School as a social system

Sakarya University Journal of Education, 4/1 (Nisan /April 2014) ss. 49-61.

School As A Social System

Kıvanç BOZKUŞ*

Abstract

Social system perspective which belongs to systems theory has been elaborated comprehensively using itsfounders’ ideas, and characteristics of schools have been explained consulting to this perspective. Thecourse of social system idea has been reviewed along with its relation to other systems. How researcherswho assumes schools as social systems define the main components of the school has been reviewed. Byattaching importance to the humane side of school, social systems perspective differentiates school from forprofit organizations. For this reason, social systems theory has been one of the most realistic models forschools. The assumptions behind this assertion are examined. It is probable that this perspective sheds lighton research conducted in educational organizations.

Key Words: Social systems, systems theory, schools.

Bir Sosyal Sistem Olarak OkulÖzet

Sistemler kuramına ait olan sosyal sistem görüşü, kurucularının fikirlerinden yararlanılarak kapsamlı bi-çimde ele alınmış ve bu kuram ile okulların özellikleri açıklanmıştır. Sosyal sistem fikrinin gelişim süreci,diğer sistemlerle olan ilişkisiyle birlikte incelenmiştir. Okulları sosyal sistemler olarak ele alan araştırmacı-ların, okulun temel parçalarını nasıl tanımladıkları da ele alınmıştır. Sosyal sistem görüşü okulun insaniyönüne dikkat çekerek okulu kar amaçlı kurumlardan ayrı tutmuştur. Bu nedenle sosyal sistemler kuramıokulları en gerçekçi açıklayabilen modellerden birisi olagelmiştir. Bu savın arkasındaki varsayımlar ince-lenmiştir. Bu görüşün eğitim kurumlarında yürütülen araştırmalara ışık tutması mümkün görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal sistemler, sistemler teorisi, okullar.

* Arş. Gör., Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi, [email protected]

50 SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

INTRODUCTION

Schools are important organizations that pre-pare our children for adult roles. Their workingmechanism has a strong effect on the quality ofeducation. There are many theories that try toexplain the nature of the school organizations.Among them, social systems theory has beenone of the most realistic models for schools.This paper examines the assumptions behindthis assertion and tries to find out the characte-ristics of schools that can be explained or inter-preted using social systems theory.

Talcott Parsons was the first formulator ofSocial systems. They are based on interpersonalrelationships regardless of their size and com-plexity, and they consists of individual actorsinteracting in a culturally structured systemfull of shared symbols (Parsons, 1951). Socialsystems have three basic characteristics calledthe interdependence of the parts, their organi-zation into some sort of whole, and the intrinsicpresence of both individuals and institutions(Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968).

After the Second World War, schools wereconsidered as formal organizations that arestructured to accomplish organizational goals.Organizational behavior was assumed to berational and consisted of rational interactions ofindividuals. However, schools’ goals and activ-ities were not linked with clear lines of com-munication, so people within schools were notacting to achieve collective goals which areessential in rational systems. Apparently,schools had resemblance to natural systemswhich contain groups that work to achieve notonly organizational goals but also their owngoals.

Schools had features of both rational and natu-ral systems and also have strong relationshipswith their external environment that stemsfrom the dependence on resources and accoun-

tability. For this reason, school systems wereassociated with open systems perspectivewhich is considered an integration of bothformer systems (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). Besidesorganizational roles, behaviors of individualswere also ruled by personal needs.

Researchers needed to explain how schoolswork under a more comprehensive modelcalled social systems theory. Parsons, Getzels,Guba, Lipham, Campbell, Hoy and Miskelwere the leading researchers that adapted thistheory to schools. This theory inherits key con-cepts from its predecessors. Therefore, weshould explore rational, natural, and opensystems theories in order to understand socialsystems.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) toelaborate social systems theory and (b) to in-vestigate how scholars who accept schools associal systems define basic characteristics ofschools and relate them with the theory, or tolearn how they visualize schools as social sys-tems.

