Qual Paper

Doctoral Qualifying PaperFordham University

Critical Issues in Education: Impacts of BureaucracyFIN: 03524431

Impacts of Bureaucracy 1

School districts are comprised of boards of education, superintendents, principals,

directors, teachers, parents, and students. With the layers of hierarchy and procedure that

these relationships create, bureaucracy becomes an inevitable result of the structure. The

current trends of accountability, namely student performance and spending caps, are also

evidence that suggest that bureaucracy will continue to have a place in the educational

system. The connotation of the term bureaucracy is usually negative. Common usage

aligns bureaucracy with inflexibility, rigidity, and alienation. The “red tape” associated

with bureaucracy potentially affects schools in a myriad of areas, but for this purpose,

two are most relevant: teacher professionalism and educational finance. The low

performance of some schools is attributed in part to teacher constraints imposed by

bureaucratic structure. Financial spending often encounters administrative obstacles that

prohibit the money from reaching the classroom. Bureaucracy seems to be a necessary

evil. Leadership frameworks with bureaucratic structures should strive to maximize

organizational efficiency; with the proper leadership, bureaucratic structures must enable

rather than hinder.

There are three important reasons to study the bureaucratic nature of structure in

administration. First, administrative structure is a manipulative variable; it can be

organized to better serve teachers students. Second, there is more public interest in

schools as organizations; more stakeholders are demanding a part in the decision making

process. Lastly, the structure of a school is related to student achievement. If the students

are not performing, the public criticism leads to a protective posture that often presides

over goal orientation. Moreover, outside pressures produce staff feelings of insecurity,


which, in turn, lead to a rigid administrative structure impeding growth abilities (Sinden,

Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004).

Bureaucratic structures are characterized “with hierarchy of authority, division of

labor, impersonality, objective standards, technical competence, and rules and

regulations” (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 296). Hoy and Sweetland (2001) also cite

Weber who defines the properties of bureaucracy as hierarchy of authority, rules and

regulations, division of labor, impersonal orientation, and career orientation. Bureaucracy

is generally characterized with inflexibility, rigidity, and alienation.

However, bureaucracies could be an efficient form of organizational structure.

“Formal, bureaucratic structures abound in school organizations. Written rules and

regulations specify work activities in the form of specific outcome measures, job

descriptions, curriculum guides, and instructional programs” (Goldring & Ogwa, 2002,

p.13). Goldring and Ogwa (2002) also discuss that formal structures “shape work-

relations as in the assignment of teachers to sequentially age-graded classes, school bell

schedules and calendars, and teacher teams” (p.13). “Modest work rules are not only

advantageous for teachers; they introduce structure into an otherwise unbounded

organization by providing clarity about roles and responsibilities, channels for

communication, and guides for orderly practices” (Johnson & Landman, 2000, p. 112). It

is incumbent for school administrators to embrace hierarchy and enliven it with feelings

and passion.

Arches (1991) identified three consequences of bureaucratization. First, employee

isolation results from rule-governed, codified behavior, scheduling constraints, and

limited peer interaction. Second, fragmentation is due to the compartmentalization of job


responsibilities into narrowly defined tasks, thus reducing the employee flexibility to

problem solve. Lastly, deskilling happens because of a breakdown of job-related

knowledge and skill acquisition resulting from specialization and division of labor

dependency.

The adverse consequences of hierarchy are not due to structure but rather result

from the decisions of administrators in implementing authority. Christie (2000) describes

that the principal is a critical component for a school that works. The principal’s

decisions to keep the focus on instruction, constructive tones, and high expectations work

to provide leadership for teachers. The hierarchical structure should strive to facilitate

organizational effectiveness. More than ever, the need for school leaders closest to the

client to make decisions appropriate for reaching instructional goals is imperative.

The “red tape” associated with bureaucracy potentially affects schools in a myriad

of areas, but for this purpose, two are most relevant: teacher professionalism and

educational finance. The low performance of some schools is attributed in part to teacher

constraints imposed by bureaucratic structure (Goldring & Ogwa, 2002). Policy analysts

also need to improve the understanding of the links between financial inputs and student

outputs so that resources are used effectively (King, R.A., Swanson, A.D., & Sweetland,

S.R., 2003).

