Administration Across Cultures
Ray Barnhardt
College of Rural Alaska
University
of Alaska, Fairbanks
May, 1987
Paper originally presented at
the American Educational Research
Association
Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April, 1987
Administration Across Cultures Ray Barnhardt College of Rural Alaska University of Alaska, Fairbanks The provision of culturally responsive educational services in non-Western
cultural settings requires attention to functional and structural features of
schooling that transcend the classroom and extend far beyond those elements
of educational programs that lie within the purview of the typical teacher.
Many of the issues that educational institutions in Third and Fourth World settings
must deal with are a product of political, social and economic disparities within
and between the local and national societies with which they are associated,
and thus extend into the realm of the persons responsible for overseeing the
provision of those educational services. It is instructive, therefore, to examine
the special problems of the educational administrator in a cross-cultural setting
and attempt to delineate how persons in that role can assist in making educational
institutions more responsive to the needs of culturally diverse communities.
The focus of this paper will be on an analysis of administrative policies and
practices as they relate to the cultural context in which they are situated,
drawing on experiences in various cross-cultural and cross-national settings,
and from varying stages of institutional development. The title of "administrator" is
used here to refer to any position that has an explicit management responsibility
in an educational system,
including that
of principal, superintendent and the various administrative roles in district
and ministerial offices. While each administrator exercises limited authority
at a level appropriate to their position in the system, their combined authority
presents a formidable barrier around the inner workings of the system, a
barrier
which only the most determined outsider can penetrate. The posture of the
administrator(s) toward the client community determines to a very large extent
how accessible
the schools are to outside influences and, therefore, how amenable they are
to accommodating diverse community concerns. On the other hand, the political
climate in which the school operates influences to a significant degree the
posture of the administrator(s), so if we are to understand and attempt to
influence
administrative behavior, we must examine the context in which it occurs.
Of greatest significance in this regard is the extent to which the power
structure
and resource base of the educational system is perceived to be relatively
stable and secure, or is undergoing change and development. While change is, in many ways, an inherent ingredient in educational processes,
the administrators of most schools do not perceive of their job as one of managing
change. By training and general inclination, they are more likely, instead,
to see themselves in a position of maintaining a long-established system with
a fixed purpose and a pre-established set of roles and relationships. The internal
structure of the system and the relationship of the school to the client community
are assumed to be in a state of equilibrium. The role of the educational administrator,
therefore, is that of managing a bureaucracy, with a concomitant emphasis on
control and efficiency of operations. Characteristics of such a role are summarized
by Gregorc and Johnson in their analysis of administrative behavior in schools:
The nature of bureaucracies with respect to social arrangements encourages
a likeness view by its concentration upon equal and fair treatment through
rules; separation of people through specialization; and impersonalization
through rank, stratified privileges, and seniority rights. Information about
differences in people and pluralistic values is not needed nor appreciated
when the administrator's orientation is toward likenesses (1973).
The effect of such a likeness orientation on administrative
behavior was observed by Wolcott (1974) in a study in which he described
the "variety-reducing" behavior
of elementary school principals as follows: "Their attention was directed at
keeping things 'manageable' by drawing upon and reinforcing the existing system
rather than by nurturing or even permitting the introduction of variation" (p.403). If,
in fact, the existing system is performing its functions adequately and
can be perceived as stable and secure in its present form,
then a variety-reducing
posture on the part of the administrator is quite reasonable and appropriate.