Systems Theory

Scholars have developed various perspectivesunder the systems theory to analyze organiza-tions through different lenses. In this section,perspectives of rational systems, natural sys-tems, open systems and social systems will beelaborated.

Rational systems

Rational systems perspective views organiza-tions as machines built to achieve some desiredends. Their main purpose is to mold everyaspect of an organization specifically in respectto a proven prescription in order to ensure itsworking in a solid and stable fashion. By utiliz-ing what already is known to be working, anyrisk of failure and emergence of undesiredoutcomes are eliminated. The assumption is

Sakarya University Journal of Education 51that if everything stays within the lines of logic,so will the outcomes.

Goals

Organizations are formed for a main purpose:to accomplish goals. Goals specify the out-comes to be achieved through organizationalactivities. The nature of activities and the orga-nizational structure to carry out activities de-pend on the specificity of the goals. Less speci-ficity makes it harder to design a structurewhile allowing choosing among various activi-ties. However, “vague goals do not provide asolid basis for formal organizations. Either thegoals become more specific and limited overtime… or the structures developed are likely tobe unstable and amorphous” (Scott, 1998, p.35).

Formal organization

Formalization derives from the bureaucraticstructure of rational systems. Within rationalsystems there are hierarchies of authority, divi-sion of labor, work specialization, rules andregulations. All these are typically associatedwith bureaucracy. Organizational goals requireobedience to clear rules which leave little roomfor interpretation. Obedience is enforcedthrough rewards and sanctions.

Individuals within organizations are assignedto specific roles that are independent of theirpersonality. The goal here is to make behaviorpredictable by standardizing roles (Scott, 1998).So, each person does exactly what s/he is pre-scribed to do and produces only the desiredoutcomes that are essential to working of theorganization. This resembles to a machine.Each part does its job and the machine works ina linear fashion. However, human beings arenot as simple as the parts of a machine andthey cannot be expected to be always rationaland work like robots. This assumption waslater defended by advocates of natural systems.

Natural Systems

While rational systems emphasize goals, natu-ral systems propose that organizations, in fact,strive to survive and the goals are meaningfulas long as they help the organization’s survival.Therefore, the organization may modify oreven remove the goals when necessary. Organ-izations are living systems consist of socialelements and therefore cannot be used as toolsand thrown away when the goals are accom-plished. They tend to exist even after thereremain no more goals to achieve (Gouldner,1959). Natural systems emphasize the humanside of organizations, and they reject the dual-ism that splits people and organizations(Greenfield & Ribbins, 1993).

Informal organization

Individuals have to interact with each other tocarry out organizational goals. They learn eachother’s personal life, habits, feelings etc. Somepeople are liked and respected while others arenot. Those who are followed have an informalauthority over others. Those who are dislikedmay be alienated. Also, when personal interestsdiffer from those of organizations, informalstructures are more likely to occur. Researchshows that within each formal organization,informal structures occur inevitably (Hoy &Miskel, 2005).

Although informal organization is first empha-sized by natural systems theory, it should notbe conceived of unique to natural systems.While being a formal organization, social sys-tems too are to some extent informal organiza-tions. To understand a social system as awhole, one should look at both formal andinformal organizations within it. Social systemscannot survive without an informal organiza-tion that allows “maintenance of group cohe-sion through regulating the willingness to serve


and the stability of objective authority” (Get-zels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968, p. 42).

