EDLPS 551: Organizational Theory and Educational Change
Winter 2011
Instructor: Meredith Honig
Teaching Assistants


mihonig@uw.edu
Office: Miller 315D
Tel: 206.616.0679
Office Hours: By appointment
Becky Corriell: bfran3@uw.edu
Lydia Rainey: lydiar@uw.edu
Meeting Times: Tuesdays 4:30-6:50 pm plus 6 weekly reading group meetings to be arranged
Location: Smith Hall 105
Grading: Letter grades
Credits: 4
Prerequisites: EDLPS550 or the equivalent
Required Readings
 All readings are on line at: https://catalyst.uw.edu/gopost/board/mihonig/19767/
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Overview
This course aims to familiarize you with theories of organizational behavior and their applicability to
education policy and leadership in K-12 and higher education settings. This course stems from the
premise that fluency with these theories across disciplines is essential to the research and practice of
educational policy and leadership, particularly when it comes to efforts to strengthen the performance
of educational organizations.
Course sessions engage you in grappling with what theories of organizational behavior teach about:
(1) Why organizations (and the people within them) do what they do and how practitioners might use
that knowledge to improve practice; and
(2) How to design research projects to illuminate important organizational dynamics that may help or
hinder change and improvement.
We pay special attention to the development and use of conceptual frameworks to inform both practice
and research.
Learning Objectives
This course aims to strengthen your:
 Knowledge of organizational theories from the birth of the field of inquiry to the present;
 Ability to identify and understand concepts from organizational theories across various disciplines
and apply them to contemporary policy and leadership issues;
 Ability to use organizational research to develop conceptual frameworks to guide research and
practice;
 Ability to use your own professional experience to inform your understanding of organizational
theory; and
 Skills in writing analytical papers.
EDLPS 551
1
1.4.11
Course Structure
The course begins with three introductory sessions in which we review the early research literature on
organizations. In the process we explore several concepts foundational to understanding organizations
in practice and research: agency, structure, and environment. We pay special attention to how early
organizational researchers conducted their research and the consequences of their choices for the type
of data they collected and their conclusions about organizational behavior. We also examine
“bureaucracy” as a main mode of organizing in education and other social policy arenas. In particular,
we explore: What are the different ways early organizational theorists conceptualized bureaucracies
and what are the pros and cons of those conceptualizations for our understanding of how school
systems behave?
In the subsequent course sessions we sample different contemporary organizational theories. The
selected theories come from main disciplines foundational to organizational studies: cognitive science,
economics, political science, and sociology. We practice arranging ideas from each theory into
conceptual frameworks that we then use to explain the behavior of educational organizations. In the
process, we compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of each theory as a guide for educational
research and practice and explore the methodological demands each theory places on research.
In addition to the Tuesday course meetings, you participate in weekly discussion groups in which you
critically examine course readings in advance of class sessions.
Accommodations
To request academic accommodations due to a disability, please contact Disability Resources for
Students, 448 Schmitz, 206-543-8924 (Voice), 206-543-8925 (TTY). If you have a letter from
Disability Resources for Students (DRS) indicating you have a disability that requires academic
accommodations, please present the letter to me so we can discuss the accommodations you might
need in this course. If you have questions or concerns about disability accommodations for students,
do not hesitate to contact me or DRS directly.
GoPost Instructions
I will use the GoPost system to distribute course readings, make course announcements (e.g., related to
inclement weather, readings, etc.), and otherwise to communicate with you. You also may use our
GoPost space to communicate with the rest of the class. You are responsible for monitoring our
GoPost site for any course postings. Please do the following as soon as possible to ensure you receive
timely notifications of any postings from me or other members of the class:
1. In your web browser, type in the link to the GoPost for our course:
https://catalyst.uw.edu/gopost/board/mihonig/19767/
2. When prompted, log in with your UW ID. Then you will be directed to the GoPost space for our
course.
