EDU8311
Assignment 1
Concepts of Theories in Educational Management
Katrina Leech
Student number #1115663
“In most cases, what is at issue is not the truth or falsity of a metaphor but the
perceptions and inferences that follow from it and the actions that are sanctioned by it. In all
aspects of life, not just in politics or love, we define our reality in terms of metaphors and
then proceed to act on the basis of those metaphors. We draw inferences, set goals, make
commitments and execute plans, all on the basis of how we in part structure our experience,
consciously and unconsciously, by means of metaphor.” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)
Introduction
This assignment examines the nature and functions of educational administration
theory. In particular, the rational-technical and organic approaches within the functionalist
paradigm. It will critically analyse the historically dominant, machine and organism analogy
against the nature of knowledge, reality, society and humanness. Firstly, suggesting
mechanistic approaches are based on an objectivist view that organisations are independent of
their environment reflecting the assumption that organisations are structured as parts with
existing relationships between each part. Order and stability are natural states in society and
reality is found as individuals behave and respond to events in expected ways also reflected
in the bureaucratic theory. In comparison, the organism metaphor will be stated as more of
an assumed process than a structure with interdependent functions to be carried out for
survival of the whole. Individuals interact with their environment to satisfy their needs
completing tasks more as an adaptive go between than a reactive device, with neither
approach leaving little room for flexibility. These approaches will be illustrated by an image
that provides the framework of concepts historically and into the future. Finally, this paper
will argue that educational administration today is still heavily guided from a narrow,
functionalist viewpoint with current organisational structures and management processes
reflective of these approaches limiting creativity and idea generation, ultimately reducing
innovation. Therefore, more broadly constructed views need to be examined and a new set of
principles will have to be found to improve the practice into the future as it is not what this
paper will prove, rather what it suggests. (Fiol, 1989)
Organisations are the object of analysis within the social sciences and our
interpretations are based on preconceived ideas, assumptions and theories to understand our
reality. These assumptions can be explained through the use of metaphors which suggest the
way we perceive reality such as the view that organisations are machines. Used in this way
1
they enhance our understanding by referring to “something unfamiliar in terms of something
familiar.” (Inns, 2002)
Machine Metaphor
Nature of Knowledge
The machine metaphor views organisations as "machines made up of interlocking parts
that each play a clearly defined role in the functioning of the whole." (Morgan, Images of
Organization, 1986) Each part (worker, individual, human) of the ideal machine completes
pre-programmed tasks in an efficient, consistent and perfectly timed manner. Further, there
is only one correct way to complete each task for consistency of product output. While a
machine may be a useful image to portray the structural side of some organisations it neglects
the human aspects, therefore, one-sided “incomplete, biased, and potentially misleading as an
organization is not a machine and can never really be designed, structured, and controlled as
a set of inanimate parts.” (Morgan, 2006) Its’ origins stem from ‘scientific managements’
pioneer Frederick W. Taylor whose aim was to improve industrial efficiency. His principles
for redesigning organisations focused on:
1. moving all responsibility to managers
2. matching workers to jobs based on capability and motivation
3. retraining workers to complete tasks based on time and motion studies to effect
maximum efficiency
4. “monitor worker performance to ensure that appropriate work procedures are
followed and that appropriate results are achieved." (Morgan, Images of Organization,
1986)
As a result, many factories observed positive results and subsequently the trend
towards bureaucratisation and routinisation developed as the answer to all organisational
structures. Taylor wrote, workers “must do what they are told promptly and without asking
questions or making suggestions. … It is absolutely necessary for every man in an
organization to become one of a train of gear wheels.” (Klaw, 1979) The suggestion
dehumanises and deprioritises people to slave-like parts who behave like inanimate objects
enabling a perception that there is a world ‘out there’ that exists without the
acknowledgement of a conscious mind. Machine thinking still dominates modern workplaces
today and underpins the development of bureaucratic organisations. Weber suggests that
“bureaucratic form routinizes the process of administration exactly as the machine routinizes
production.” (Morgan, 2006)
