Introduction
Organizational learning in a school is a result of a continuous chain of decisions made by a school leader, teachers and other staff members. These decisions may be independent or have cause-effect connection, but together they create what we can call learning culture in a school.
In this process, a leader’s position is of big significance: with his attitudes and opinions, decisions and actions, he/she is able to give direction to development of organizational learning in a school. There are a big number of possible directions, and which direction to choose is a very important question for any school. That is why choosing the optimal direction should be fulfilled not intuitively, but deliberately and methodically.
A system of criteria offered by Casey Reason (Reason) is aimed at helping school leaders evaluate the direction they have chosen for the development of organizational learning in their schools, eliminate outlooks and contradictions and enhance their approach decision-making at school.
It includes 16 pairs of “competing mental representations” that, according to the author, a school leader should keep in mind and pay attention to. Having defined which representation of each pair a leader is committed to, he/she may get a systematic picture of the approach to organizational learning that dominates in his/her school.
Despite all of them have significance and are to some extent connected with each other, we will try to outline four pairs of mental representations that have the strongest influence on organizational learning in a school and analyze connection between them and other pairs of mental representations.
“Change: Episodic or Continuous?”
Our whole life is all about changes; as the World changes, education should also change to bring up specialists and citizens who will successfully live and work in our society, feel comfortable in it and contribute to its prosperity.
However, it is quite difficult to state definitely that education as it is keeps abreast in its changing with the changes in our World; there are certain grounds to state that changes in education are a bit “backwards”.
Whether we talk about technological, social, cultural or any other kind of changes, there is a certain time lag between the moment these changes occur and the moment a school reacts on them and introduces corresponding changes.
At the same time, schools do differ in their willingness to gradually and perpetually introduce changes. We may notice that while some schools make changing a perpetual process, other ones prefer to change, as Reason says, “in fits and starts” (ibid.). This difference is reflected in one of his pairs of mental representations: “Change: Episodic or Continuous?” (ibid.). Why is this criterion important?
As we have already discussed, changes in education are inevitable because the World changes; however, if a school is willing to change, is open to changes and changes perpetually, it will be always more prepared to react on the external changes than a school that changes when the urgency is brewing, and thus will be able to avoid many problems.
In this sense, the importance of this pair of mental representations seems to be bigger than of another pair that is also connected with changes: “the genesis of change in our school: the principal’s office or the classroom?” (ibid).
If a school changes “in fits and starts”, the moment will nevertheless come when a change will become necessary, and a leader will have to make a decision, even despite of whether this necessity is first realized by a principal or “corroborated” by students’ behavior, actions or relations.
To illustrate this statement, it would be appropriate to allude to an interesting case titled The Science Fair Incident offered in Katherine K. Merseth’s (1997, pp.39-47). This case is similar to numerous cases that took place in the real life during the “post-Brown v. Board of Education” case (1954) period when the “separate but equal” doctrine and racial segregation in education were declared unconstitutional (Martin, p.121).
The school described in Merseth’s case faces a significant cultural change: White students cannot get used to the idea that now they have to attend school together with their Black peers, which causes perpetual squabbles between these two “camps”.
This is an example of an inevitable cultural change that a school faces and needs to react on. However, from the case we see that Principal Cage is a leader who is oriented on introducing changes “in fits and starts”; during a certain period, he does not take resolute measures and only reacts on cases of conflicts with racial background.
Detecting the necessity of introducing a change and finding the optimal way to fulfill it is an important skill of a school leader which to great extent defines the way organizational learning in a school develops.
“Change Solutions: Prepackaged or Cocreated?”
As we have already discussed, despite there can be different sources of initiative for changes, the necessity to introduce changes will sooner or later emerge and become urgent. However, the source of change solution ideas and the way they are approved or rejected play a significant role in organizational learning of a school.
We can compare this pair of mental representations with two well-known management styles: autocratic and democratic: while in a democratic company decisions are developed considering subordinates suggestions and opinions, an autocratic manager prefers to develop solutions on his/her own and “send” them “down” to the subordinates (Sapru, p.403).
By analogy, according to Reason, some school leaders prefer to “prepackage” change solutions and announce them to the subordinates, while other ones tend to involve teachers and other staff members into the process of decision making (Reason). It is possible to say that this pair of mental representation predetermines the position of a school concerning another pair, which is “Collaboration: cheating or learning?” (ibid.).
If a leader prefers “co-creation” to “prepackaging”, then administration and teachers will cooperate and make decisions by common effort; otherwise, “collaboration” will be perceived almost like “cheating”.
However, like in case with two mentioned management styles, it is difficult to state that one approach to forming change solutions is always worse than the second one. We can see both “autocratic” and “democratic” companies who successfully operate and grow; the same seems to be true about schools.
Probably, the most important issue for a leader is to decide on when it is necessary to make a decision on his/her own or listen to the subordinates. Another case offered in Merseth (1997, pp.55-69) titled Promise and Fear is devoted to such situation.