Individual needs and social behavior

Getzels and Guba (1957) define the administra-tive process as strongly related to social beha-vior of individuals within organizations. Theypropose a social system theory for settings witha hierarchy of relationships. Two componentsof their theory are institutions and individuals.Each of them has two sub-components. Institu-tional roles and role expectations constitute thenomothetic, and individual personality andneed-dispositions constitute the idiographicdimension of social behavior. The authors arti-culate characteristics of institutions and indi-viduals. Institutions have purposes to meetspecific ends, have people to achieve purposes,have organizational structure which assignsroles to people and makes rules to achievepurposes, have norms that are represented asroles that impose specific behavior on individ-uals, are sanction-bearing which means apply-ing positive and negative sanctions to makesure that norms are conformed. Roles prescribethe behavior of individuals. They refer to posi-tional authority, complement each other, andadhere to role expectations defined by the insti-tution. Personality is a combination of needdispositions that direct a person to accomplisha desired end.

In short, Getzels and Guba (1957) define socialbehavior as a result of the interaction between

role and personality. The amounts of contribu-tions of these two factors vary according topersons and actions, but never only one ofthem rules the behavior. One can act accordingto the role more than personality while anotherindividual’s behavior is affected mostly bypersonality. For the authors, the administrationprocess in social systems is nothing but under-standing why organizational behavior cannotbe associated with only either role or personali-ty.

Open Systems

Open systems theory was developed as a reac-tion to former rational and natural systemtheories that described schools as independentof their external environment. Open systemsare affected from outer forces while being si-multaneously dependent on them. Their boun-daries are broader than those of classical closedschool systems, and hard to identify clearly.The main element that distinguishes open sys-tems from the others is the transformationprocess. It is the process of raw materials (in-puts) into products (outputs). In an educationalsetting (e.g. school), inputs can be consideredas pupils and outputs as graduates. Therefore,the system continuously takes sources from itsenvironment and then transforms them accord-ing to the environment’s needs. An importantelement of this interaction called feedback,information about the quality of the process,lets the system correct and enhance itself.

Sakarya University Journal of Education 53

Figure 1. Schematization of open systems.

Early theorists of social systems identified themas closed systems (Getzels & Guba, 1957; Luh-mann, 1995). That perspective did not work forschools as they are strongly interrelated to theirenvironment. Schools are dependent on exter-nal sources by nature. In a simplistic sense,they need funds and children from the outsideof their boundaries. They are accountable forproducing ends that are not specified by them-selves but by their communities. By acknowl-edging these realities, Hoy and Miskel (2005)assert that social systems are, at the same time,open systems.

Loose Coupling

Research reveals that connections betweenrules and behaviors and among structural unitsmay not consist of solid lines, and schools havelittle coordination within the subsystems of theorganization, a situation known as loose coupl-ing. Glassman (1973) was one of the first re-searchers who used the term, and he assertsthat “the degree of coupling, or interaction,between two systems depends on the activityof the variables which they share” (p. 84). Thus,if there are few variables to be shared betweensystems then they are independent of eachother. Weick (1976) adapts this to schools byremarking that “…if we did not find manyvariables in the teacher's world to be shared inthe world of a principal and/or if the variables

held in common were unimportant relative tothe other variables, then the principal can beregarded as being loosely coupled with theteacher” (p.3).

Regarding to the amount of autonomy thatsubsystems have, the school structure can bedescribed as loosely or tightly coupled. Sincenever a single form of coupling suits well toevery situation, leaders should exercise bothforms as needed (Kowalski, 2010). Open sys-tems tend to be loosely coupled. Scott (1998)explains this by stating that “one of the maincontributions of the open system perspective isthe recognition that many systems-especiallysocial systems-contain elements that are onlyweakly connected to other elements and thatare capable of fairly autonomous actions”(p.88). As a result, teachers got freedom in theirclassroom activities under weak administrationscrutiny. This is useful because teachers areexperts of instruction while principals areskilled at administration. Thus, teachers canmake use of their expertise if they are not dis-rupted by the administration. Some researcherssupported teachers’ freedom and little accoun-tability for their professional activities to letthem utilize various student abilities (Dellar,1994). Other than teacher autonomy, looselycoupled structures of schools increase decentra-lization and adaptation (Weick, 1976). Tight


coupling is a result of rationalization. There-fore, schools that are less rational systems tendto be loosely coupled.

