Post a symbol of organizational culture with a brief narrative explanation

Learning Bridges is a synthesis system for combining state curricular standards with research-based, instructional practices. Based on McREL’s meta-analyses of thousands of studies on the correlation between student achievement and teacher instructional practices, this company has translated North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study in English/Language Arts (K-12) and Mathematics (K-12) into instructional practices that will garner the largest size effect in terms of student achievement. Learning Bridges not only focuses on Marzano’s nine instructional practices but also links best practices to brain-based research and learning modalities. Additionally, the company provides on-line professional development courses in support of these instructional practices. A Parent Activity Portal links curricular objectives with interactive tasks for parent and child.
Learning Bridges’ organizational symbol depicts two figures supporting – in a free-standing manner – an umbrella or archway. There is perfect symmetry in this symbol, denoting the organization’s comprehensive services. Two distinct colors are seamlessly joined in the archway to represent the bridge between instruction and student achievement. The simplicity of the symbol is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, the tools are user-friendly and provide opportunities for immediate implementation. Conversely, there is great complexity in the thought processes surrounding the products.

In light of our readings and discussions, what are the strengths and limitations of the structure you inhabit?

Work in public education mirrors membership in the Methodist Church in at myriad aspects. The superintendent’s (minister’s) tenure is ordinarily four years – with a plus or minus factor of two years. The local board of education ( Pastor/Parish Relations Committee) interviews candidates and ultimately offers a position. At this point, employees of the system (congregation members) begin the feeding frenzy, gathering intel on the “new guy or gal” and making broad assumptions about impending change in the organization. The superintendent (minister) arrives and a honeymoon period ensues. The Board of Education’s hiring decision gives the superintendent a nonverbal nod of support, while the Pastor/Parish Committee’s array of welcoming functions ensures the minister that someone “has his back” as he navigates the political church waters. The superintendent’s first board meeting sets the tone for leadership. The minister’s first sermon literally seals his fate – good, bad or indifferent – with his parishioners. In both positions, the one at the top inherits individuals in the organization who already have established roles (School Board/Pastor/ Parish Committee; Assistant Superintendent/Associate Ministers; community power brokers/church heavy hitters).
How could this metaphor be relevant to identifying the strengths and limitations of the structure I inhabit? First, both organizations primarily incorporate the human resource frame. Second, with both, there is a direct correlation between how well the superintendent /minister is perceived by the majority of constituents/flock and the stability of the organization. Third, I see both entities responding in similar ways based on their structures.
Mintzberg’s basic blueprint (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 79) provides a graphic for examining the strengths and weaknesses. For lack of a better symbolic representation, Mintzberg’s blueprint looks like a set of scales. When the core (i.e. teachers/congregation) is satisfied, the balances of Technostructure and Support Staff are kept in check. However, the true limitations of the human resource frame become manifest when those performing the “essential work” (Bolman & Deal, 2008) are upset or thrown off kilter. When the core begins to teeter, the Technostructure and Support Staff lose equal footing, and issues unfold. Whether the core’s shift is a result of the Strategic Apex’s actions or that in combination with the middle line, the balance yields to a continuous state of flux.
The recent state budgetary shortfall provides an exceptional example of the premise. The superintendent and the school board had – to some degree – to reframe their human resource stance to respond to the monumental reductions. Teachers lost their steady footing as the uncertainty regarding continued employment intensified. Bolman and Deal address this dilemma in their discussion of adaptability versus loyalty. The technostructure (i.e. the finance department) was also in flux. The support staff literally dwindled, causing our scales to lose all balance.
Because the Strategic apex’s response did not fit the core’s human resource frame, the essential workers spent more time in blaming than in equalizing the core once more.
Hence, the first limitation of the structure is its inability to adapt when faced with external threat. The type of response is seen in schools where a staff member is terminated over an egregious situation. The core is shaken. A second limitation of the human resource frame is its failure to factor in the implications of change at the strategic apex. Teachers seldom see substantive change at the classroom level. Consequently, the entrance of a new superintendent who believes that teachers and principals are part of the larger scheme of work is foreign to a culture that believes it has a property right to work at the same location for their entire tenure in the district. Again, change is difficult within the human resource frame. A third limitation – granted, it is a personal theory – is that the human resource frame can lead to an overall acceptance of mediocrity within the organization. The underlying message, “We take care of our own,” can translate into “Regardless of my performance, the organization will take care of me. “ Fourth, the human resource frame is time and labor intensive. Forming relationships and working with individuals is time-consuming, yet imperative to this frame’s success.
Strengths of the human resource frame can also be illustrated through use of Mintzberg’s blueprint. One strength of this structure is the value it places on those within the organization. The by-products of focusing the district’s resources on current employees include: ensuring a well-trained cadre of applicants for internal positions, creating a train the trainer model for sustained and embedded staff development and ensuring that the organized core has a solidified process for creating common language relative to the teaching and learning process. A second strength of the human resource frame is illuminated in the aftermath of a traumatic event such as the out-of-control economic downturn. While this statement may seem counterintuitive in light of the aforementioned weakness, that same organizing core, albeit shattered, serves as the nucleus for rebuilding. The trust and relationships at the heart of the human resource frame provide the cohesive substance on which the organization will transform, re-energize and rebuild. A third strength of the human resource frame is the value-added component that keeps many educators afloat during dry spells. Unlike the furniture industry where one can see the process-to-product goods, it can be years before an educator sees the impact she has made on a student’s life. The organization’s emphasis on the value and worth of each member to the overall success and balance of the structure can sustain educators even in the bleakest of times.
Whether in the pulpit or behind the podium, the structural aspects of human resources can have a significant impact on an organization’s core.

