Session Information
32 SES 02, Organizational Learning in/by Schools
Paper Session
Contribution
The Israeli educational system gradually implemented two major reforms in its state schools in the last decade, giving school managers the authority to decide on allocation of auxiliary resources (Tamir & Grabarski, 2018; Tamir & Shaked, 2016; Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2018; Avidov-Ungar & Arviv-Elyashiv, 2018). There is prior evidence for school-level managers struggling with decision-making following a reform for reasons such as lack of clarity or mixed signals from the authorities (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Wohlstetter & Odden, 1992). In addition, school managements face pressures when they are granted autonomy but still feel the need to comply with external expectations (Sugrue & Solbrekke, 2017). Hence, educational reforms provide a compelling context for examining challenges in decision-making.
While rational or systematic decision making is desirable, it is not always attainable. One interesting theoretical framework that explains unsystematic decision-making process is the Garbage-Can model (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972, 2012). Specifically, the theory describes how in so-called “organizational anarchies” (conditions of unclear organizational priorities, undefined procedures and turnover of decision-makers), the uncertainty limits rational decision-making (Saxonberg & Sirovátkaa, 2014; Cohen & Karatzimas, 2016). The Garbage-Can model explains how four “streams” of information, namely problems looking for solutions, solutions looking for problems, participants and choice opportunities, are randomly combined, and these combinations produce decisions. These decisions are often suboptimal: although sometimes resolutions are reached, most of the time problems are left unsolved (a situation known as "flight"), or unsuitable solutions are forced (“oversight”), when a key factor in determining the outcome is organizational attention.
Since reforms are often accompanied by uncertainty and lack of clear procedures, they are prone to development of organized anarchies and as a result to ineffective decision making (Tamir & Grabarski, 2018). By identifying factors that lead to various decision types (resolution, flight and oversight) that stem from the reform implementation, we aim to provide school managements with useful insights regarding effective and ineffective change management strategies.
Research questions: What kind of decisions do the schools managements take in the context of reforms that can be explained with the Garbage-Can model lens? How do `Garbage-Can` decisions serve the schools’ needs?
Method
In order to identify examples of the Garbage-Can model and categorize the examples according to overarching themes we used qualitative methodology, which interprets respondents' different meanings and perspectives regarding the studied topic (Patton, 2002). The research was narrative-based, focusing on individuals’ subjective interpretations and their experiences. In order to overcome a potential social desirability bias on the principals’ side when asking about ineffective decision making, we selected for our sample teachers who may provide examples of decision making in schools (n=34). All the teachers worked in the Israeli educations system and the sample consisted of the 22 elementary school teachers and 12 junior high schools teachers. Elementary and junior high schools provide ample opportunities to identify characteristics of “organized anarchies” because they are less achievements-oriented and have less structured educational goals. 24 of the teachers were female, 10 were male, mean age = 41 (range= 30- 59), 12 years' average teaching experience (range 7-35 years). 27 of the teachers were Jews, 4 Arabs and 3 Druze, 20 teachers worked in state secular schools and 14 in state religious schools. Data was collected from semi-structured interviews at 2016. Respondents were asked, in regard to the organizational reform, to give examples of random, accidental decision-making; decisions that were made under conditions of strong ambiguity and cases in which the solutions did not seem to be linked with problems or preceded problems. The data was analyzed in three stages. First, we selected only the cases that fit the Garbage-Can model by establishing the existence of an “organized anarchy” as the pre-condition of the use of this model, according to three criteria: fluid participation, unclear decision technology and problematic preferences. Each case that was selected was then analyzed on four dimensions: problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities (Cohen et al., 1972). This stage was theory-driven, since we adhered to a-priori codes that allowed us to decide whether the case could be classified as an instance of Garbage-Can decision-making. During the second stage, which was theory-driven as well, we categorized the selected interviews according to decision outcome types in the Garbage-Can model (resolution, flight, oversight). Finally, we identified common factors in each decision type category in order to see what are the dominant conditions that could lead to each decision type. The analysis was performed independently by both authors, who provided critique to each other and reached consensus in each part of the process.
Expected Outcomes
The schools were required to cope with changes that stem from the reforms, which was interpreted by the interviewees being top-down enforced upon them, despite the autonomy that was officially granted. In most cases, the decisions that were made were ineffective, being classified as “oversight” or “flight”, often due to insufficient managerial attention and lack of real autonomy despite the government’s commitment to it. For example, lack of support and guidance to deal with the new demands autonomously was found to lead to “oversight” solutions that are enforced without addressing a specific problem that needs to be resolved. On the other hand, hasty decisions under unclear priorities, as well as lack of attention, and insufficient preparation or training, may make the attempts to resolve actual problems futile, employing ineffective strategies, such that the problems keep resurfacing and come back to the Garbage Can time after time. Having said that, sometimes problems do get resolve: while resolutions are quite rare in the Garbage-Can, they are nevertheless possible. In most cases, the teaching staffs’ professionalism, enthusiasm and creativity were the factors that allowed to overcome the limitations. Still, these instances were a minority in the collected data. Overall, it seems that the pressures of implementing a new reform, as well as lack of clear priorities and guidelines, created situations in which the Garbage Can was the only available option to cope with the requirements, often with suboptimal outcomes. In the case of organizational reforms, that bring along some degree of ambiguity, it is even more important to set priorities, define methods and ensure maximum stability in order to implement the changes successfully.
References
Avidov-Ungar, O., & Arviv-Elyashiv, R. (2018). Teacher perceptions of empowerment and promotion during reforms. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(1), 155-170. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2012). “A garbage can model„ at forty: A solution that still attracts problems. In A. Lomi & J. R. Harrison (Eds.), The garbage can model of organizational choice: Looking forward at forty. (pp. 19–30), Bingley: Emerald. Cohen, S., & Karatzimas, S. (2016). Modernizing government accounting standards in Greece: a case of ‘garbage can’ decision-making. Public Money & Management, 36(3), 173-180. Ganon-Shilon, S., & Schechter, C. (2018). School principals’ sense-making of their leadership role during reform implementation. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-22. Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12(3), 325–346. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283. Saxonberg, S., & Sirovátka, T. (2014). From a garbage can to a compost model of decision‐making? Social policy reform and the Czech government's reaction to the international financial crisis. Social Policy & Administration, 48(4), 450-467. Schechter, C., Shaked, H., Ganon-Shilon, S., & Goldratt, M. (2016). Leadership metaphors: School principals’ sensemaking of a national reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(1), 1–26 Sugrue, C., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2017). Policy rhetoric and resource neutral reforms in higher education: Their impact and implications? Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 130–148. Tamir, E., & Grabarski, M. K. (2018). Searching for gold in the Garbage Can: Decision-Making on resource utilization in schools using the Garbage-Can model. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-16. Tamir, E., & Shaked, L. (2016). What to do with the bounty? organizational patterns for the implementation of resources allocated by the courage to change (oz letmura) reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 567-597. Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking school-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(4), 529–549.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.