Social Systems

To understand social systems, it is helpful todelve into the main characteristics that assertedby researchers contributing to the developmentof this theory. Hoy and Miskel (2005) bringtogether the assumptions of various researchersand incorporate them into educational settings.Many researchers assert that social systems arepeopled, goal oriented, structural, normative,sanction bearing, political, and open systems.

These assumptions help us grasp the commoncharacteristics of social systems. These charac-teristics are elaborated under related sections ofthis paper.

Hoy and Miskel (2005) visualize the elementsof social systems. Their model resembles Getzeland Guba’s (1957) open systems model. How-ever, they incorporate their own perspective ofsocial systems by blending rational and naturalsystems models. They inject four sub-systemsinto the transformation process. Each sub-system will be elaborated according to theirview.

Figure 2. The elements of social systems (Hoy & Miskel, 2005, p. 31).

Structural system

The structural system is similar to those offormal organizations. Bureaucratic expectationsrule organizational behavior. Roles that arederived from those expectations arerepresented by positions in a hierarchy. Thehierarchy distributes tasks to specialized indi-viduals, and the Organization is a result of thedivision of labor (Parsons, 1960). The structureof social systems inherits many elements fromrational, natural and open systems theories. Forexample, social systems have both formal andinformal organizations within them.

Cultural system

Similar to the emergence of informal organiza-tions, culture emerges from interactions ofindividuals within a system. As individualsinteract, they share values, beliefs, habits andgain an identity as a group. This is a naturaloutcome of all social systems. Culture is themost visible aspect of the organizational lifethat distinguishes it from others. Culture signif-icantly affects behavior through establishingcommitment to shared norms among individu-als. In other words, culture represents the un-written, feeling part that is the set of values,

Sakarya University Journal of Education 55norms and beliefs of the organization (Daft,2009).

Hofstede (1991) defines culture as “the collec-tive programming” of the members of an or-ganization (p. 262). They have attitudes whichstimulate them to act on a favorable fashion(Rokeach, 1972). It can be said that attitudegoverns one’s mind while culture governs theorganizational mind. Therefore, each member’sattitudes gathered in a pool called culture.

Individual system

Each individual has a different set of needs andbeliefs that affect behavior. Unlike organiza-tional expectations, individual needs and ex-pectations are flexible and adaptable to formalroles, and thus they provide a room for discre-tion in behavior. Individuals interpret theirroles according to their behavior. ConfirmingGetzel and Guba’s (1957) idea, Hoy and Miskel(2005) claim that social behavior is formed bythe interaction of bureaucratic expectations andindividual needs. Along with behavior, indi-vidual needs and beliefs also form feelings.Social systems have strong links with “theattitudes, perceptions, beliefs, motivations,habits, and expectations of human beings”(Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 37). Since people are animportant element of social systems, their posi-tive feelings toward the organization signifi-cantly affect the overall health of the system.

Political system

Politics inevitably appear in organizations(Senge, 1990). Politics emerges from the interac-tion of authority and power within an organi-zation. There are three sources of power in anorganization. Formal power originates from thestructural system, the cultural system producesinformal power, and individuals have the pow-er of expertise. Politics is the way of how someindividuals use their influence for their inter-ests. They often use their power at backstage to

profit their private affairs at the expense of theorganization. It is illegitimate because it is notstemmed from any formal authority, thereforeit does not have to be in accordance with ac-cepted standards of the organization. Hence, itis immune to the sanctions of formal authority.Also, from the social behavior perspective,politics utilizes the absolute use of individualis-tic needs, and thus ignores the organizationalrole expectations. Consequently, it benefitsindividual interests only. However, this doesnot mean that politics is always harmful to theorganization. Mintzberg (1983) claims thatpolitics can provide the organization withmany advantages. One advantage of the politi-cal system is that it forces a school to be re-sponsible to its environment. Schools must payattention to external pressures, respond to theirdemands, and produce outcomes. In otherwords, schools are compelled to be open sys-tems by political forces. Actually, the politicalsystem is in strong relation with the open sys-tem, and share many similarities. It is clear thatpolitics is informal and illegitimate, yet aninevitable factor affecting organizational beha-vior (Hoy & Miskel, 2005).