Teacher professionalism

Teacher professionalism is essential for improving the educational outcomes for

all students. Often enough, bureaucratic rules and regulations are identified as the causes

for diminished professionalism. “Less bureaucratic schools are crucial to enable teacher

to be professionals. In a more professional school environment, teachers can innovate,


diversify the curriculum, and offer varied instructional strategies” (Goldring & Ogwa,

2002, p. 3). Teachers in less constrained school environments will be able to enhance

their professionalism. Teacher professional inputs will better serve the children and their

families. The changes should include greater participation from the teachers in

administrative decisions, development of a stronger knowledge base, higher standards,

more accountability, and increase collaboration (Goldring & Ogwa, 2002).

Finance

The current structure of the financial allocation system to fund education shares

similar frustrations as teacher professionalism and is also likely linked to bureaucratic

control. “Hierarchical bureaucracy is paralyzing American education; the structure is

getting in the way of children’s learning” (King, Swanson & Sweetland, 2003, p. 430).

King, et al. (2003) discuss Boyer’s feelings that the current system of centralized finance

operations is “stifling creativity in too many schools, and preventing principals and their

staffs from exercising their best professional judgment on decisions that properly should

be made at the local level” (p. 430). Providing more resources alone will not improve

achievements unless the financial allocation systems are more effective. Policy makers

and educators are challenged to rethink the most effective ways to integrate finances in

support of core teaching-learning activities. School finance reforms are linked to school

improvement efforts for equity, efficiency, and adequacy (King et al., 2003, p. 503).

Theories and Perspective

Bureaucracy works poorly because of the promotion of rigid, mindlessness, and

alienating behaviors. Other times, bureaucracy works well because it can also guide and


direct behaviors, clarify responsibilities, and reduce stress (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). The

fundamental features of bureaucracy are formalization and centralization.

Formalization

Formalization is as a set of formal rules and procedures; rules and procedures

represent a hierarchy of authority. Adler and Borys (1996) identify two types of

formalization: enabling and coercive. An examination of the features of each type of

formalization illustrates the potential outcomes of bureaucracy.

“Coercive formalization is a collection of procedures, rules, and regulations that

attempt to force subordinates to comply” (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000, p. 526). Coercive

formalization alienates, constrains, and punishes rather than fostering employee

commitment and rewarding employee productive practices. Coercive procedures impede

communication; the procedures are repressive and foster mistrust and punishment for

mistakes. The procedures “demand blind obedience to the rules” (Hoy & Sweetland,

2001, p. 298). Coercive formalization causes of employee stress, resulting in absenteeism

and lack of motivation. Coercive formalization decreases job satisfaction (Arches, 1991).

Formalization is associated with feelings of employee powerlessness and self-

estrangement. “If formalization undermines the employees’ commitment and fosters

dissatisfaction, it follows that it also limits innovation” (Adler & Borys, 1996, p.63).

Lack of innovation on the teacher’s part will negatively impact classroom instruction.

On the contrary, enabling formalization assists employees with solutions to

problems in their work while enabling the rules and procedures to be flexible guidelines

that reflect best practices that assist teachers to overcome job-related obstacles. The

substitution of judgment for rigid rules encourages problem solving. “Enabling


procedures invite interactive dialogue, view problems as opportunities, foster trust, value

differences, capitalize on and learn from mistakes, and delight in the unexpected; in brief,

they facilitate problem solving” (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 298). Work can be fulfilling

and satisfying if an organization is a cooperative endeavor. A recognizable overlap

between employee and organizational goals contributes to efficiency and pride (Adler &

Borys, 1996). The differences are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1Contrasting Enabling and Coercive Rules and Regulations

Enabling Rules and Regulations Coercive Rules and RegulationsPromote dialogue Frustrate two-way communicationFoster trust Foster mistrustValue differences Demand consensusEnable learning from mistakes Punish mistakesFacilitate problem solving Induce mindless conformityFlexible Rigid

