The role of organizational climate and culture in the school  (Page 9/17)

In 1990, Roland Barth presented a bold statement on school improvement:“What needs to be improved about schools is their culture, the quality of inter-personalrelationships, and the nature and quality of learning experiences”(p. 45). In those instances where the major changes needed are to the school culture, itself, an in-depth understanding of theorganizational culture, and sub-cultures, is even more essential. Organizational cultures can be changed, over time, but the moreentrenched and more widely shared the culture, the more difficult it is to effect deep or lasting change. It is necessary to diagnosethe culture carefully and focus on modifying only very specific key values or assumptions, not the entire culture (Harris,2002).

The next step in the planning stage of the school improvement process is for the organization to select aplanning approach (see Beach, 1993) appropriate to the specific school improvement under consideration and to theorganizational conditions, including its climate and culture. Many schools assumethat some form of the traditional rational planning process (Brieve, Johnson,&Young, 1958; Kaufman, 1972), e.g., the strategic planning approach, is the preferred model for guidingschool improvement efforts Bryson, 1995; Cook, 1990). Although in certain circumstances this assumption is correct, there are manyinstances in which alternative planning approaches would be more appropriate. Beach and Lindahl (2004a) discussed how Lindblom’s (1959) incremental planning model, Etzioni’s (1967) mixed-scanning model, and developmental or goal-free planning models (Clark, 1981;McCaskey, 1974) complement rational planning approaches.

In large measure, the culture and climate of the school are factors that must be considered in this decision. AsClark (1981) noted, school cultures tend to be more a loose collection of ideas than a highly coherent structure (see, also,Lonsdale, 1986) and that it is unreasonable to assume high levels of consensus on goals. The technology of instruction is largelyunclear, even among the teachers of a given school. Schools tend to operate more on a trial-and-error basis than through scientificdesign (Clark, p. 49). These qualities are all contradictory to the requisites of the rational planning model. Clark’s assessment was seconded by Walter (1983), whose case study findings concluded thatorganizational behavior is not necessarily guided by formal goals and objectives, but by organizational culture (see, also, Lonsdale,1986).

Walter (1983) tied these findings to McCaskey’s (1974) earlier conclusions that goal-based planning narrows the focus and limits the flexibility of the organizational.Toll (1982) posited that rational, quantitatively based planning often neglects the human aspects of the organization and thechanging environment. Larson (1982) concluded that rational models focus on the future, whereas, in reality, most people in theorganization are focused on the present. In short, for many school improvement efforts goals are sufficiently diverse, the future issufficiently uncertain, and the actions necessary to obtain the goals sufficiently unclear that goal-based, rational planning maywell not be effective, efficient, or appropriate (Clark, 1981).Consequently, Walter (1983) suggested that a more intuitive,climate and culture-based planning approach might be more effective, particularly when the conditions facing the school areunstable or uncertain. Such a directional planning approach would allow the school leader to accommodate alternative preferences,means, and values within the school culture, thereby managing potential conflict.