What metaphors do educational organizations typically use to describe their approach to human resources? How well do those metaphors work?

In an attempt to move beyond the boundaries of my provincial educational world, I took this assignment as an opportunity to review human resource metaphors representative of public K-12 schools, community colleges and four-year universities. Desirous of determining whether geographical location, perceived prestige, size and/or socio-economics created commonalities in metaphorical representation, I examined the following organizations: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS), Ashe County Schools, Gwinnett County (Georgia) Schools, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), Wake County Public Schools, the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), Iredell-Statesville Public Schools, Chapel Hill-Carboro Public Schools and Central Piedmont Community College(CPCC). Utilizing each institution’s Human Resource homepage as the point of contact, four prevailing metaphors resonated in their documents, descriptors and visuals. Those metaphors include: banking (i.e. institution) , community, athletic teams and living environments.
The banking metaphor manifests itself with such terms as stakeholder, shareholder, institution, balance, external and internal, benefits, offerings and contributions. Both Iredell-Statesville and Central Piedmont utilize these representations. The pervading message is that these organizations are carefully managed. Moreover, the term “shareholder” underscores each institution’s belief of employees as having ownership within the organization. While such terms as benefits and offerings suggest a degree of reciprocity between employer and employee. Even the visuals on CPCC’s site have the look of a 21st Century teller’s cage. Gwinnett County’s metaphor is more blatant. The HR home page is an organizational chart.
This metaphor attests to the structure and mechanisms in place inside the organization. Additionally, it conveys a somewhat austere institutional hierarchy. In terms of recruitment practices, I would envision that individuals who thrive in autonomous situations might experience the restrictiveness, as Morgan discusses, relative to “patterns of authority.”
A second metaphor – more prevalent in the institutions I reviewed – is one of community. MIT has the most pervasive use of the metaphor, referencing the different populations within a community including students, staff, faculty, parents and alumni. The institution also refers to the autonomy and flexibility that professors are afforded. CMS consistently references communities, whether it is in relation to professional learning or the organization of community forums giving input into their new strategic plan. Ashe County also focuses on community through a visual metaphor. Their Human Resource department is assembled in casual clothes, set against the backdrop of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Juxtaposed to the formal image depicted in CMS, Ashe’s metaphor is more focused on a closely knit community, reminding one of an era devoid of federal mandates and district protocols.
These three depictions of the educational organization as community indicate a snapshot of the continuum that Human Resource departments employ as they develop their institution’s recruitment tactics. Further, they reflect an understanding of the desired clientele for each LEA.
A third metaphor focuses on the educational institution as athletic teams. Wake County Public Schools invites candidates to share their skills, talents and energy with the LEA. Even syntax and punctuation on the Human Resource page underscore energy and enthusiasm as sentences are peppered with exclamation marks. Moreover, all pictures on this page represent cooperative learning and group interaction. UCSD uses such terms as competitive and ranking to emphasize the importance of teams to their organization. Chapel Hill – Carboro’s invitational approach, “Come join our team,” leaves little doubt as to their metaphor. Nevertheless, this organization ensures metaphorical clarity by framing institutional information as rankings.
Although some might view the community and team metaphors as one in the same, the team metaphor connotes a level of educational elitism – being able in essence to make the team. Community implies equal work distribution and recognition, whereas teams underscore competitiveness and keeping a running score.
UNC-CH utilizes an environmental metaphor, much akin to Morgan’s depiction of the organismic metaphor. Terms such as thrive, culture and environment are cornerstone to Human Resource’s mission. CPCC dabbles with this metaphor with systems and classification, two additional words relative to living things.
In looking at these four metaphors, I honestly see no emerging patterns. Institutions known for outstanding athletic programs (e.g. UNC-CH) did not consistently utilize a team metaphor. Institutions known for intellectual endeavors (e.g. MIT) steered away from the business metaphor. Organizational size mattered little in terms of the metaphor.
How well each of these metaphors works for the organization is contingent upon multiple factors. Employers must ensure that core values and beliefs are congruent with the metaphor’s message. Potential employees must build their own mental construct of what organizational structure will be appropriate for them to thrive. The organizational metaphor must also translate into a comprehensible operational system for both the institution and the workforce. Finally, the metaphor has to convey strong visual images to all who are part of the institution.