Characteristics of Schools

In this section, some characteristics of schoolsincluding structure, culture, climate, leader-ship, decision making and relationships amongpersonnel will be elaborated from the perspec-tive of the social systems theory.

Structure

As social systems, schools’ structures havecharacteristics of rational, natural, and opensystems. They have hierarchies of authority,goals, and role expectations similar to bureau-cratic organizations. Individual needs affectemployee behavior, organizational goals arenot firm, informal organizations derive frominteractions among individuals, and schools


have to interact with their environment. Ko-walski (2010) asserts that schools are socialsystems and have three qualities: arbitrary andconsequential boundaries, interrelated subsys-tems, and multiple causation- events happen asa consequence of more than one cause.

Schools are staffed by professionals, so theyhave some disadvantages of professionalismsuch as unions’ striving to limit principals’control over teachers, uneven distribution ofpay, teachers’ lack of skills in professionalism(Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996). As open sys-tems, schools have relationships with externalagencies like unions. Exertion of political pow-er and authority between schools and the agen-cies becomes an element of the school structure.

Schools are institutional organizations whosestructures are formed by societal rules andbeliefs, so an emphasis on how schools re-sponse to those rules and beliefs becomes amain aspect to explain and evaluate their struc-tures (Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996). School asan institution is “a natural product of socialneeds and pressures” (Selznick, 1957, p. 5). Thistoo proves that schools are open systems thatare dependent on and affected by their envi-ronment. For example, in low socio economicstatus communities, parents often do not de-mand high academic quality from schools.Because of this weak external pressure, schoolsin those communities expect less performancefrom students and have low standards (Dorn-busch & Glasgow, 1996).

Ben-Baruch (1983) asserts that schools have sixbasic traits. They are people-processing organi-zations, goal oriented, structural, and consist ofprocesses, communication and decision makingactivities. The structure of social organizationsis related to relationships of professionals with-in the organizations. Thus, the structure isclosely aligned with the nature of interactionsand it is affected by working styles of people.

For instance, since teachers work alone insteadof in teams, the structure of schools tends to behierarchically flat because it has few hierarchic-al levels (Ben-Baruch, 1983). However, creatingwork groups and freeing them from intensesupervision let teachers be more creative andresponsible for teaching (Kinsler & Gamble,2001).

When a bureaucratic organization relies heavi-ly on sanctions to ensure performance andobedience of staff, a process called “decadenceof the hierarchy” becomes inevitable (Ben-Baruch, 1983, p. 112). Individuals who feartheir superiors tend to be safe by selectingsubordinates who are less competent than theyshould be. This leaves the lower ranks of thehierarchy staffed by unskilled people. To avoidthis, recruitment of superintendents and prin-cipals should be done by the community (Ben-Baruch, 1983).

Schools in decentralized education systems thatallow them to be locally involved in socialneeds of people around them are more likely tobe open and social systems. Community mem-bers have an impact on educational decisionsmade in schools. Schools are obliged to pro-duce outcomes that are desirable by their envi-ronments. To please parents, schools mustcontinuously interact with them to learn theirneeds and to get feedback on educationalprocesses. Since education is complicated andnot routine, schools can perform better with adecentralized structure (Bolman & Deal, 1984).On the other hand, in centralized educationalsystems, environmental pressures are directedto departments of education, and thus schoolsare completely responsible to the department.This results in a formation of a pyramidal hie-rarchy that limits community intervention.However, in decentralized systems, hierarchyis flat, so schools are in direct interaction withtheir communities.

