Evaluation as a Tool for Planning and Management at School Level
5.3 The Organizational Structural Dimension
5.3.1 Organizational learning in “learning organizations”
In Table 5.1 the differences between proactive synoptic planning and retroactive planning are summarized.
In educational settings retroactive planning can take place at the level of the national educational system, at regional or district level, and at school level.
At each of these levels a particular type of evaluation or assessment should be put in place as the basis for retroactive planning.
At national level a national assessment program, possibly embedded in a larger system of indicators, would be the most likely instrument. At intermediate levels some kind of indicator or monitoring system could play this role, while at school level school self evaluation instruments are to be seen as the basis for retroactive planning.
The argument for retroactive planning, which one could also refer to as “evaluation centered planning” can be made more forcefully when considering the view on organizational functioning that is inherent in the concept of the learning organization.
Table 5.1 Schematic Comparison of Synoptic and Retroactive Planning.
characteristics synoptic planning Retroactive planning initial activity formulate encompassing goals Assess organization’s functioning choice of means and
methods deduce from scientific knowledge Induce as improvement of weaknesses in current functioning scope a broad scope encompassing all
major aspects of the organization a partial “piecemeal” approach time-frame long term short term
organizational structure
bureaucracy Learning organization
organizational participation
top-down Participative
c. in the sense of enhancing the organization’s external responsiveness (double loop learning)
Re a) individual learning. Particularly when organizations are knowledge-intensive, as is the case with educational organizations, there is the strong expectation that workers will keep their knowledge and skills “up-to date”. In the corporate world rapidly changing technology and markets are the basic motives for training and human resource development (hrd) activities. In this setting there is a growing interest in a conception of hrd that depends less on formal training, but situates learning in the working place itself, in “learning by doing”, subsequently integrating training responsibilities in management functions throughout the organization.
Of course something “extra” is required to convert individual learning into organizational learning. All co-ordination mechanisms that are known from the organiztion literature can play a role in orchestrating individual learning in a way that the benefits for the organization as a whole are maximized. Examples are: a clear mission and result orientation of the organization, organizational structures that enable exchange between units and sub-units, facilitation and supporting technology (i.e. “group-ware”) for communication and collaboration between members of the organization and even standardization of outcomes and processes. This latter coordination mechanism does not fit in so well with the expectations of flexibility and a more “organic” functioning of
“learning organizations”, however.
Re b) organizational learning as single-loop learning. The concepts of single- and double-loop learning, as introduced by Argyris (Argyris & Schön, 1978) form the core of the theoretical basis of learning organizations. Single-loop learning rests in an ability to detect and correct error in relations to a given set of operating norms (Morgan, 1986, 88).
In its turn single-loop learning should be seen against the conceptual background of cybernetics (“steermanship”), which sees the self-regulation of organisms and organizations as based on processes of information exchange involving negative feedback. Learning in this sense is characterized as a gradual shaping of behavior, constantly correcting for mistakes or sub-optimal solutions. In social contexts “right” and
“wrong” are determined by agreements and norms, hence the qualification of the kinds of norms that are central in single-loop learning. When these are defined as the operating norms, they should be taken as the preferred end-states of an organization’s primary process, or the objectives of the organization’s core business. Single-loop learning takes these objectives as given and concentrates optimal selection of means and technology to attain these objectives. This instrumental perspective is quite similar to the approach of school effectiveness research, in which scientific methods are used to find out which organizational and instructional conditions are most effective in realizing key-outcomes.
In a less stylized form the day to day running of an organization can also be seen as guided by this instrumental approach. In case of organizations with “unclear”
technologies, such as schools, such a trial-and-error approach to improving the effectiveness of the primary process appears quite relevant, at least in theory. In actual practice such organizations are also likely to have quite a few barriers that work against a learning orientation (see the subsequent section on schools as professional bureaucracies). Single loop learning emphasizes the need for information that can shape a gradual improvement of primary and supporting organizational processes in obtaining basic outcomes.