2
Nature of Humanness
Through the machine lens, people are parts of the organisation who respond and
behave to events in predictable ways subservient to hierarchal instructions and perform their
duties to serve organisational goals. Selection and promotion is based on a Tayloristic view
that all workers are motivated by money. This encouraged the idea of “a fair day's pay for a
fair day's work……. if a worker didn't achieve enough in a day, he didn't deserve to be paid
as much as another worker who was highly productive.” (Mind Tools, 2019) Organisations
such as TAFE traditionally remunerate workers based on a set award and salary scale that
automatically increases due to time served. The mechanistic view would suggest that a pay
rise alone would provide workers the motivation to remain compliant and a suitable
punishment for non-performance would be retrenchment. Conversely, people’s work
performance is dependent on social issues and job satisfaction, and that monetary incentives
and good working conditions are generally less important in improving employee
productivity than meeting individuals’ need and desire to belong to a group and be included
in decision making and work.” (Lumen Learning, 2019) According to (Bolman & Deal,
2003) “Adler & Borys 1996 argues that a formal structure enhances morale if it helps us get
our work done, however, negative impacts are observed if it gets in our way, buries us in red
tape or makes it easier for management to control us.” Moreover, organisations with heavily
standardised procedures and clear cut job roles are often unable to effectively adapt to
changing circumstances as the structural divisions in job roles, departments and hierarchical
levels tend to cause road blocks due to a lack of ready-made solutions. Individuals and/ or
departments end up disputing about the best way forward which is often compounded by staff
with a unionistic, mechanistic attitude of ‘it’s not my job’ resulting in disruption and
backlogs of work. As a result, the flow on affect is hours of ad-hoc meetings involving
business review groups and professional committees in order to brainstorm innovative
solutions to problems “which, because they have to be planned to fit rather than disrupt the
normal mode of operation, are often too slow or too late for dealing with issues. Problems of
inaction and lack of coordination thus become rife, because we are dealing with people, not
inanimate cogs and wheels.” (Morgan, 2006)
Nature of Society
Society is viewed as being ordered, cohesive and stable with education organisations
a part of the social system that makes up society. As a result organisations work together to
reach common goals that are best for society as a whole with administrators within
3
organisations in place to promote stability and enforce compliance. Education is viewed by
many in the community as being “the major allocator of where you will be in society”
(Tucker, 2012) subsequently, the pressures and functions performed by educational
organisations have increased as “today’s society hold the school systems responsible for
raising the individual according to the expectations of the society” (Tatlidil, 1993) with
demands for greater effectiveness and efficiency on the public sector observed. Therefore,
todays educational organisations such as TAFE are required to prepare and develop students
to meet the needs of industry skills shortages and upon graduation enter society as
worthwhile individuals.
Nature of Reality
The machine metaphor suggests one reality where individuals behave and respond to
events in expected ways. Rules, policies and standard operating procedures limit discretion
and help ensure predictability and uniformity. Workers perform their duties with reliability,
predictability and efficiency, a lot like a machine which would work well under the same
conditions where machines work well, that is:
“(a) when there is a straightforward task to perform
(b) when the environment is stable enough to ensure that the products produced will be
appropriate ones
(c) when one wishes to produce exactly the same product time and again
(d) when precision is at a premium; and
(e) when the human “machine” parts are compliant and behave as they have been designed
to.” (Morgan, 2006)
Nevertheless, in reality it only works in a stable environment where goals and duties
are consistent and no changes are required, which is uncommon in a contemporary workplace
especially that of an educational organisation. Recently, a new student management system
was released to replace administrative functions currently completed by TAFE staff.
Structured to complete pre-determined goals, it was partially released in the peak enrolment
period, however, being cloud based was very slow and inflexible. The organisation was
unable to adapt to the changing circumstances in a flexible or timely manner which almost
stopped student enrolments to catch up on processing. Flexibility and creativity to redesign
the system was required although what occurred was additional staff working around the
clock to complete the backlog, which was mechanistic in nature as humans had to fit in with
the machine.