Erica Suzman is a new principal and wants to set a good rapport between her and the school staff and to gain their trust; when it was necessary to make a decision about hiring a principal assistant, Suzman had serious misgivings about the candidacy of Harriet Clyde, but listened to her subordinates and hired Ms. Clyde, which turned out to be a wrong decision, as Ms. Clyde’s behavior towards students was inadmissible.
Thus, both approaches to developing change solutions can be effectively applied; a leader’s task is to make a deliberate choice and apply a chosen strategy appropriately.
“The Leader’s Role: Master or Servant?”
Reason describes two strategies of “getting the most out of others”: giving precise instructions and monitoring the process of following them, and focusing on others’ needs and perspective to growth (Reason).
This pair of mental representations is connected with the pair discussed above; however these two pairs are not the “substitutes”: while “pre-packaging” and “co-creating” change solutions is about giving subordinates opportunity to participate in decision making that refers to the field of a leader’s competence, being “master” or “servant” refers to a leader’s strategy concerning making subordinates effective in fulfilling their own responsibilities.
It is difficult to overrate the importance of this pair, as it has a very strong influence on the way staff fulfills their work: they will be either oriented on following directions as precisely as possible, or being inventive and initiative.
Standard or Individuality…?
Reason offers several pairs that imply choice between “individuality” and “standard”, such as “learning goals: teaching to standard or adding value?”, “teaching: teaching curriculum or teaching students?” and “student capacity: empty vessels or unharvested fields?” (ibid.).
Despite the connection between them is obvious, it seems quite difficult to decide which pair has the strongest influence on organizational learning in a school. In our opinion, “student capacity: empty vessels or unharvested fields?” is the most significant criterion, as it predetermines the choice in two other pairs.
Particularly, Reason says that there are two approaches to assessing students’ initial talents and skills, and this influences the way teaching is conducted (ibid.). Students can be perceived either as “empty vessels” that come to schools to be “filled” with knowledge or as “unharvested fields” which means that they already have certain talents and skills that may become the rich soil for further intellectual development.
Thus, the way a teacher will reach the necessary “output” (which is students’ performance) depends on how he/she understands the “input” (which is students’ “initial condition”).
If the “empty vessels” approach is chosen, it will be the most probably accompanied with the “teaching to standard”; otherwise, “adding value” will be chosen. However, the general connection between three pairs that are now discussed turns out to be more difficult than in may seem at first.
Should a school limit its mission to make students’ knowledge meet local and national standards, or should it give them more? Does a school have a duty to teach students think on their own rather than simply give them ready “food for thought”?
The answer seems obvious: developing students’ thinking skills is incredibly important: it is the basis that will help them to succeed in their profession, produce ideas that will solve problems and contribute to progress. Correspondingly, if a teacher limits his/her teaching to delivering material and then assessing how well students have learnt it, his way of teaching is considered ineffective, and he/she is recommended to work on it.
Reason’s pair of mental representations titled “learning goals: teaching to standard or adding value?” (Reason) may at first seem to correspond to the choice between these two approaches to teaching: delivering material versus developing. Nevertheless, they significantly differ from each other.
While the choice between “delivering” and “developing” does not awake any hesitations, both approaches included into the pair “learning goals: teaching to standard or adding value” deserve attention and can be successfully used.
Both approaches imply that students’ knowledge and skills should be developed; however, in case of “teaching to standard” the “starting point” is a standard, while the “adding value” approach is based on students’ skills. Despite the word “standard” sounds quite cold, it does not have a negative tint: a standard may also include requirements that concern development of students’ important skills.
On the one hand, if a school follows the “teaching to standard” approach, students may lack “personal approach”; on the other hand, the “adding value” approach is more adapted to students’ peculiarities, but may make improving, supervising and assessing students’ performance quite vague.
Thus, two approaches differ significantly, and that is why it is important for a leader to have a clear notion of what approach a school follows. This pair of mental representations is important for development of a harmonious, systematic approach to teaching students.
The “learning goals: teaching to standard or adding value” pair is connected with another pair of mental representations, which is “teaching: teaching curriculum or teaching students?” (ibid.); however, the second pair seems to be subordinate to the first one. If “teaching to standard is chosen”, it will lead to following the “teaching curriculum” approach; in case “adding value” is chosen, “teaching students” approach will take place.
Conclusion
Having worked with Reason’s system of mental representations, we are now able to make certain conclusions. First of all, we see that despite all pairs are important in terms of influencing organizational learning in school, some of them have primary significance while others are their “derivatives”; we have discussed the examples of such connection.
Besides, we have seen that it is impossible to say that one approach of each pair is effective and the second one is not; we have discussed the cases when both approaches can be quite effective.
References
Merseth, K. K. (1997). Cases in Educational Administration. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
Martin, W. E. (1998). Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Reason, C. (2010). Competing Mental Representations in Schools. Solution-Tree. Web.
Sapru, R. K. (2008). Administrative Theories and Management Thought. New Dehli: PHI Learning.