3. At the top of the page, click on “Profile”.
4. Once on your profile page, click on “notifications” under your login name.
5. Indicate that you would like to receive notifications of postings either “immediately” or as a “daily
summary.” If you opt for “daily summary,” please manually check the site before class for any lastminute announcements, especially related to weather.
EDLPS 551
2
1.4.11
OVERVIEW OF COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING
Note: A rubric that specifies standards for grading will be distributed separately.
REQUIREMENTS
PERCENT OF
GRADE
Brief Professional Bio
In 1-2 single-spaced pages, please tell me about yourself:
 What 1-2 professional or personal experiences do view
as important to your participation in this particular
course? Why those?
 What are 2-3 of your main goals for your participation
in this course and why? What is your current thinking
about how you might use your participation in this
course each week and in the written assignments to
help you realize your goals?
 If applicable: Please briefly describe the status of your
doctoral dissertation, masters thesis/project, or other
work that you think this course may inform.
The purposes of the bio are for me to take a quick
inventory of the expertise each of you brings to this class
and to hear some of your expectations for this quarter.
The bio also aims to prompt your own thinking about how
you will direct your own efforts in this course.
*Be selective. Do not cut and paste or attach your resume
or submit a bio you may have prepared for another course,
including EDLPS 550. Rather, highlight 2-3 significant
points that you think are most relevant to your
participation in this particular course.
*Review the syllabus before you write your bio and use
your bio to reflect on how you will direct your efforts in
this course.
Class Participation
Participation depends on your careful completion of
assigned readings using the questions in the syllabus as a
guide. Participation also includes your engagement in
course discussions each Tuesday and in weekly discussion
groups. Class sessions have been developed with the
expectation that you have completed the assigned reading
and participated in your discussion group prior to each
session.
EDLPS 551
3
DUE DATE
January 7 by
4:30pm by e-mail
to
mihonig@uw.edu
50
Each class
meeting
1.4.11
Discussion Groups
Your participation in a weekly discussion group six times
during the quarter is a formal expectation of the course and
factored into your participation grade. You form your own
discussion group and meet to discuss the readings in
advance of each class meeting. To adequately discuss each
reading each week you will need around an hour and a half
for each weekly discussion group meeting. You generate a
written record of your discussion using the “Discussion
Group Report” template. The meeting and record must be
completed and the record submitted by midnight on
Monday before each class session. When planning your
discussion group meetings, please be sure to take into
account that there are only seven sessions with assigned
reading so you have 7 opportunities to complete the 6
required discussion group meetings.
Discussion Group
Report due each
Monday by
midnight before
each class session.
Organizational Analysis Paper
This 10-page, double-spaced paper asks you to apply
concepts from the course to an organizational issue of
interest to you.
See the assignment sheet and grading rubric for further
instructions.
Paper topic statement
Optional Paper Draft for
TA Review
Required Paper Draft
50
January 28 by email by 4:30pm
March 3 by e-mail
by 4:30pm
If working with
TAs: March 8th by
4:30pm
If not working
with TAs: March
6th by 4:30pm
March 15th
Final Paper
EDLPS 551
4
1.4.11
SCHEDULE OF READINGS
January 4
Course Introduction
During this introductory session we will begin to explore the main questions that undergird this
course: What is organizational studies as a field of research and practice? How can the knowledge
base and analytical tools in this field help inform the research and practice of educational
organizations? As we will discuss, drawing on the knowledge and tools from this field means not
simply making organizations the topic of your work but thinking and acting like an organizational
theorist. But how do organizational theorists think and act? We will start to practice taking that
stance using an initial practice case.
I. Early Research
Virtually all theories of organizational behavior advance certain claims about the nature of the
relationship among human agency, formal and informal structures, and organizational environments.
Many contemporary organizational theories are direct or indirect responses to early research in the
field about these main organizational dynamics, especially research focused on bureaucratic
organizations. Accordingly we will become more able readers of contemporary organizational research
if we have some familiarity with these early classic conceptions and readings.