The task of the administrator is to maintain the system by reducing extraneous
or complicating variables to a minimum, or redefining them in terms that
are
manageable, so as to avoid disruption to the equilibrium in the system. In
general terms, the function of administration in such a situation can be
characterized
as "the replication of uniformity" (cf. Wallace, 1970), where the task is to
produce a standardized product using uniform procedures and interchangeable
parts. The only changes that are tolerated in such a situation are within-system
changes (e.g., innovations in curriculum, teaching methods, or training techniques)
that do not significantly interfere with established administrative procedures
or power alliances. Such an approach to school administration is designed to
perpetuate mainstream/Western cultural traditions and has led to the notion
of "one best system" for all (cf. Tyack,1974). If, on the other hand, the existing system is not performing its functions
to the satisfaction of its client population, or if the system is being called
upon to perform functions and accommodate variables for which it was not originally
intended, as is often the case in non-Western communities, then a variable-reducing
approach to administration can have serious negative consequences for the practicing
administrator, as well as for the system being administered. A culturally responsive
approach to education that more adequately addresses the needs of diverse cultural
communities clearly calls for an introduction of new variables into the way
schools operate, and therefore, its effective implementation necessitates an
alternative posture on the part of the administrator. If the cultural patterns and processes of the community are to be reinforced
in the school, or if schooling processes and practices are to be adopted by
the client community, administrators will have to relinquish a significant portion
of the authority and control (i.e., power) they command over the formal education
enterprise, for it is only when people are in control of their own destiny that
culturally sensitive education takes on any real significance. As such, schooling
in culturally diverse settings must be viewed fundamentally as an empowering
process, for the community as well as for the individual. And it is for
this reason that so many of the educational issues in cultural, ethnic and racial
minority situations are fought out in a political rather than an educational
arena. The Politics of Minority Education The ubiquitous nature of schools and the large proportion of local, state and
national budgets allocated for their operation has long given schools a prominent
place in the political arena, despite their pretense of being a-political. Their
political sensitivity and vulnerability is heightened in non-Western minority
communities, however, because they are often perceived as an alien institution
which wields considerable influence over the lives of people in the community,
but which is controlled by forces outside the community. The immediacy of schools
to peoples lives makes them a ready symbol through which to take up a whole
range of grievances that derive from a subordinate socio-economic status vis-a-vis
the surrounding society. Challenges to the educational system that derive from
such circumstances inevitably include explicit or implicit demands for a transfer
of power. Since power is seldom relinquished voluntarily, however, the minority
community must turn to political or legal action to achieve its purposes. In
such situations, administrators often find themselves in the awkward position
of having to align themselves with either the community they are supposed to
be serving or the institution through whom they are employed, or trying to strike
a middle course which may lead to alienation from both sides. And the choice
is made no easier if it is faced by a minority person in the position of administrator. Administrators who take a variety-reducing approach to administration are likely
to take a hard-line bureaucratic response to any threat to their authority or
to the stability of the system they have been entrusted to manage, and preserve.
Any challenge to the system is interpreted as a challenge to their authority
as an administrator, which then leads to a defensive administrative posture
and a subsequent polarization between the school and community around the issue.
This can be a very risky posture, however, because if the minority community
representatives are not intimidated by the bureaucracy, they are likely to escalate
the issue until it spills over into the political arena. To maintain control
in such a situation, the administrator must either wield enough political power
to counteract the actions of the community, or acquiesce to their demands. But
this is not without its costs, for regardless of any legal or moral precedent
that may be established, the polarization that results from such a stance inevitably
erodes the credibility of the school and the administrator in the eyes of the
community, and in the long run the administrator will have lost much of the
authority s/he was acting to preserve. Administrators cannot ignore or build
walls to protect themselves from changing conditions in the society in which
they operate. Schools are extensions of society, so they must be understood
as derived from and contributory to the social and cultural processes that make
up that society, including those that derive from minority elements. An
understanding of the mechanisms that influence school-community relationships
is all the more important for administrators in situations
where the minority
community is able to exercise political control over the schools. In such
situations, where communities have fought and won the battle for local control
(or independence)
and the schools are in a position to serve as empowering institutions, administrators
need not be ambivalent about their allegiance - after all, it is the community
that controls the institution through which they are employed. Yet, it is
in
just such situations where some of the greatest frustrations regarding unfulfilled
expectations have been expressed, by administrators as well as community
members.