Sakarya University Journal of Education 57Culture and Climate

Distinguishing culture from the climate is adifficult one and vice versa. They share manythings in common, but still there are differencesbetween them “whereas climate is about feel-ings and behavior, culture is more focused onvalues, beliefs, and assumptions underlyingfeelings and behavior…” (Kowalski, 2010, p.43).

Climate represents an organization’s distin-guishing characteristics, feeling and behaviorthat can be presented with a framework whichconsists of four elements: physical frame is thephysical factors of a school like equipment,classrooms etc., social frame is the social envi-ronment mostly related to social behavior ofindividuals within a school, structural framerepresents factors such as hierarchy, authority,role, and symbolic frame is the parts of culturelike believes, norms, values (Kowalski, 2010).

Kowalski (2010) categorizes school climateaccording to disposition to interactions. Hecategorizes interactions as internal and exter-nal. Internal interactions consist of interactionsamong teachers, and between teachers and theprincipal while external interactions consist ofinteractions with parents and other stakehold-ers outside the school. He puts both internaland external interactions on the same conti-nuum. Therefore, individuals in schools thathave open climates have to interact with otherindividuals from both inside and outside of theschool. However, this can be generalized toopen systems only. A school that is closed to itsexternal environment may have a great amountof interactions among individuals inside thebuilding. Therefore, we can assume that theauthor already considers schools as open socialsystems.

School culture is preserved and transferred tonew members by the socialization process

(Kowalski, 2010). New teachers learn sharedvalues, beliefs and norms when they interactand build relationships with their colleagues.During conversations, they are informallytaught ways of accepted behavior. This bringsus back to the natural systems theory whichadmits informal socialization among individu-als within an organization.

Leadership and Decision Making

In social systems of schools an important aspectof leadership is the quality and systematiceffects of functions and behaviors of principalsas leaders. Principals’ behaviors can be in-spected under social systems theory. In manyschools, principals’ social behavior surroundsall other individuals and processes from deci-sion making to the evaluation of organizationalefficiency.

Kowalski (2010) offers school improvementthrough decision making as the main focus ofschool leadership. However, there may betimes when teachers do not agree and follow.The functional perspective of Getzels, Liphamand Campbell’s (1968) administrative processmay shed light on these situations. Functionsare considered as the allocation of roles andfacilities. Therefore, principals should revisethe functions of administrative processes.

Leaders in similar social systems exhibit diver-gent behavior which is associated with organi-zational role and personality (Getzels & Guba,1957; Kowalski, 2010). Kowalski (2010) explainswhy school principals even in the same districtsbehave differently. He extends Getzels andGuba’s (1957) social behavior theory by addinga new dimension called work context. Formalrole expectations and personal facets are thedimensions inherited from the social behaviortheory. Work context consists of culture andpolitics within and around (e.g. community)schools. His assertion is based on open systems


theory and is an attempt to conceive of socialsystems as open systems opposing to Getzelsand Guba’s (1957) closed social systems pers-pective. Therefore, he implies that schools inte-ract with their environments, and they areunder the influence of outer forces just like anyother open and social system. Principals’ lea-dership is influenced by cultural standards and

political forces even when they are inconsistentwith the principal’s formal role expectationsand personal facets. For example, a principalwho expresses his ideas about sex educationwhich are incongruent with the local valuesmay be chastised by the local community andbe given a formal warning by the superinten-dent.

Figure 3. Principal behavior (Kowalski, 2010, p. 52)

Individuals and organizations try to imposetheir motives on each other. The process doneby the organization is called the socializingprocess, and the personalizing process when itis done by the individual. Problems occur ifthere is discordance between the two processes.Therefore, leaders should seek harmony be-tween them (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell,1968). In addition, there are two views aboutthe ownership of leadership. One view assertsthat an individual who has the greatest influ-ence and leadership capabilities is the leader ofa group. The other view claims that leadershipnaturally occurs and shared within a socialgroup. Therefore, leadership belongs to thegroup instead of a single individual (Hoy &Miskel, 2005). The shared leadership aspect ofthe second view is related to the distributedleadership framework. Spillane and Healey(2010) assert that individuals without any for-mal leadership designation can be leaders too.Therefore, even teachers and students may takeresponsibility for leadership roles.