January 11 Early Research on Organizations as Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
In EDLPS 550 you discussed basic distinctions between rational, natural, and open systems ideas
of organizations. During this session we read primary texts from early rational, natural and open
systems research to deepen our understanding of: (1) How these perspectives are similar/different
especially with regard to their treatment of three main dimensions of organizational life: agency,
structure, and environment and (2) How early theorists’ different choices about research methods
led them to develop different kinds of knowledge and ultimately draw different conclusions about
these three dimensions and how organizations behave. By reading these primary texts we also start
getting in the habit of reading primary texts from the literature on organizational behavior (rather
than textbook summaries or cases).
In preparation for this session please: (1) Go back through your notes from EDLPS 550 and remind
yourself of the main distinctions between rational, natural, and open systems perspectives and
come prepared to discuss how each perspective differs in terms of its treatment of agency,
structure, and environment. (2) Complete the following readings using these guiding questions to
focus your reading of each piece:
 What questions did Taylor, Mayo, and Zald use to ground their research?
 What research methods did they use to explore those questions?
 What did they find, particularly regarding the extent to which agency, structure and
organizational environments influence organizational behavior?
Early Research in the Rational Tradition
Taylor, F.W. (1916, December). Principles of scientific management. Bulletin of the Taylor
Society. Reprinted in: Shafritz, J.M., & Ott, J. S. (1992). Classics of organization theory, 3rd
Edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 69-80.
EDLPS 551
5
1.4.11
Early Research in the Natural Tradition
a. Mayo-- Two brief pieces from The Economist
b. Mayo, E. (1930). The human effect of mechanization. The American Economic Review,
20(1), 156-176.
Early Research in the Open Systems Tradition
Zald, M.N., & Denton, P. (1963). From evangelism to general service: The transformation of
the YMCA. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 214-234.
January 18 Rational, Natural, and Open System Views of Bureaucratic Organizations
Bureaucracy is an enduring organizational form in K-12 and higher education systems— and the
root of many complaints about these and other systems. These negative associations with
bureaucracy have become so common that one definition of “bureaucracy” in English language
dictionaries is “red-tape.” However, organizational research hardly paints “bureaucracy” as a
universal organizational problem or as an organizational form impervious to change. (And if you
look up bureaucracy in the dictionary you will see that “red-tape” tends not to be the first or second
definition of “bureaucracy.”) Accordingly, an important set of orienting ideas for us is that
bureaucracies are far more complex and varied in their functioning than suggested by some
common depictions of bureaucracies as impediments to change.
The following three classic readings on bureaucracy from early rational, natural, and open systems
research provide us with an opportunity to explore some foundational perspectives on how
organizational theorists view bureaucracies-- what bureaucracies are as an organizational form and
how they function. Please come to class prepared to discuss the following questions:
 How do rational systems theorists (represented by Weber), natural systems theorists
(represented by Blau), and open systems theorists (represented by Weick) describe what a
bureaucracy is and how it should and does operate?
 How does each author define and view agency, structure, and environment as influences on
bureaucratic behavior? [Note that not all the authors explicitly define these terms. So to answer
this question you may need to mine the readings for implied definitions.]
 Why do you think the term “bureaucracy” is sometimes used in a pejorative sense? How might
Weber, Blau, and Weick respond to those kinds of comments? Specifically, what might they
say are the downsides and upsides of bureaucracy as a mode of organizing especially when it
comes to public education?
Rational Systems perspective
Weber, M. (1946). Bureaucracy. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H.H. Gerth and
C.W. Mills (Eds.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in: Shafritz, J.M., &
Ott, J. S. (1992). Classics of organization theory, 3rd Edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company, pp. 81-86.
Natural Systems perspective
Blau, P.M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
pp. 1-15; 121-143.
EDLPS 551
6
1.4.11
Open Systems perspective
Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
II. Contemporary Theories of Organizational Behavior
January 25
Economic Theories: Principal-Agent
Principal-agent theory draws on basic concepts from micro-economics to help explain
organizational behavior. This theory rests on assumptions that organizations consist of different
types of actors, principals and agents, each of whom are driven by self-interest to maximize their
benefits including their control over their situation. Organizational behavior depends largely on
predictable patterns of principal-agent relationships. First, read the Eisenhardt piece and (without
getting bogged down in her comparisons of theories) consider:
 What are the main assumptions about human behavior on which principal-agent theory rests?