The exercising of "local control" by minority communities does not in itself
guarantee a more culturally responsive educational system, as indicated by
the
following comments of an Inupiat Eskimo community leader in Alaska two years
after taking over control of the local school system:
Today, we have control over our educational system. We
must now begin to assess whether or not our school system is truly becoming
an Inupiat school
system, reflecting Inupiat educational philosophies, or are we in fact
only theoretically exercising "political control" over an educational system
that continues to transmit white urban culture? Political control over our
schools must include "professional control" as well, if our academic institutions
are to become an Inupiat school system able to transmit our traditional
Inupiat values and ideals (Hopson, 1977:4)
Hopson's distinction between "political" and "professional" control grew out
of the frustrations the community experienced when the operational versions
of their attempts at new and innovative programs turned out to be barely distinguishable
from the programs they were intended to replace. Responsibility for implementing
the new programs was placed in the hands of the school administration who unintentionally
subverted their unique qualities and purpose by translating them into a traditional
administrative framework. The training and experience the administrators had
acquired to qualify for their credentials reflected a variable-reducing approach,
so when given the task of implementing a new program, the administrators fell
back on the techniques with which they were familiar. The characteristics of
the new programs that were unique (i.e., those that were Inupiat in origin)
were disregarded, so that by the time the programs became established in the
school, they functioned in essentially the same manner and suffered the same
inadequacies as the conventional programs they were intended to replace. Gaining
political control of the school system was in itself not adequate to create
an "Inupiat" school system (Barnhardt, 1977). What then does Hopson
mean by "professional control"? In its
simplest terms, he means replacing White administrators with Inupiat administrators.
While such
a move can help bring an Inupiat perspective into the system, it does not
necessarily mean that the functioning of the system will change in ways that
are identifiably
Inupiat. If the minority administrator is grounded in traditional administrative
practice and takes a conventional variable-reducing approach to the role,
little
substantive change will occur, except to the extent that the overall system
may acquire greater credibility in the eyes of the community, which may or
may
not be a significant improvement, depending on the effectiveness of the existing
programs. In a more comprehensive sense, however, what Hopson is seeking is an opportunity
to influence the inner workings of the school system in such a way that the
community can not only shape general policies at the level of the school board,
but can also have an impact on the way those policies are implemented. Whether
the administrator is from the minority community or not, responding to such
circumstances calls for an approach other than a variable-reducing response.
It calls instead for an opening up of the system to accommodate new variables,
and creating a climate that will nurture innovative program ideas. It requires
an administrative and organizational approach that is able to adapt to diverse
forms of cultural expression, including varied participatory structures and
communication patterns. But this runs contrary to most tenets of conventional
administrative practice, so where can an administrator turn for help in such
a situation? In attempting to respond to that question, it may help to step
back a bit from schools and take a look at some other situations where varied
cultural circumstances have required adaptations in administrative practice. Models of Cultural Adaptation for Administrators The field in which the most attention has been given to cultural influences
on administrative/management practices has been international business. Numerous
studies have attempted to identify which corporate management practices are
universal and which are culture-bound (cf. Weinshall, 1977). While many corporation
executives still tend to see their management style as transferable to any management
situation, a study of management practices in fifty countries throughout the
world concluded that management and organizational behavior are highly culturally
dependent because:
..... managing and organizing do not consist of making or moving tangible
objects, but of manipulating symbols which have meaning to the people who
are managed or organized. Because the meaning which we associate with symbols
is heavily affected by what we have learned in our family, in our school,
in our work environment, and in our society, management and organization
are penetrated with culture from the beginning to the end. (Hofstede, 1983:88)
Interest in cultural variations in management practices is not limited to multi-national
corporations, however, as domestic businesses also look to other countries for
techniques to improve management effectiveness and adapt to changing social
and economic conditions. The country that has received the most attention in
this regard has been Japan, because of its apparent success in adapting and
blending Western and traditional Japanese management techniques into a management
system that is highly competitive in the world marketplace, yet still retains
an essentially Japanese character. Japan provides a useful contrasting environment,
therefore, against which to examine our own management practices to see how
they to might be adapted to meet new cultural imperatives. A Japanese management perspective: In
a comparative study of Japanese and American management styles, Pascale
and Athos (1981)
identified five cultural
characteristics that distinguished the dominant management perspectives in
the two countries. The first of these has to do with the nature of significant
meanings
and beliefs, or "superordinate goals", that guide behavior in organizations.