Relationships

Social organizations like schools are stemmedfrom interaction among people both within andoutside of the organization. Relationships with-in school building and with the community areessential elements of socialization and have asignificant impact on many vital processes.Building and maintaining relationships can beconsidered as a process by which principalsand teachers link learning that occurs insideand outside of the building (Kowalski, 2010).Since the social behavior forms those interac-tions, its perspective can be useful to someextent in analyzing relationships. For example,problems may occur when roles and personali-ty conflict (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968).Compatibility of personality with organiza-tional roles is so important that administratorsmust consider it from the beginning of staffrelationships that is the recruitment. It is wiseto hire people who fit best to the school’s goalsto maintain smooth relationships and educa-tional operations. However, given the complex-ity of personality, some incompatibilities areinevitable, so people who can tolerate them and

Sakarya University Journal of Education 59make compromises would be targeted whenhiring (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968).

In some large educational settings, the recruit-ment process is standardized and stronglyaligned with organizational needs neglectingpersonal aspects. Protesting this notion, Get-zels, Lipham and Campbell (1968) propose amodel for the recruitment of new personnel.People are very important. Social organizationsare peopled and every action is carried out bythem. Their needs should be taken into consid-eration when choosing their future peers. Afterall, the new staff will interact with them morethan with their administrators. Therefore, theprospective staff should be informed of perso-nality requirements for the job and encouragedto interact with the already-employed staffbefore the recruitment to learn informally howthe school works. Otherwise problems result-ing from conflicts between roles and personali-ties may occur.

Their model makes sense from the point ofsocial systems, but it is hard to implement incentralized educational settings in wherepeople are hired through standardizedprocesses due to the vast amount of prospectsentering into the profession each year. Especial-ly in the countries where principals have nopower to hire teachers and other staff, the re-cruitment is carried out by the departments ofeducation, so this model has limited applicabil-ity in those countries. To avoid problems re-sulting from role-personality conflicts, theauthors suggest that administrators should

clarify role expectations and increase two-waycommunication opportunities within schools.After hiring people whose personalities letthem adapt to their roles, administrators mustclarify the roles in detail by engaging new staffin two-way communication that requires let-ting them express their feedback. Otherwise,administrators cannot feel certain that they areunderstood. Two-way communication is alsoimportant in daily organizational life. To over-come problems caused by lack of communica-tion, the authors suggest dividing the organiza-tion into subunits, so the staff may find moreopportunity for face to face conversations. Thedivision of labor and work specialization playsa role here.

Conclusions

Social systems theory has been a sound pers-pective to explain the working of schools. Itoffered scholars to consider the many aspects ofschool organizations which are full of socialbeings. Schools are different from for profitorganizations, for they produce public serviceinstead of goods. Mechanistic views fail tofocus on human relations side of educationalsettings. Therefore it is more rational to thinkschools through the lens of social systemstheory. Vast amount of research are carried outto investigate teachers’, administrators’, stu-dents’ and parents’ perceptions of many va-riables mostly related to interactions amongthose people in schools. Social systems perspec-tive can set the stage for constructing a back-ground and rationale for those research.

References

Ben-Baruch, E. (1983). Schools as social systems. Beersheba: Ben Gurion University.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1990). The organization and controlof American schools. New York: Macmillan.

Daft, R. L. (2009). Organization theory and design. (10 ed.). Mason: South-Western College Publishing.


Dellar, G. B. (1994). Schools as open social systems: A study of site specific restructuring. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, April4-8, 1994.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Glasgow, K. L. (1996). The social structures of schooling. Annual Review of Psycholo-gy, 47(1), 401.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. The School Re-view, 65(4), 423-441.

Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M. & Campbell, R. F. (1968). Educational administration as a social process. NewYork, Harper & Row.

Glassman, R. B. (1973). Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18, 83-98.

Gouldner, A. W. (1959). Organizational analysis. In R. K. Merton (Ed.). Sociology today (pp. 400-428).New York: Basic Books. (As cited by Scott, 1998).

Greenfield, T., & Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration. London: Routledge.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill UK.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C.G. (2005). Educational administration. (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2 ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kinsler, K., & Gamble, M. (2001). Reforming schools. New York: Continuum.

Kowalski, T. J. (2010). The school principal: Visionary leadership and competent management. New York: Rout-ledge.

Luhmann, N. (1995), Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1958). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A.W. Halpin (Ed.).Administrative theory in education. Chicago: University of Chicago. (As cited by Getzels, Lipham, &Campbell, 1968).

Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: Free Press.

Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations. (4 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distri-buted perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253-281.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 21(1), 1-19.

Sakarya University Journal of Education 61

Genişletilmiş Özet

Okullar çocuklarımızı yetişkin rollerine hazırlayan önemli kurumlardır. Çalışma mekanizmalarınıneğitimin niteliği üzerinde kuvvetli bir etkisi vardır. Okul örgütlerinin doğasını açıklamaya çalışan birçokteori bulunmaktadır. Sosyal sistemler teorisi ise okulları en gerçekçi açıklayabilen modellerden birisiolagelmiştir. Çalışma bu savın arkasındaki varsayımları incelemiş ve okulların bu teori ile yorumlanabi-len özelliklerini açıklamaya çalışmıştır.

Parsons’a göre sosyal sistemler büyüklükleri ne olursa olsun paylaşılan simgelerle dolu bir kültürel yapıiçerisinde etkileşen kişilerin arasındaki ilişkilere dayanmaktadır. Okulların başta, diğer örgütlerdeolduğu gibi amaçlara dayalı biçimsel yapılar olduğu düşünülmekteydi. Örgütsel davranışın rasyonelolduğu ve kişilerin amaçlı etkileşiminden kaynaklandığı varsayılmıştı. Hâlbuki okulun hedef ve faa-liyetleri belirgin iletişim kanallarıyla bağlantılı değildi ve dolayısıyla insanlar ortak bir amaca ulaşmayaçalışmıyorlardı. Görünüşe göre okullar, sadece örgütün amaçlarına değil aynı zamanda kendiamaçlarına da ulaşmaya çalışan gruplardan oluşan doğal sistemlere benzemekteydi. Okullar hem ra-syonel hem de doğal sistemlerin özelliklerine sahipti ve ayrıca çevreleriyle kaynak ihtiyacından ve he-sap verebilirlikten kaynaklanan güçlü ilişkileri vardı. Bu sebeple okullar, önceki sistemleri bütünleştirenaçık sistemlerle ilişkilendirildi. Örgütsel rollerin yanında, bireylerin davranışlarını kişisel ihtiyaçlar daşekillendirmekteydi. Araştırmacılar okulun nasıl çalıştığını açıklamak için daha kapsamlı bir modele,sosyal sistemler kuramına ihtiyaç duydular. Parsons, Getzels, Guba, Lipham, Campbell, Hoy ve Miskelbu kuramı okullara uyarlayan önde gelen araştırmacılardır.Kendinden önceki kuramların bazı özelliklerini taşıdığı için çalışmada sistem kuramı altında şekillenengörüşlere yer verilmiştir. Çalışma sosyal sistem kuramını incelemiş ve okulları birer sosyal sistem olarakele alan araştırmacıların okulun özelliklerini nasıl tanımladıkları da irdelenmiştir. Eğitim kurumlarındayürütülen araştırmalarda sosyal sistem kuramının iyi bir zemin oluşturabileceği çıkarımındabulunulmuştur.

School as a social system

Documents

Transcript of School as a social system