 How does principal-agent theory bring together those assumptions to explain how
organizations are likely to behave under the different circumstances described in this article?
Ferris and Wohlstetter both apply principal-agent theory to education policy cases. Ferris uses
principal-agent theory to predict organizational dynamics likely to result from school site-based
decision-making policies. Wohlstetter and colleagues use principal-agent theory to explain the
results of their study of data-driven decision-making in K-12 school systems. As you read each
piece, please consider:
 How does each author represent principal-agent theory?
o Which concepts do they privilege?
o Which do they omit?
 How do they use those concepts to predict or explain organizational behavior? (I.e. How do
they apply the theory to their case?)
 What do you think are the pros and cons of using principal-agent theory to understand
organizational dynamics in each case?
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management
Review, 14(1), 51-74.
Ferris, J.M. (1992). School-based decision making: A principal-agent perspective. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 333-346.
Wohstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decisionmaking: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 19(3), 239-259.
EDLPS 551
7
1.4.11
February 1
Cognitive Theories: Bounded Rationality & Sense-making
Some of the earliest formal studies of organizations drew on ideas from cognitive science to help
explain what organizations are and how they operate. Early writings in this line mainly took off
from rational systems ideas, as reflected in the pioneering work of Herbert Simon and James G.
March of the “Carnegie School” on bounded rationality (as summarized in the Perrow reading). In
a nutshell they argued that organizational behavior may be largely explained by the decisions of
actors within organizations. Those actors want to behave rationally but they are constrained in their
ability to do so by a number of factors including those that derive from the organization in which
they work. Accordingly, organizational actors “satisfice” (or make the best decision they can under
the circumstances) rather than maximize (or weigh all alternatives and select the one that will
likely have the best result at the least cost). Bounded rationality endures as a way of understanding
organizational behavior from a cognitive perspective. Other theorists have elaborated on early
cognitive theories with ideas about the importance of identity and culture to decision-making in
organizational contexts. Some elaborate how processes of individual and social sensemaking
within organizations shape organizational behavior. In this session we explore both bounded
rationality and sensemaking as explanations for organizational behavior.
Please use the following questions to anchor your reading:
 When March and Simon (in Perrow) say that organizational behavior is boundedly rational,
what do they mean?
o When organizational actors make decisions that reflect bounded rationality, what are
dimensions of the process of decision-making?
o What conditions influence that decision-making?
o How do organizations matter to that decision-making?

When Weick and colleagues say that organizational behavior is a process of sense-making,
what do they mean?
o When organizational actors engage in sensemaking, what do they do?
o What conditions influence sensemaking processes?
o How do organizations matter to sensemaking?

Which ideas from sensemaking theory did Coburn apply to explain her focal school’s response
to reading policy?
o Which concepts did she privilege?
o Which did she omit?
o How did Coburn use those concepts to explain the school’s behavior? (That is, what is her
explanation and how does that explanation reflect a sensemaking approach to analysis?)

What do you think are the pros and cons of using sensemaking theory to understand the
organizational dynamics in the case?
Summary of Simon and March in: Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay,
3rd Edition. New York, NY: Random House, pp. 119-131.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
EDLPS 551
8
1.4.11
Coburn, C.E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2),
145-170.
February 8
Political Theories: Resource Dependence
Resource Dependence Theory (RDT), like principal-agent theory, focuses on the importance of
struggles for autonomy and power as essential to understanding organizational behavior. However,
RDT focuses less on how such struggles play out inter-personally and more on how they matter to
inter-organizational relationships. RDT also takes a broader view than principal-agent theory of the
kinds of resources that matter to how autonomy and power play out. Pfeffer & Salancik authored
some of the earliest foundational pieces in this line of research.