The relationships between the administration and the faculty and staff can be

illustrated as a tangled web, each party blaming the higher level for establishing obstacles

impeding production. For example, a teacher may feel that administrative

micromanagement diminishes their professional judgment. The teacher becomes

alienated from the students in the classroom and blames administration for creating the

obstacles that affect day to day teaching assignments. On an administrative level, school

executives fault state bureaucracies for preventing localities to adequately educate

students according to unique community needs. These barriers may include the over

abundance of required academic assessments or financial funding blocks. In each

example, Hoy and Sweetland (2001) would contend that the unresponsive structures with


rigid rules and policies foster human frustration resulting in dissatisfaction and indifferent

attitudes towards job performance.

The difference between enabling and coercive formalization is a difference in

leadership approach. Enabling strategies require a trustful collaboration focusing on

solution formalization striving for the common goal of improvement. Coercive strategies

employ unyielding, one-way decision-making designed to monitor and control

subordinates. A healthier leadership approach will improve organizational relations,

resulting in a more satisfying organizational climate.

Centralization

The second feature of bureaucracy is centralization. “Centralization of authority

is the locus of control for organizational decision making; it is the degree to which

employees participate in decision-making” (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 299). In high-

centralization, decision-making flows from the top down through a chain of command;

low-centralization indicates that decision-making responsibility is spread and shared

among many. High-centralization is coercive in nature and expects subordinates to

comply with unquestioned directives. Control is an underlying obsession. The general

reaction of organizational members is negative, often the basis for employee

dissatisfaction, alienation, and hostility in organizations (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). On

the contrary, low-centralization suggests that shared decision-making results in more

satisfaction and organizational ownership through the ranks.

An administration that presents obstacles to problem-solving and job completion

is considered a hindering centralization. These hierarchies usually respond to outside

influences that hinder effective organizational operation. The control mentality causes


employee dissatisfaction, alienation, and hostility. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) describe

this phenomenon:

In such structures, the hierarchy obstructs innovation, and the administrators use their power and authority to control and discipline teachers. In schools where professional work is controlled in top-down fashion, the consequence is often resistance by teachers who are coerced to play the bureaucratic game of satisfying artificial standards rather than serving the needs of their student clients (p. 300).

In contrast, “enabling centralization helps employees to solve problems rather

than obstructing their work. The authority structure helps superiors and subordinates

work across recognized authority boundaries while retaining their distinctive roles” (p.

300).

Enabling hierarchy is a combination of authority as administrators use their

leadership positions “to buffer teachers and design structures that facilitate teaching and

learning” (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 300). Hoy and Sweetland (2001) envision enabling

centralization as flexible, cooperative, and collaborative. Table 2 outlines the differences.

Table 2Contrasting Enabling and Hindering Centralization

Characteristics of Enabling Hierarchy Characteristics Hindering HierarchyFacilitates problem solving Frustrates problem solvingEnables cooperation Promotes controlCollaborative AutocraticFlexible RigidEncourages innovation Discourages changeProtects participation Discipline Subordinates

A Contrasting Perspective

Kevin B. Smith and Kenneth J. Meier (1994) identify bureaucracy as an effective

function in education, specifically when measuring student performance. Their theories


work off a previous analysis of Chubb and Moe who contend that less bureaucratic public

schools are more successful than other public schools. The findings support that “rules,

regulations, and controls restrict the autonomy of teachers and prevent from doing what

they do best teach” (Meier & Smith, 1994, p. 551).

Smith and Meier identify two independent variables of particular interest. First,

teachers face two different bureaucracies: the state and the school district. Bureaucracy is

seen as a function of need and government responsibility, not as a constraint (Meier &

Smith, 1994). Second, and more revealing, is the discussion about teacher influence on

teaching. Student performance is linked to teacher autonomy in the classroom. “Students

learn best when teachers teach rather than spend their time on bureaucratic matters”

(Meier & Smith, 1994, p.554). Many teachers and teachers’ unions seek to influence

schools and it is theorized that these efforts are likely to interfere with teaching activities.

