Hope Ranch – Comparative Analysis Final

November 15, 2010

Hope Academy middle school’s norms and mission statement emphasized the importance of STEM subjects and a natural science focused curriculum. Promoting “love, order, progress” and encouraging obedience to rules, hard work, and diligence, the school supported a positivistic philosophy (Comte, 1848, p. 7).  Hope Academy’s administration had a scientific approach to education through which it attempted to educate all students and manage its staff. Despite having students and staff members from different cultures, backgrounds, environments, and world views, its scientific approach to education followed the premise of “one size fits all”.

The school emphasized obedience to superiors within a clearly delineated hierarchical structure. As argued by Weber (1922), “the authority to give the commands . . . [was] distributed in a stable way and is strictly delimited by rules” (Weber, p. 73). The rules by which the school was regulated were extensive. As Frederick Taylor (1926) suggested, both students and teachers had clear “daily written instructions . . .  detailing tasks and time allowances for each task” (Marion, 2002, p. 25). The high number of rules and strict regulations led to tension, a “hyperrationalization,” and irregular implementation of some rules (Ibid.). Yet policies were still strictly enforced by the foreign male staff members.

To increase efficiency and the quality of instruction, Hope Academy did not offer its staff tenure and teachers were evaluated regularly throughout the year. As a consequence, with no guarantee of a contract renewal, there was a high staff turnover rate during the first two years of operation. The lack of a tenure system and low financial remuneration decreased how much these positions were sought after (Marion, 2002).

Within the staff there was a clear bureaucratic division, a clear “office hierarchy . . . a firmly ordered system of super- and sub-ordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones”  (Weber, 1922, p. 73). The school hoped to continue its initial success in FCAT examinations, and the natural science teachers experienced a closer relationship with the administration. As a STEM academy, the teachers of natural sciences regularly attended additional meetings with both the principal and the assistant principal in the principal’s office.

Since all the STEM teachers were foreign and male, out-group members had suspicions that they were being excluded for being American women. Aside from myself and a Turkish female foreign language teacher, the staff was divided into two groups. Emphasizing a scientific management approach, the administration gave limited attention to the needs and social pressures of the staff members, resulting in out-group staff members’ “soldering” or the deliberate decision of the workers to disregard norms and output requirements (Marion, 2002).

Elton Mayo (1945), who developed human relations theory, was concerned with developing policies that took into account the human needs of the worker. Working with General Electric, Mayo found that workers in groups often led their supervisor to believe their tasks were harder than they actually were to reduce their productivity (Marion, 2002; Trahair, 2005). Hope Academy did little to discourage “soldering,” encouraging the formation of two contrasting informal groups.

These two informal groups at Hope Academy shared two basic functions: “they provide[d] a social outlet for their participants, and they provide[d] greater control over the environments that they would have individually” (Marion, 2002, p. 54), yet they were very different in their demographics and methodology. The out-group at the school provided a space where the female American teachers and staff members could openly express their opinions about the school and their concerns about their lack of job security.

Conversations within the in-group were very different. Conducted in Turkish, what was discussed in STEM staff meeting remained part of the in-group knowledge. The accountant and the two male Turkish interns who were training to be elementary school teachers the upcoming year were, at times, invited. Yet, the female Turkish teacher was not a part of these meetings.

Interestingly, while the informal in-group had a clear leadership figure in the principal, there was not a leader in the out-group. Yet, while there was no organization in the opposition to the administration, the philosophical differences between the members of the staff confused the students as to what was acceptable behavior. The mixed signals sent to the student body, the clear division in teaching attitudes between groups, as well as their ethnic and gender differences, led students to declare allegiance to one group, usually the American teachers.

When analyzing the case through positivistic theories, it appears that most of the organization’s problems were the result of its management philosophy. Emphasizing a “lean and mean” format rather than “investing” in their workers, there was a high level of dissatisfaction at Hope Academy (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Had a more inclusive policy been promoted, out-groups may have lost influence. Nevertheless, while positivistic theories provide a descriptive analysis of what happened or could have happened, the use of such theories did not provide a macro understanding of why these events took place to begin with.

In order to address this issue, it is necessary to see the organization through culture and critical theory perspectives. Hope Academy was particularly influenced by larger societal differences. As Bolman and Deal (2003) state: “cultural conflict occurs between groups with differing values, traditions, beliefs, and lifestyles. Cultural conflict in the larger society is often imported into the workplace” (p. 198). At Hope Academy, the organizational culture developed from the interplay between the in / out group individuals’ cultural identities and their relationship with the organization’s norms and philosophy.

According to Schein (1993), a culture is summarized primarily by ten characteristics, which are: observed behavior regularities when people interact (staff interactions), group norms (interactions that are considered proper), espoused values (publicly announced principles), formal philosophy (broad ideological statements), rules of the game (The way things are usually done), climate (physical layout) and embedded skills (shared competencies by members of an organization), habits of thinking (construction of reality through language and culture), shared meaning (common understanding about certain things) and root metaphors (belief, rituals and organizational myths) (Schein, 1993; Marion, 2002).

