Evidence that your school is a social system, using the eleven assumptions as a framework. Then, describe how viewing a school asa social system helps inform the work of a principal. Be s

In this paper, I will address how particular theories including Weber’s model of bureaucracy, Maslow’s need hierarchy theory, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, achievement motivation theory, attribution theory, equity theory, expectancy theory, self-efficacy theory, and goal setting theory have influenced and manifested themselves in the three systems of rational, natural, and open. Before I could do that, I had to define how theory could influence any system. I also needed to understand how and why systems were labeled as such. Comment by Sarah Morrison: Citation?

All leaders are influenced by some type of bias or theory whether it be personal belief or empirical data. Hoy, Miskel, and Carter (2013) define theory as “a body of interrelated generalizations that serve to explain” (p. 3). In other words, theories can be used to help predict why certain behaviors will occur. As a frame of reference for leadership, theories then in turn help guide decision making and problem solving. Another way to define the application of theory would be the combination of both “art and science to applying knowledge to administrative and organizational” issues (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 8). One statement that needs to be emphasized about theory is that it is no substitute for leaders to think reflectively. Now that I understand the impact of theory on leadership, I have to understand what key elements make up a social system and how theory influences it? Comment by Sarah Morrison: True!

Social Systems

Social Systems are described as an interdependence of 5 parts or elements. Hoy et al. (2013) states that social systems can be spontaneous or planned (p. 23). The first element of a social system is structure. Every system has one. Structure is defined in terms of formal bureaucratic roles, which are defined by sets of expectations, and organized to fulfill the goals of the organization (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 26). Hoy et al. (2013) combined these roles into positions and offices within the organization such as the positions of principal, teacher, and student which are critical to the school system (p. 26). The next element of the social system is the individual. Hoy et al. (2013) states that the individual is viewed in terms of the needs, goals, beliefs, and cognitive understandings of work roles where the individual provides the energy and capacity to achieve the organization’s goals. Cognition is the individual’s use of mental representations to understand the job in terms of perception, knowledge, and expected behavior (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 27). The third element to the social system is the culture. Hoy et al. (2013) says that culture represents the unwritten, feeling part of the social system and is the shared work philosophy of its members. It is important to note here that culture is what is meant to bind the structure and the individual together in the system. The structure and the individual will be the 2 elements that I key in on as I determine how the previously mentioned theories influence systems. The fourth element of a social system is politics. Hoy et al. (2013) says that politics are informal, divisive, and illegitimate, but nonetheless still exist and have to be addressed (p. 30). The final component of the social system is the technical core which is concerned primarily with the major mission of the system itself (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 30). Hoy et al. (2013) says that in terms of a school system, the technical core would be considered the teaching and learning process and all other activities would be considered secondary to it. The theories that I will discuss influence this technical core or teaching and learning process which shapes administrative decisions in the school system (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 30). Comment by Sarah Morrison: Add more examples of how this functions.

School Systems

Of the 3 systems in questions, rational, natural, and open, rational is the earliest model for school systems used. All 3 are distinct yet overlapping and complimentary while being in conflict with each other at the same time (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 9). While I will talk about each model as being distinct, it is important to note that all systems are inevitably considered to open systems because of outside environmental factors that are impossible to eliminate. I will discuss each system as being distinct so we can connect them to the previously stated theories, but it should be understood that the systems lie on a continuum that flow into one another.

Rational System

Hoy et al. (2013) stated that the rational approach has its early roots in the classical organizational thought of the scientific managers which use the metaphor of a machine (p. 10). For the sake of argument, we will consider rational as a closed system although it is understood that is an incorrect statement. The division of labor was a basic principle of the rational system. The system was focused with the division of labor, the allocation of power, and the specifications for each position. Hoy et al. (2013) implies that input can move thru the system according to a “blueprint” (p. 11). Hoy et al. (2103) states that the “goals are the desired ends that guide organizational behavior and specific goals direct decision making, influence the formal structure, specify the tasks, guide the allocation of resources, and govern design decisions” (p. 12).