The conclusions drawn from this study support the hypothesis that when teachers assume

administrative responsibilities, student performance suffers based on the fact that teachers

are not entirely concentrating on developing and planning for student instruction. The

bureaucrats free them of administrative responsibilities and allow them to focus their

efforts on teacher professionalism (Meier & Smith, 1994).

Practical Application: A Call for Leadership

To some degree, bureaucracy seems to be a necessary part of the educational

system in so far as it will continue to prevail as an administrative structure to guide the

processes of teaching students. However, the orientation of bureaucracy is what may

either enhance or hinder an efficient delivery of instruction. By way of orientation, it is

incumbent upon the leadership approach of the school administrators to best develop an


organizational structure that encourages, rather that impedes. Leadership theory and

practice will play a major role in establishing the trust and collaboration necessary to

improve the quality of instruction that serves the client. Put simply, success is an

attestation to the institution's good judgment, its collective expertise, and its ability to

develop talent and maintain organizational integrity. Conversely, when a leader fails,

morale and organizational credibility are put at risk.

Administrative structure is a manipulative variable; an organization can choose

its leaders within a framework of a desired leadership style. The style that best captures

the essence of an enabling structure is transformational leadership. “Transformational

leadership is a process that changes and transforms individuals. It is concerned with

emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals, and includes assessing

followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings”

(Northouse, 2004, p. 169). This approach moves drastically away from the alienation and

dissatisfaction associated with hindering bureaucracy and more aligns with the premise of

enabling structures. “Transformational leadership refers to the process whereby an

individual engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation

and morality in both the leader and the follower” (Northhouse, 2001, p.170). The leader

is more attentive to the needs of the subordinates, resulting in maximized potential.

Leadership decisions affect the outcomes of productivity. Teal (1998) identifies

that management is the underlying issue when an organization is in trouble. “Study large

corporations and you’ll discover that the biggest barrier to change, innovation, and new

ideas is very often management” (p. 148). In order to best serve the client, teachers need

to be able to have the freedom to do what is necessary, within a professional framework,


to instruct the students. Teachers are the foremost authority of what happens to the

student during instruction time and should be given the autonomy to create a productive

environment within their classrooms. Managing a teacher requires a relationship built on

an exchange of best practices ideas. “Managing is not a series of mechanical tasks but a

set of human interactions” (p. 150). A leader who cultivates positive human interactions

will foster the ideals associated with enabling centralization: problem solving,

cooperation, collaboration, flexibility, innovation, and participation.

Moreover, educational systems as a whole should rethink business practices.

Mounting external pressures are resulting in tighter governmental controls, thus stifling a

school’s ability to effectively and efficiently perform its responsibilities. With the present

structure of locally controlled schools, it is incumbent upon the educational leaders to

encourage a leadership structure that maximizes teacher outputs. Enabling bureaucratic

structures would improve employee morale thus foster an environment conducive to

student success.

Altering school spending along the lines of the enabling approach would also

serve as a means of empowering the teachers in the schools. The result is increased job

satisfaction. For example, bureaucracy impedes the ability to tract funding into the

classroom. The current trend of educational spending calls for a decentralized approach.

This strategy gives the principals and teachers a prominent role in the decision-making

process in relation to allocation of funds. School-based budgeting is the facilitative arm

of school-based management. It shifts decision-making responsibilities from the district

office to principals, teachers, and community members. Research has shown that


decentralization of school budgeting has been proven to enhance organizational

effectiveness and productivity (Wohlstetter & Van Kirk, 1996).

A Different Approach

The same issues and complaints that plagued public schools some twenty years

ago continue to be identified today. Under the current system of education, bureaucracy

will always be part of the structure. However, the bureaucracy in public education

requires "more discretion and more control, more flexibility and more direction, more

room for professional judgment and more ways of ensuring accountability" (Johnson &

Landman, 2000, p. 113).