Whereas American managers tend to be preoccupied with explicit "bottom-line" measures
of organizational effectiveness, Japanese managers tend to view their organizational
responsibilities in a more wholistic perspective, both within
the organization and outside. Employees in many Japanese businesses are intentionally
socialized into a fully functional social system to which there is a mutual
lifelong commitment and a well-defined set of reciprocal obligations (cf.
Rohlen,
1979). The organization is viewed as a human resource system, with careful
consideration given to employee growth and development, opportunity and rewards,
individual
attention and exceptions, along with the usual concerns for productivity
and efficiency. In addition, the Japanese manager is highly conscious
of the relationship of the organization to the surrounding society and
culture.
Organizational values
are clearly articulated and linked to national as well as general human values.
For example, the "spiritual values" of a major Japanese electronics firm are
listed as: national service through industry, fairness, harmony and cooperation,
struggle for betterment, courtesy and humility, adjustment and assimilation,
and gratitude. The "basic business principles" of the same firm are summarized
as follows: "To recognize our responsibilities as industrialists, to foster
progress, to promote the general welfare of society, and to devote ourselves
to the further development of world culture" (p. 51). These principles are
reflected not only in the platitudes of a statement of philosophy, but in
the day-to-day
organizational behavior of the firm as well. A second characteristic that distinguishes American managers from their counterparts
in Japan is their perception of the relationship between the individual and
the organization. Whereas American managers strive to display independence of
action and tend to pursue individual career goals at the expense of the goals
of the organization, Japanese managers are more likely to emphasize the interdependency
of all participants and components in the organization. While the American posture
tends to foster individual initiative and is effective in achieving short-term
goals of the organization, the Japanese approach stimulates collective initiative
and cooperation, leading to a stronger and more resilient organization in the
long run. A third characteristic that Pascale and Athos identified has to do with the
managers perception of persons as subjects vs. objects. In the American management
perspective, people tend to be viewed as objects to be used to achieve the goals
of the organization. If they do not perform adequately, they are fired and replaced,
with little concern for the effects of the action on the persons involved. The
Japanese managers, on the other hand, tend to regard employees as subjects,
to be supported in achieving personal as well as organizational goals. An employee
performing below expected levels is more likely to be reassigned or retrained
than to be fired. Organizational responsibility is extended to the welfare of
the individuals that make up the organization, as well as to the society within
which the organization operates. Japanese and American managers differ
also in their perception of the need for orderliness and predictability,
particularly with regard
to conditions of "ambiguity (in what someone or something means), uncertainty (in the outcomes
of possible actions), and imperfection (in ourselves, other human beings, and
the processes and theories available for use)" (p.90). American managers tend
to view such conditions as undesirable and strive to eliminate them as much
as possible, preferring instead qualities of explicitness, decisiveness, and
firmness. For the Japanese, ambiguity, uncertainty, and imperfection are accepted
as "existential givens", so managers, while still seeking to minimize risk,
are quite comfortable in situations where they have to "go with the flow",
relying on their intuition and instincts to guide them. This characteristic
of Japanese
management allows their organizations to respond and adapt to new or changing
circumstances more readily than their American counterparts. The fifth
characteristic that Pascale and Athos found to distinguish Japanese and
American management styles is in the exercise of leadership.
American managers
tend to rely heavily on the use of "power" and "control" as the means for exercising
leadership, with "authority" being vested in the position rather than the person.