Some positive aspects of the rational system are that the formalization or the level of rules is another feature that precisely and explicitly govern behavior; define jobs in terms of acceptable behaviors; and determine the work flow (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 12). Hoy et al. (2013) summarizes that formalization is the organization’s means to make behavior predictable by standardizing and regulating it (p 12). Formal structure also promotes discipline and decision making based on facts rather than emotional ties and feelings so individuals don’t have negative feelings toward one another (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 13) Last, but not least, a hierarchy of authority coordinates and controls organizational behavior by providing a top-down approach that promotes disciplined compliance to administrative directives. “The formal organization is critical to the rational system, as is the belief that organizations can be designed to be efficient and effective by adhering to the preceding principles of organization” (Hoy, et al., 2013, p. 13).

Weber’s model of bureaucracy seems to fit the rational system best because of its focus on structure, efficiency, and hierarchy of authority. It follows the top down leadership model and clear lines of communication. Critics of the rational system claim that it ignores the informal which is impossible to do. Rational systems act like the individual doesn’t matter and that social dynamics do not play a role. These critics then began to look at a different type of system in response.

Natural Systems

Unlike the rational system which was called machine like, the natural system is considered to be more of an organic model (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 18). According to Hoy et al. (2013) this view had its early roots in the human relations approach of the 1930s and it grew in response to the scientific management and the inadequacies of the rational systems model (p. 14). The key observation was that informal organization compared to that or formal organization found to be in the rational system that had its own informal leaders as well as informal norms, values, sentiments, and communication patterns (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 15). While advocates for rational systems deliberately develop specific goals to achieve, natural-systems advocates viewed organizations as primarily social groups trying to adapt and survive (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 15).

“In natural systems, individuals and not structures are emphasized as the most valuable resources for the organization. Thus, a natural-systems perspective emphasizes the informal organization rather than the formal, people rather than structure, and human needs rather than organizational demands. Individuals in organizations are never simply hired hands but bring along with them their heads and hearts. They enter the organization with their own needs, beliefs, values, and motivations. They interact with others and generate informal norms, status structures, power relations, communication networks, and working arrangements” (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 17) Comment by Sarah Morrison: Blend more practice into this. How does this affect day to day?

Maslow’s need hierarchy theory seems to be a natural fit for the natural system. His theory is based upon the individual and not the structure. It not only allows for informal organization and communication, but rather depends on it.

Open Systems

According to Hoy et al. (2013), the open system model was a reaction to advocates who claimed organizational behavior could be isolated from external forces. Competition, resources, and political pressures from the environment affect the internal workings of organizations. The open-systems model views organizations as not only influenced by environments, but also dependent on them (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 19). The structural concepts that were considered important in this model were the individual, the cooperative system, the formal organization, the complex formal organization, and the informal organization. According to Hoy et al. (2013), dynamic concepts were free will, cooperation, communication, authority, the decision process, and dynamic equilibrium (p. 20). “Open systems have formal structures to achieve specified goals, but are composed of people who have their own idiosyncratic needs, interests, and beliefs that often conflict with organizational expectations” (Hoy et al., 2013, p. 20). The interdependence of the organization and its environment is critical for open systems. Instead of ignoring the environment like the rational natural systems, the open system model takes the best of both models and incorporated it into one new system.

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, achievement motivation theory, attribution theory, equity theory, expectancy theory, self-efficacy theory, and goal setting theory seem to all fit best with the open system model. To me, it seems to always come back to one common theme. It’s about balance. Weber’s and Maslow’s are too lopsided while the other theories all have some sense of equilibrium in them. Achievement theory deals with a hierarchy for behavior, but allows for variance of person to person. Attribution theory is related to self-esteem and self-actualization which is connected to beliefs about oneself and the control that they have. Equity is literally about balance when you look at figure 4.4. Expectancy Theory again goes back to self-actualization and control. Comment by Sarah Morrison: Blend more practical applications into this paper. You have the theory correct, now how does if function day to day.

References

Hoy, W. K., Miskel, C. G., & Tarter, C. J. (2013).  Educational administration: theory, research, and practice (9th ed.). New York, NY, NY: McGraw-Hill.