While Hope Academy’s formal philosophy and espoused values were secular in nature and promoted a congenial interaction between workers, freedom of religion and tolerance across cultures, the climate and the group norms promoted by the in-group exacerbated the differences between them and the out-group at the school, marginalizing the former.

It was apparent that the group norms of the math and science teachers were different from the out-group norms. Students were dismissed from the math and science classroom for offenses that were not considered problematic in other classrooms. The STEM teachers were given smart boards before the rest of the staff and their classrooms were closer to the offices of the administration. Members of the in-group would communicate primarily with each other. Feeling alienated, the out-group was visibly dissatisfied. This climate of malaise and frustration among the out-group led a palpable decline in productivity.

The discrepancies between the out-group and in-group cultures contributed to the formation of a dysfunctional institutional culture (Marion, 2002). While cultures can increase efficiency and establish norms that will benefit most members of society, Pfeffer (1978) noticed that this relationship tends to be complex (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Marion, 2002). The fear of authority or promotion of traditional values could reduce an organization’s efficiency or damage the morale of its members (Marion, 2002). However, because of their different cultures, the administration may have believed, within their habits of thinking, that they were not promoting the formation of out in/out groups but rather acting for the common good.

While there were symbolic attempts by the administration to bridge the cultural divide, such as promoting an international day event and a trip to Atlanta for the Turkish Olimpiad, unifying events were sporadic and limited in scope. Out-group staff members were not asked for their opinions regarding administrative decisions. Compliance rather than cohesion was advocated by the administration. While culture can serve to “control aggression by distributing and legitimizing power and status” (Marion, 2002, p. 232), the clash of culture at Hope Academy resulted in instability and a “clash of civilizations” (Huntington, 1996).

The religious differences had been there before, but the organization had previously promoted a different culture, one without a conduct point system or cameras in every classroom.  Functioning as a “panopticon,” cameras promoted a sensation of constantly being monitored by the principal. Akin to Foucault’s (1984) “panopticon,” there were questions as to whether the cameras around the school recorded, yet despite the uncertainty, the devices encouraged everyone within the organization to follow its norms (Foucault, 1984).

Comprised mainly of first year teachers, with a one year contract, facing a limited economic market and under surveillance, out-group teachers were practically “powerless”. Being closely coupled and monitored, staff members could not act freely and use the methods they considered most suitable for their work. The tightly coupled nature of Hope Academy exacerbated conflict within the organization (Weick, 2001). In addition to the use of cameras, teachers were required to provide a detailed plan of each class, which included a minute by minute activity breakdown.

Aside from cultural differences, conflict within the school was a struggle for power. The power relationships within the school are best analyzed through critical theory (Marion, 2002; Bolman and Deal, 2003). More than efficiency, the administration wanted to exert its control. As Pfeffer (1997) stated, “control, not efficiency, is the objective of organizing arrangements and . . . when there are trade-offs involved, efficiency concerns are frequently subservient to the achievement of control over the labor process” (Pfeffer, 1997, p. 180). In accordance with Pfeffer’s (1997) four categories of control, the principal at Hope Academy could overrule any decision made by another staff member, staff members in the school were not part of the teacher’s union, a large amount of money was spent on control mechanisms, and the school focused primarily on teaching the FCAT and improving test scores.

From a feminist critical theory perspective, it is revealing to note that Hope Academy had no plans to hire women for administrative or STEM teaching positions, despite the fact that within the out-group, most of the women had obtained degrees at American institutions and had student taught before obtaining their teaching license. Two of the women were finishing their graduate degrees. By contrast, most of the in-group men did not have any prior form of teaching experience and only the assistant principal had attended graduate school.

The use of both positivistic and anti-positivistic theories allows for a more comprehensive analysis of the conflict within the organization by providing both a micro and macro perspective on the case study. Through a positivistic perspective, it could be concluded that positions within the organization were partly the result of merit or longevity by some members of the staff as well as school’s prioritization of the study of math and natural sciences. The greater importance given to STEM subjects resulted in its instructors having a more direct and reciprocal relationship with the principal and assistant principal.

Yet from the anti-positivistic discussion it can be seen that issues such as cultural differences, gender differences, religious differences, and conflicting worldviews encouraged the development of in-groups and out-groups. This resulted in certain staff members holding particular positions within the administration, not as a result of their credentials but rather due to cultural similarities with the principal. While the previous administration had harnessed the diversity of the staff to improve the educational experience of the students at the school, the new leadership did little to discourage the formation of negative informal groups, and Hope Academy transformed into a conflictive rather than nurturing learning environment.

Works Cited

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Comte, A. (1848). A General View of Positivism. London: Routledge and Sons.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Touchstone.

Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in Education. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc.

Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. In J. Sharfritz, S. Ott, & Y. Suk Jang, Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 521-532). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Schein, E. H. (1993). Defining Organizational Culture. In J. Sharfritz, S. Ott, & Y. Suk Jang, Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 360-367). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Trahair, R. C. (2005). Elton Mayo: The Humanist Temper. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Weber, M. (1922). Bureaucracy. In J. Sharfritz, S. Ott, & Y. Suk Jang, Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 73-78). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Weick, K. E. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.