For this week’s application assignment, I decided to look
for uses of thoughtful organization structure in fields outside of large
corporations and see what links could be found, as designing an organization to
meet objectives and execute strategies is a task necessary for success in any
group endeavor.
From an article in the Journal
of Educational Change, I found an apt subject: an elementary school
transitioning to become an Edison charter school. While Edison Schools are organized as
for-profit businesses, their ultimate product is education, with philosophical
differences from traditional public schools. Among these shifts is that “Edison
Schools purport to create a professional environment that emphasizes collegial
interaction and ongoing professional development” (Rutherford, 2006, p. 65).
One way the Edison school profiled in this journal article creates this
environment is through an organizational structure that distributes more
responsibility to teachers, as opposed to the principal-centric environment.
At Edison Schools, teachers have three classifications:
resident, senior and lead teachers. Each level (going in sequence from resident
to senior and to lead) of the hierarchy involves responsibility for mentoring
teachers lower in the structure, with lead teachers also working on curriculum
development in a role where they “straddle the boundary between teaching and
administration” (Rutherford, 2006, p. 66).
Comparing the Edison model with some of Goold and Campbell’s
tests for well-designed organizations (2002) yields interesting results. When it comes to the Market Advantage Test,
for example, I would argue that Edison’s structure does indeed direct
sufficient attention to their source of competitive advantage. In this case,
the structure itself is the competitive advantage, as the collegiality and
interdisciplinary coordination Edison schools espouse are difficult to achieve
in a highly structured and hierarchical environment often found in public
education.
When it comes to the flexibility test, the Edison model
shines. Goold and Campbell state “a well-designed organization is flexible for
the future as well as fit for the present” (2002, p. 10). For Edison, this
focus on both the future and present comes through when the model “relies on
research-based innovations” (Rutherford, 2006, p. 65). Keeping a focus on
research and innovation will require Edison schools to be flexible and adapt
with future innovations.
While many might argue with Edison’s methods and the role of
for-profit organizations intervening in American education, Edison provides an
intriguing look at designing organizations for results in educational outcomes
just like corporate organizational designers strive for financial outcomes.
References
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002, March). Do you have a
well-designed organization? Harvard
Business Review, 5-11.
Rutherford, C. (2006). Teacher leadership and organizational
structure: the implications of restructured leadership in an Edison school. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 59–76. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0013-4
Andrew, how would you classify this new structure in light of the models presenting in the readings? Does it neatly fit into one model or does it have components of many? Do you see any drawbacks of this type of structure as compared to the old system? Do you see any similarities between the Edison structure and the lattice organization at Gore?
ReplyDeleteDr. Pade,
ReplyDeleteWhile I can certainly see elements of many different models, I think I would classify this school most closely with the matrix form. As Nobria (1991) explains, the matrix form uses both the divisional and functional structures at the same time. With each teacher having different reporting relationships for their teaching (to the lead teacher) and administrative work (to the division director, equivalent to principal), this is similar to the matrix form, particularly when you consider the expanded work in curriculum development carried out by some teachers. The biggest drawback I see compared to the old system is in establishing the relationship to the "end consumer" of this "product," the students and parents, who may more easily cooperate with a traditional school model or perhaps a more student-centered model like Montessori. There are certainly similarities between the Edison structure and the Gore lattice, as both place a strong emphasis on mentoring and individual development, not to mention the "intellectual freedom" each organization allows: at Edison, this means not being restricted by state curriculum standards and at Gore it is the ability to pursue a project of one's choosing and bring others onboard to innovate.