4
Organism Organisations
Nature of Knowledge
The metaphor that ‘organisations are living organisms' views the organisation as a
living system in a wider environment and needs to be able to adapt to change in order to
survive, (Cummings & Thanem, 2002), (Hatch, 2011), (Tsoukas, 1991). The organisation is
observed as a process rather than a structure with interacting components. This biological
view of organisations is somewhat warmer although the metaphor still paints humans as
obedient to the organisation working harmoniously with each other to do what is best. As a
result, this raises organisations to the position of a living being that warrants care while
dehumanising the individual. According to population ecology theorists, organisational
survival is determined by the environment and dependent on its limited resources in order to
compete with their competition. Therefore, the organisation that adapts and innovates to
obtain the most resources will survive over its competitors and ultimately determined by the
environment.
Nature of Humanness
From a functionalist viewpoint, order and stability are natural states in society where
everyone works together in agreement and does what is best for society presuming that there
is a consensus that can survive “peoples’ moods, preferences and impulses.” (Sungaila, 1990)
This assumption indicates that employees within this ‘organism’ are merely functioning
components who work harmoniously with each other neglecting the fact that they have
complex needs of their own. To this point, the Hawthorne studies into managerial strategy
conducted in the 1920’s and 1930’s argued that individuals have complex needs that must to
be satisfied to feel fulfilled. These studies highlighted that people were more productive and
motivated when their social and psychological needs were met. Morale improved when staff
were shown more attention by their managers and given more autonomy. Further, Maslows’
hierarchy of needs suggests that for people to work to their full potential and fulfil their
personal requirements all aspects of the pyramid must be met. Can organisations meet these
needs? Some may meet the base levels potentially providing physiological needs such as
regular income to put food on the table and employment security. The environment provides
for human interaction and friendships which may satisfy social needs and belonging.
However, for self-actualisation to occur, people need to be motivated by meaningful work
that produces a feeling of accomplishment in order to reach their full potential and improve
one’s self-image. Jobs with repetitive tasks that have low skill requirements are likely to be
5
widely seen as boring, routine, low discretional work resulting in human boredom, isolation
and counterproductive work behaviour such as game playing and sabotage resulting in
workplace absenteeism (Melamed, Ben-Avi, & Green, 1995). Further, employees within
professional bureaucracies often view organisational changes as an interruption of their
chosen work and as such the organisation “struggles when they try to exercise greater control
over the operating core.” (Bolman & Deal, 2003) New policy initiated dramatic changes to
Vocational Education and Training. In order to increase the number of people undertaking
training in skills shortage areas the ‘Securing Jobs for Your Future’ policy introduced fully
contestable public funding. As a result “non-TAFE providers’ market share increased from
10% ………. peaking to 75% in 2016” (Kniest, 2014) with TAFEs professional bureaucratic
structure proving too slow and inflexible to respond swiftly. Regulatory bodies were also too
slow to respond to unscrupulous providers who rorted the system through layering of courses
and deceptive marketing. To compete, newer “cowboy TAFE CEOs — business people who
began to lead TAFEs” (Kniest, 2014) copied some of the private providers model
consequently cutting jobs and forcing people into retirement who outwardly criticised the
‘way forward’ in order to maintain the appearance of a consensus. Therefore, it would be
presumptuous to assume that people in an organisation can work together harmoniously as
the organism metaphor suggests. (Sungaila, 1990) argues that for organisations to maintain a
consensus, political power play is often observed where “new actors will enter the arena, new
alliances will be forged…….those who support the cause will be appointed to key positions
and those who do not, if they cannot be removed…..will be marginalized” and other people
will “adjust their behaviour to conform”. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966)
Nature of Reality
Viewing organisations as organisms integrates both the human and technical aspects
of work acknowledging that enhanced job satisfaction reduces absenteeism, raises selfesteem and as a result work quality and productivity is improved. The organisation is seen as
a sociotechnical system where any changes in technology or the environment will have
