such as a school, is a set of numerous, diverse, interdependent elements whose intentional and patterned interactions generate aggregate behaviors, which are greater than the sum of their parts (Boulding, 1956; Holland, 1995; Morel & Ramanujam, 1999). In much the same way that the laws of physics determine the operation of the physical universe, school operations and outcomes are determined, in many ways, by the fundamental principles of systems. This means that rather than seeing phenomena in schools as idiosyncratic, irregular, or unexpected – and thus difficult to explain, predict, or address – many issues in schools can be understood as the result of system dynamics. One example is the persistent challenge schools face when implementing reforms, such as instructional improvements in classrooms (Payne, 2008).

In this chapter, I leverage a systems perspective to explore how self-regulating routines, which tend to maintain a state of homeostasis or relative equilibrium in a system, help explain why state-mandated instructional reforms failed to take hold at one school (Ashmos & Huber, 1987; Boulding, 1956; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). I use this case as an illustration of the utility of the systems perspective for illuminating the dynamics of complex phenomena in schools and making sense of outcomes, which appear to run counter to desired goals, such as school improvement. Specifically, I argue and demonstrate that school organizations’ responses to external shocks, such as state-mandated instructional reforms, are driven by self-regulating control processes of socio-cognitive systems, namely (1) social comparisons to social standards, (2) feedback through observation and conversation, and (3) adjustments in understandings, attitudes and practices via social influence.

Before presenting the case, I begin, in the next section, with an overview of the systems perspective. This is followed by a set of arguments about the implications of the perspective for understanding system responses to external shocks, such as mandated instructional reform. Because this chapter is intended to illustrate the systems perspective, I formalize the arguments by employing a method of qualitative modeling (i.e., Heise & Durig, 2000), which reflects one type of formal logic on which systems thinking can rely. In the discussion, I point to the important role of system structure and conclude briefly by emphasizing the utility of systems theory for educational researchers and practitioners.

Understanding System Principles

The systems approach, which is taken up across many different areas of science, highlights the key role of connectivity, chains of cause and effect, change over time, and patterned behaviors or structure (Boulding, 1956; Von Bertalanfy, 1972). In the social sciences, the perspective has taken root most firmly in the study of organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Miller, 1972; Scott & Davis, 2007). Thus, the system perspective is of special importance for understanding schools as organizations (i.e., Bidwell, 1965). In the study of organizations, the systems perspective became prominent through the field-defining work of Katz and Kahn (1978). These two social psychologists sought to understand how the complex interplay of human behavior affected organizational outcomes. To do so, their work stressed the role of certain principles, which were the same principles that could be observed in so-called open systems, which depend on throughputs or exchanges (i.e., of energy, information, resources) with the surrounding environment.

One of these system principles is negative entropy, meaning a tendency, over time, toward increasing order and stability given sufficient inputs from the environment (Ashmos & Huber, 1987; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Think, for example, of the rigidity of certain structures and practices in older organizations or among veteran members of organizations. The path to increasing order unfolds through the principle of differentiation (Ashmos & Huber, 1987). This means that complex activities are broken down and elaborated into smaller sets or subsystems of activities and functions. In organizations, the result tends to be adding new units or roles responsible for newly identified organizational sub-goals. An example might be adding an assistant dean of school culture, office of family engagement, or a teacher team charged with implementing a new math curriculum.

While the principle of differentiation suggests constant growth and change in organizations, another principle, homeostasis, means systems tend toward an equal balance between competing forces or influences. The result is a relative degree of certainty, control, coherence, and harmony, the preference for which is one reason there often is aversion to change in organizations (Ashmos & Huber, 1987; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Ultimately, homeostasis is achieved through a final system principle: the existence of self-regulating feedback routines. Self-regulating routines provide information to the system about the extent to which it is achieving desired goals given external demands, environmental inputs, and relative to an internally balanced state – i.e., homeostasis (Ashmos & Huber, 1987; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). As described in a subsequent section, self-regulating feedback routines play an important role in how organizations respond to environmental shocks, such as how schools respond to external reform mandates.

Self-Regulation in Socio-Cognitive Systems

How Control Processes Create and Restore Balance in Systems

One principle of systems is that they are self-regulating, meaning they adapt to perturbations or shocks through processes that return the system to a state of equilibrium or balance, which may reflect new local optima given changed environmental conditions (Ashmos & Huber, 1987; Forrester, 1968; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Some of the earliest thinking about systems, sometimes referred to as general systems theory, proposed that system self-regulation was determined by a set of identifiable control processes (Boulding, 1956; Von Bertalanfy, 1972). These control process are comprised of three routines: (1) comparisons to a standard, (2) feedback about deviations, and (3) required adjustments.