The way that school officials delegate their authority could have positive affects

on the effectiveness of teacher performance. Ultimately, the goal of education is to teach

our children to be thoughtful and productive citizens. The focus of administrative actions

should be to empower those in direct contact with the clients: teachers.

There are not many opportunities to start fresh. In New Orleans, as devastating as

Hurricane Katrina was, it also brought new optimism to reinvent the administrative

structure of a failed school system. As captured in an article by Robelen (2005), Leslie

Jacobs, a New Orleans native who serves on the state Board of Education, says, “Katrina

in its devastation really gives the opportunity for a rebirth of a school district, to think it

through and start anew” (p. 22). Educational professionals are excited about recreating a

system that is more student-centered. Brigitte P. Nieland, the Director of Educations for

the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry shares her thoughts: “The district’s

future needs to be approached from a student-focused, rather than a bureaucracy-focused

perspective. Everything should be built around that rather than contracts and employee


demands and all the things that serve adults” (p. 23). "The core idea is that there is a

gigantic uncertainty about when students are going to come back, where they will live,”

says Paul T. Hill, Director of the Center for Reinventing Public Education at the

University of Washington. He continues, “In that situation, the last thing you want to do

is try to rebuild a centralized system; the idea is to create a flexible system of schools" (p.

23).

The city of New Orleans has an opportunity to reorganize a seemingly deficient

educational system and implement a structure that will best serve its purpose to teach

the children to be thinkers and innovators. Teacher professionalism and funding reforms

can stimulate this endeavor. Schlechty (2006) states, “If student performance in

America’s schools is to be improved in any significant way, school leaders must

transform their organizations from bureaucracies into learning organizations. There needs

to be a change in mindset as evidence suggests that the “bureaucratic model has outlived

usefulness” (p. 62).

Conclusion

The goal of any educational system is to teach young people to be productive and

cooperative citizens. In order to reach this outcome, school faculty, inclusive of

administration, must model an approach that best represents the ideals that we expect the

students to master. The teachers have daily access to the clients; the classroom is a

learning organization. The vital components of a learning organization are collaboration,

flexibility, and understanding. These same characteristics need to be present in the

relationships between the administrators and teachers. Mutual respect allows for


professionalism and efficiency. If schools were to transform into reflecting learning

organizations, the primary interests would shift from power and authority to directional

knowledge development. The strength and preparedness of the leader become the

conduits for transformation.


References

Adler, P. & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 61 – 89.

Arches, J. (1991). Social structure, burnout, and job satisfaction. Social Work, 36, pp. 202-206.

Christie, K., (2000). Leadership comes around again. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, Issue 2, p. 105.

Goldring, E. B., & Ogwa, R. (2002, April). Private practice teachers in public schools: Reexaminig tensions between professionalism and bureaucratic control. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). Bureaucracies that work: Enabling not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10, pp. 525 – 541.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and nature of enabling school structure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, pp. 296 – 321.

King, R.A., Swanson, A.D., & Sweetland, S.R. (2003). School finance: achieving high standards with equity and efficiency. Boston: Pearson.

Landman, J., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). Sometimes Bureaucracy has its Charms: the Working Conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers College Record, 102, Issue 1, pp. 85-124.

Meier, K. J., & Smith, K. B. (1994). Politics, bureaucrats, and schools. Public Administration Review, 54, n6, pp. 551-558

Northhouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Robelen, Erik W. (2005). New Orleans Eyed as Clean Educational Slate. Education Week, 25, Issue 4.

Schlechty, P. C. (2006). Bureaucracies and learning organizations. School Administrator, 63, Issue 9, p. 62.

Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school structure: Theoretical, empirical, and research considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, pp. 462 – 478.

Teal, T. (1998). The human side of management. Harvard Business Review on Leadership


(pp. 147-169). Boston: Harvard Business School.

Wohlstetter, P., & Van Kirk, A. (1996). Redefining school-based budgeting for high Involvement. In L. O. Picus & J. L. Wattenbarger, (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary schools. (pp. 212-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