human and technical consequences. However, in reality organisations need to be organised
in a way that they can adapt quickly to a changing environment and satisfy the needs of
people to survive. Conditions within an organisation are assumed that of reliability,
predictability and stability, however in reality, educational organisations are filled with
uncertainty, instability, complexity and variety (Sergiovanni, 1989). Staff are often
specialised and unable to adapt to their changing environment which in turn put heavier
6
demands on the individual. “Pressures of globalization, competition, technology, customer
expectations and workforce dynamics have prompted organizations worldwide to rethink and
redesign structural patterns.” (Bolman & Deal, 2003) “Henry Mintzberg (1992, 2009)
suggests that the strategy an organization adopts and the extent to which it practices that
strategy result in five structural configurations: simple structure, machine bureaucracy,
professional bureaucracy, divisionalized form, and adhocracy.” (Lunenburg, 2012)
Table 1 - Adapted from Mintzberg’s Five Organizational Structures
Structural
Prime Coordinating
Key Part of
Type of
Configuration
Mechanism
Organization
Decentralization
Professional
Standardisation of
Teachers constitute
There is a top-down
bureaucracy
skills is relevant as
the operating core of
chain of command
the core operating
TAFE.
from the General
employees
Manager down
‘educators’ require
which constitutes
certification to
vertical
perform their work.
decentralisation and
there is also
horizontal
decentralisation
where non
Administrators share
decision making
within teams.
(Lunenburg, 2012)
Based on table 1 above, TAFEs’ structure observes a professional bureaucracy being
a relatively formal organisation providing individual discretion to its industry specialised
educators who perform the majority of their duties in classrooms with their students, remote
from their Managers and colleagues described as “an atmosphere of structural looseness”
(Lunenburg, 2012) . TAFEs’ organisational structure can be described as a loosely coupled
system where each area or department share commonalities although independent from each
other. However, tight coupling is also observed within some areas especially where
7
regulation and certification occurs. Additionally, increased industry and society expectations
of schools and TAFEs’ are explicit resulting in published NAPLAN test results, OP scores
together with completion and job outcome rates. As a result, educational organisations over
time observe “patterns of loose and tight coupling.” (Weick, 1976) Increased scrutiny of the
education system has directly resulted in increasingly tight controls in areas that were once
observed as loose such as the technical operating core. In the functionalist view, to improve
human outcomes requires an improved operating core with consistency and accountability to
establish order. Through a top-down approach regulation and routinisation to programs and
classroom instruction have been implemented although its success is highly dependent upon
teacher capability. Subsequently, teachers at TAFE are undeniably tightly coupled and
accountable for human outcomes. Additionally, through the introduction of a ‘Master
Product’ teachers are required to use set resources across every campus for consistency when
in the past they were permitted to write their own.
Nature of Society
New species of organisations have appeared out of the need to adapt to their changing
environment. Matrix organisations are a species that attempts to combine a functional and
project team structure to utilise individuals’ specialisations in an innovative and adaptive
manner although there are many deviations. Over the past two decades educational
organisations such as TAFE have experienced a lack of creativity and innovation caused by
their professional bureaucratic structure. To counteract this, a rise in working groups, project
teams or similar have been implemented to innovate solutions to problems and/ or make a
greater contribution to the strategic direction. According to (Hodgson, 2004) “project
management has been put forward as a package of techniques able to cope with discontinuous
work, expert labour and continuous and unpredictable change while delivering the levels of
reliability and control of the traditional bureaucracy.” Consequently, Professional Learning
Communities (PLC) have been put together at TAFE for each industry area to harmonise
qualifications to a consistent product state-wide. Membership is mainly lateral including
teachers for that industry across the state who adhere to schedules and plans with a middle
manager as the chair who is required to provide regular project reports vertically. Project
teams or similar are now seen as the means to promote and manage all creativity and
innovative efforts throughout TAFE. However, the structure of the project team observe a
bureaucratic structure and as a result, fail to break free and innovate or complete their
specialised tasks in an efficient way.