 According to Pfeffer & Salancik, what are sources of autonomy and power within and among
organizations and how do they shape organizational dynamics?
 What are 1-2 examples of these dynamics in educational organizations you care about?
The Hackman piece provides an example of how to use RDT to understand which organizations (in
this case, university units) are likely to have more or less influence over budget decisions.
However, budget decisions are not the only contexts that RDT might help explain. For example,
Shenhav uses RDT to demonstrate how a university’s dependence on particular funding sources
influences the professional autonomy of university professors. As you read the Hackman and
Shenhav pieces, please consider:
 What are the main questions each author poses about institutions of higher education?
 What are the authors’ main findings?
 How did each author use ideas from RDT to explain their findings and draw conclusions about
how institutions of higher education behave?
 What do you think are the pros and cons of RDT as a framework for understanding such
dynamics?
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY:
Harper & Row Publishers, pp. 39-61.
Hackman, J. (1985). Power and centrality in the allocation of resources in colleges and
universities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 61-77.
Shenhav, Y.A. (1986). Dependency and compliance in academic research infrastructures.
Sociological Perspectives, 29(1), 29-51.
February 15
Sociological Theories: The New Institutionalism in Sociology
The New Institutionalism in Sociology (NIS) argues in part that organizations are driven not
mainly by cognitive processes or the quest for efficiency (per economic theories) or control (per
political theories). Rather, organizations strive for legitimacy. The classic pieces by DiMaggio &
Powell and Meyer & Rowan examine these dynamics as they play out between organizations. The
Barley piece shows how these dynamics unfold within organizations in ways that are consequential
to organizational performance.
EDLPS 551
9
1.4.11
Please first read the Meyer & Rowan and DiMaggio & Powell pieces with the following questions
as guides:
 What is an institution and how do institutions matter to organizational behavior?
 What are Meyer & Rowan referring to when they talk about organizational “myths”? What is
an example of a myth from an organization you are familiar with?
 What is organizational isomorphism? When an organization demonstrates isomorphism, what
more specifically is it doing? Under what conditions are organizations likely to demonstrate
isomorphism?
Then please read the Barley piece and consider:
 What are organizational scripts and how are they similar to or different from “institutions” or
“myths”?
 How do scripts influence behavior within organizations?
 Under what conditions are organizational actors more or less likely to follow scripts? Which
scripts?
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth
and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-60.
Barley, S.R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of
CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly,
31(1), 78-108.
February 22
More Sociological Theories: Diffusion
Theories of diffusion from organizational sociology aim in part to explain the adoption and
diffusion of ideas, organizational forms, innovations, etc. within and across organizations. The
following concepts are central to these explanations: periphery and core; early and late adopters;
and legitimacy. As you read, please consider:




How is each of these terms defined in each of the assigned readings?
What are the main outcomes in each article that the authors aim to explain?
What concepts from diffusion theory do they draw on to explain those outcomes?
How do they apply those concepts to actually explain the outcomes of their focal case?
Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker, L. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structures of
organizations: The diffusion of civil service reforms 1880-1935. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28(1), 22-39.
Edelman, L.B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of
civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531-1576.
EDLPS 551
10
1.4.11
March 1
Organizational Analysis Paper Workshop
Please come to class with the sources you will use to create the conceptual framework for your
organizational analysis paper. Please make sure you have read those sources carefully and that you are
prepared to discuss the questions listed below. I strongly suggest you write out answers to these
questions and bring them to class to help with your discussion.
 What are 2-3 reasons why you have chosen the focal theory for your organizational analysis paper?
 What are 2-3 reasons why you have not chosen the other theories featured in the second main
section of the syllabus? (Hint: Focus your reasons on what each theory buys or does not buy you
when it comes to explaining your particular case.)
 In each of your chosen readings, what are the main concepts highlighted by each author? Of those
concepts, which ones are most relevant to your case? How is each relevant?
 What questions do you have about these readings and their application to your case that you would
like to discuss with others?
Readings to be determined by you.
March 8
EDLPS 551
Wrap Up
11
1.4.11