These self-regulating routines are easily conceptualized in simple, cybernetic systems, such as a thermostat (i.e., Scott, 1998). In the case of a thermostat, a standard is set as the goal for system behaviors and outputs, namely the desired room temperature. System behaviors and outputs are regularly monitored and compared to the standard – whether the room is above or below the desired temperature; whether the furnace is off or on. These comparisons provide feedback or information to the thermostat about required functions. When this feedback indicates that there is sufficient deviation from the standard or goal, the result is an adjustment in system behaviors and outputs. In other words, the furnace turns on or off in order to achieve the desired temperature (Forrester, 1968; Scott, 1998).

Organizations are clearly more complex than a simple system, such as a thermostat. Indeed, as the systems perspective has evolved, organizations have come to be understood as complex adaptive systems, which operate in less predictable and sometimes chaotic ways, including the possibility of having multiple, episodic equilibria of which homeostasis is only one (Amaral & Uzzi, 2007; Frank & Fahrbach, 1999; Maguire, McKelvey, Mirabeau, & Oztas, 2006). Still, systems theorists argue that the basic features of lower level systems tend to be incorporated into systems at successively higher levels (Ashmos & Huber, 1987; Boulding, 1956; Scott, 1998). This means that while control process in complex adaptive systems might appear to be very different from that of simple systems, they nonetheless exist and operate to affect system dynamics and outcomes. The question is how principles from lower level systems translate to higher level systems. In other words, what might control processes in a complex adaptive system such as an organization, and a school organization in particular, look like?

Understanding Socio-Cognitive Control Processes

Consider that organizations, as systems, are social and technical systems, in contrast to simpler cybernetic or mechanical systems (Ashmos & Huber, 1987). Rather than wires, chips, or gears, the components of organizations are human agents along with the tools and technologies upon which they rely to perform their work. This includes, for example, tools such as particular governance structures or digital learning platforms and technologies such as certain information systems or pedagogical practices (Scott & Davis, 2007). However, one important aspect of the role of material objects in organizations is not simply that they exist but that actors make sense of material objects and use them to enact and perform the work of the organization (c.f. Callon, 2009; Fenwick & Edwards, 2010; Latour, 1991). This suggests the importance not only of social actors in organizations but also the importance of their cognitions – about the tools and technologies of their work but also about organizational goals and the broader environment in which the organization is situated (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). This is to say that rather than simply being socio-technical systems, organizations are socio-cognitive systems (Dunn & Ginsberg, 1986).

If organizations are socio-cognitive systems, then the control process that regulate organizations are most likely cognitive and social routines. Instead of a predetermined standard, like the temperature set for a thermostat, the standard in a socio-cognitive system is more likely a social standard or set of norms, which emerges from the interactions and shared understandings of organization members (Fitzpatrick, 1989; Friedkin, 2001; Sherif, 1966). Likewise, comparisons that determine deviation from the standard would be social comparisons, meaning individuals turning to peers to assess the appropriateness of their beliefs and behaviors in order to minimize uncertainty about the accuracy of their own self-evaluations (Festinger, 1954; Merton & Rossi, 1957). As a part of control process in organizations, this would mean that one way organizational behavior is regulated in response to an external shock, is for organizational members to turn to peers and colleagues to determine how they should react (e.g., Coburn, 2001). In this case, how to react means how their existing understandings, attitudes, and work activities should be adjusted, if at all.

If standards and comparisons in socio-cognitive systems are social, then feedback in the control processes is also very likely social. Two forms of feedback which are social in nature are observations (i.e., of others) and conversations (i.e., with others). So, with social feedback, information about system performance is provided by organizations members’ observations of others’ work activities and goal achievement and by conversations about the same. In this way, conversations and language along with organization members’ interpretations of them are mechanisms for system self-regulation and are a potential force for organizational constancy or change (Ford & Ford, 1995; Hill, 2001).

To the extent that organization members do make changes in their understandings, attitudes, and work activities, this results, in part, from the lessons learned from peers through observation and conversation – namely that there is a need to make adjustments in order to match the social standard set by peers. This kind of change and adjustment across actors in a social setting matches almost exactly the described process of social influence, which occurs within and across subgroups of actors (Fitzpatrick, 1989; Friedkin, 2001; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1966; Moore, 1968). In other words, the final control process or self-regulating mechanism in organizations, as socio-cognitive systems, is social influence, which determines adjustments made in the system.

A Model for Socio-Cognitive System Responses to Exogenous Shocks

To summarize, one way to understand how organizations respond to external shocks, such as how schools respond to mandated instructional reforms, is to examine the self-regulating control process of socio-cognitive systems. This is namely the role of comparison to social standards, feedback through observation and conversation, and adjustments via social influence. One way to make the arguments about socio-cognitive system responses more concrete is to formalize the proposed model. In cont...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Editors
• Contributors
• Foreword – Michael Fullan
• Preface
• PART I Systems Thinking at the School Level
• PART II Systems Thinking at the District/Regional Level
• PART III Systems Thinking at the State/National Level
• Index