8
Conclusion
Mechanistic approach to organisation may be effective in terms of managerial control
in certain organisations in stable times. However, in an ever changing social and economic
climate, its restrictions are concerning and tend to limit human capability. In bureaucratic
systems, individuals tend to spend hours completing routinised, mindless tasks although
given the opportunity, may have the capacity to make worthwhile contributions. Based on
these limitations, further analysis needs to be completed in order to understand the diverse
ways in which organisations operate. Groups of organisations need to be examined in terms
of adaptation and survival rather than single organisations as changing environments may
observe whole industries dissolve. The core strength of the organism metaphor is in its links
between organisations and the environment. Organisations are acknowledged as open
systems that have processes rather than a collection of parts which encourages a view of a
living, flexible system. Furthermore, it focusses on a balance of internal needs that must be
mutually satisfied in order to survive with survival observed as a process rather than and ends
mean. It also demonstrates that different species of organisations have different options when
structuring and can operate as teams, project based, matrixes and adhocracies. It’s sociotechnical approach and ecology view supports Maslows’ hierarchy of needs and suggests the
importance of harmonious inter-organisational relationships if an organisation is to innovate
and evolve. However, the limitation with seeing an organisation as an organism is also in the
assumption that organisations are harmonious and that there is one true form which can lead
us to a distorted view and ideology of an organisation as an abstract object. Consequently,
when we view organisations through the machine and organism metaphors we view people as
parts whose function is to service organisational requirements which are valued greater than
human beings. Therefore, for organisations to thrive and survive new metaphors need to be
propagated and managers need to be aware of these assumptions and their effects.
9
10
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: artistry, choice and leadership 3rd
Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cummings, S., & Thanem, T. (2002). The Ghost in the Organism. Organization Studies, 817-839.
Delta Education. (2019, April 16). Organisms and Environment. Retrieved from HSC Boards:
https://hscboards.fandom.com/wiki/Organisms_and_Environment_-_1
Fiol, C. (1989). A Semiotic Analysis of Corporate Language: Organizational Boundaries and Joint
Venturing. Administrative Science Quarterley, No. 34, 277-303.
Hatch, M. J. (2011). Organizations: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project Work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-Bureaucratic
Organization. Research Article.
Inns, D. (2002). Metaphor in the Literature of Organizational Analysis: A Preliminary Taxonomy and a
Glimpse at a Humanities-Based Perspective. Organisation 9, 305-330.
Klaw, S. (1979, September https://www.americanheritage.com/frederick-winslow-taylor). The
Messiah of Time and Motion . Philadelphia, United States of America.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lumen Learning. (2019, April 14). Reading: The Hawthorne Studies. Retrieved from Lumen Learning:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/baycollege-introbusiness/chapter/video-hawthornestudies-at-att/
Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Organizational Structure: Mintzberg's Framework. International Journal of
Scholarly, Academic, Intellectual Diversity Volume 14, Number 1, 1-8.
Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., & Green, M. (1995). Objective and Subjective Work Monotony: Effects on
job satisfaction, psycholgical distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers. Journal of
Applied Psychology 80, 29-42.
Mind Tools. (2019, April 21). Team Management. Retrieved from Mind Tools: “a fair day's pay for a
fair day's work." In other words, if a worker didn't achieve enough in a day, he didn't deserve
to be paid as much as another worker who was highly productive.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Beverley Hills: Sage.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Toronto: SAGE Publications.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1989). Mystics, Neats and Scruffies: Informing Professional Practice in Educational
Administration. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol 27, 7-18.
Sungaila, H. (1990). Organizations Alive! Have we at last found thekey to a science of educational
administration? Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration, 3-26.
Tatlidil, E. (1993). Society, Education, and Teacher. Izmir: Ege Universitesi.
Tsoukas, H. (1991). The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational
Science. Academy of Management Review, 566-585.
11
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol 21, 1-19.
12