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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is a "we take care of our own" element in the human resource frame. However, in light of the current financial crisis, that element is evolving. Starting with my last faculty meeting last year, I have stressed to the staff that they need to bring their "A Game" to their teaching. Previously, "at standard" would suffice. I want to be honest with them, so I have told them that their evaluations are very important this year, more so than ever. In reality, the weakest link may not be back after this year. It has shaken the core because mediocrity has been acceptable if not the norm. My school in particular had the unspoken understanding with previous administration that if the teachers showed up most of the time and did not physically abuse a student, than those teachers were at a minimum at standard. It was a shock to their system when someone actually evaluated their actual instruction. Suddenly, there was a lot of angst and stress where there had not been any.
ReplyDelete