Re c) double-loop learning. “Double-loop learning depends on being able to take a
“double look” at the situation by questioning the relevance of the operating norms) (Morgan, 1986, p. 88). So, double loop learning does not take pre-fixed operating norms (or objectives) for granted, but makes them the object of analysis and reflection. The basic motive to choose this approach is grounded in an open-systems view of organizations, where situational conditions set the stage for defining what organizational effectiveness means. Contingency theory has provided further insight in the kind of situational conditions that matter: changes in the predictability of the environment and the nature of the organization’s technology being the most prominent types of “contingency factors”. The more dramatic the dynamics of these situational conditions, the stronger the need for critical review of the organization’s operating norms and “double-loop learning”. The type of analysis and information gathering that is required for double loop learning cannot stop at an internal review of “instrumental effectiveness”, but also needs an external scan of situational conditions. The emphasis on monitoring with an open mind about operating norms and objectives resembles the orientation of “backward evaluation” and “retroactive planning” described in the previous section. Analysis of the organizational structures that facilitate or hinder organizational learning in the sense of double-loop learning form the basis of further clarification of the fashionable term of the learning organization. Before doing so, it is important to realize that the relevance of this concept, particularly as far as double-loop learning, strongly depends on the dynamics of situational factors. We will turn back to this issue after a closer look at the nature of educational organizations (i.e. schools and universities).
Morgan (ibid, p. 89, 90) mentions three types of failures of organizations in implementing double-loop learning:
Firstly, formal planning approaches including organizational goals and objectives, clearly defined roles and bureaucratic structure with pronounced hierarchy, create fragmented structures “that do not encourage employees to think for themselves”.
Fragmented operation of the organization is further seen as to be encouraged by political processes in which each sub-unit pursues its own goals and means are treated more or less as ends in themselves (ibid, p. 89). It is interesting to note that the author judges highly sophisticated single-loop learning systems in such bureaucratic contexts as actually preventing double-loop learning, “since people are unable or not prepared to challenge underlying assumptions” (p. 90).
Bureaucratic accountability systems, where people are held responsible for their performance within a system that rewards success and punishes failure, is seen by Morgan as a second barrier to double-loop learning. He sees such systems as fostering defensiveness of employees and as an incentive for covering up and “impression management” (make situations look better than they actually are). He also criticizes the tendency to oversimplification as complex issues are difficult to address in such a context.
The third barrier to double-loop learning, mentioned by Morgan is the tendency of organizations to rationalize and meet problems with rhetoric. Organizations develop
“theories in use” that may be socially reinforced to constructions that are insufficiently rooted in reality.
According to Morgan these barriers can be overcome by encouraging openness and reflectivity, a divergent thinking approach to the analysis and solution of complex
problems, which means that the importance of exploring different viewpoints is underlined. In the third place rational planning approaches that “impose” goals, objectives and targets should be avoided and instead “means where intelligence and direction can emerge from ongoing organizational processes” should be fostered. In short Morgan sees organic structure, a bottom up participatory approach and less formal ways of planning and reflection as core conditions for double-loop learning.
He completes the picture on organizational structures that enhance double-loop learning by referring to some concepts from systems-theory.
The principle of holographic systems means that each part comprises a complete image of the whole. This metaphor emphasizes a certain redundancy in functions across sub-systems and implies a more diverged authority systems; self-steering work-teams can be seen as practical examples. Further following the metaphor of the organization as a human brain, strong interconnectivity between the sub-units is emphasized. The principle of requisite variety places some boundary on the amount of redundancy (the degree to which units should be able to fulfil similar functions as others) in stating that “the internal diversity of any self-regulating system must match the variety and complexity of its environment”. A practical implication is that organizations should pay close attention to the boundary relations between organizational units and their environments.
Apart from these two characteristics that bear on the structure of the organization there are two other principles that refer more to the procedural dimension of organizational functioning: the principles of minimum critical specification and learning to learn.
The principle of minimum critical specification bears some resemblance to the idea of subsidiarity, which popularly stated comes down to the principle that higher levels of an organizational structure should not do things that can also be carried out at a lower level.
Similarly the principle of minimum critical specification speaks for limiting the pre- specification of organizational arrangements and processes to the maximum. In this way
“minimum critical specification suggests that managers and organizational designers should primarily adopt a facilitating and orchestrating role, creating ‘enabling conditions’
that allow a system to find its own form” (ibid, p. 101). Flexibility in organizational functioning is likely to result from such minimal management, which in its turn is seen as a favorable context for “inquiry driven action”. The principle of learning to learn should prevent flexibility turning into chaos, and it is here that we are back with the organization’s capacity for single- and double-loop learning.
How useful are the concept of organizational learning and the metaphor of the learning organization for understanding the functioning of monitoring and evaluation in educational organizations? Dealing with this question will be postponed until a closer look is taken at the specific characteristics of such organizations. This will be done by examining yet another metaphor of organizations: the professional bureaucracy as well as a perspective on school management that was generated by empirical school effectiveness research.