Japanese managers, on the other hand, prefer to command personal authority and
lead by example and inspiration, interpreting "power" as the ability to get
things done, to mobilize resources, and to draw on what is necessary to accomplish
goals. Where the Japanese manager is more likely to patiently "massage the system" to
get things done, the American manager is more likely to use brute force,
seeking the quickest and most efficient route available. When the social
and
economic climate in which the organization operates is stable and predictable,
the latter approach can provide a competitive edge. When conditions in the
surrounding
environment are changing, however, the Japanese tend to be more successful
at attuning themselves and responding to new trends over the long term. Pascale
and Athos argue that the Japanese approach to management has much to offer
American managers, and that indeed, many of the most successful
American
businesses reflect some of the same basic management practices as those observed
in the Japanese system, e.g., strong employee support programs, participative
planning and control, and open communication channels. We should not assume,
however, that we can simply transfer the Japanese model intact to an American
setting and expect immediate success, for its overall effectiveness as a
management
system is closely linked to the particular cultural values and norms reflected
in Japanese society. What we can learn from the Japanese is "the potential value
of developing a management system that is internally consistent, that fits societal
norms and expectations, and that obtains support from the major institutional
actors in the world of work" (England, 1983:140). The main purpose for reviewing Japanese management practices here has been
to help remove some of the cultural blinders we wear when we look at our own
management practices, so that we can recognize that it is possible to use alternative
approaches to achieve the same organizational ends. Only with such a recognition
can we expect to devise administrative practices in schools that can accommodate
institutional change and cultural diversity. As Pascale and Athos have put it:
A developing society requires departure, change and novelty
in language, in concepts, and in ways of doing things. There has to be
creative movement,
at least at fairly frequent intervals. A society in a changing environment
is doomed if it does not produce "managerial" innovations which break
inherited molds of perception, old patterns of behavior, and prior expressions
of
beliefs and values (p. 25).
It is the production of just such managerial innovations that are needed if
we are to achieve a more culturally sensitive approach to education. Administration in developing countries: A second area in which there
has been an attempt to adapt administrative practices to particular cultural
circumstances is in the public administration systems of developing countries.
The task facing these countries is outlined by Harbison (1973) in his analysis
of various approaches to national development:
.....organization-building is the most critical of all tasks for national
development. Good organization makes it possible to maximize employment
and learning opportunities; poor organization can perpetuate the underdevelopment
and underutilization of the capacities of man. Unfortunately, there is no
ready-made formula for producing organization-builders; the organizational
architecture of advanced countries may be quite unsuitable for the developing
nations. The developing countries, for the most part, will have to design
and develop their own. The hope is that the provision of learning opportunities
and the emphasis on the human element in development processes will bring
forth a growing number of persons with entrepenurial, managerial, and organization-building
skills (p. 133).
As countries formerly under colonial rule have gained independence and the
new governments have established their own administrative bureaucracies, they
have exhibited variations in approaches that are, to varying degrees, reflections
of the cultural milieu from which they have emerged, and of the developmental
processes in which they are engaged. In a review of the research literature
on administrative theory and practice in developing countries, Kiggundu, et
al (1983) found that conventional Western-based concepts were inadequate
in explaining administrative behavior in such settings, because they are predicated
on conditions of stability, large size, specialization, and competition - conditions
which generally do not exist in developing countries. While administrators in
developing countries were able to successfully integrate certain technical features
of Western administrative practice into their systems (e.g., training techniques
or computer applications), they ran into serious difficulty and had to make
major adjustments in any area that brought them in contact with the surrounding
cultural environment. Kiggundu, et al identified some of the
cultural features often found to be present in developing countries that
tend to interfere
with the implementation
of Western administrative practices. These include characteristics of traditional
cultures such as differing concepts of time, traditions of informality, extended
family kinship relations, authority of the elder, and collective decision-making.
The presence of such non-Western cultural characteristics, along with the
conditions
of rapid change in which developing countries are engaged, calls for administrative
approaches which emphasize "more participation, creativity, adaptation, and
looseness of definition and structure" than is permitted by the rigid bureaucratic
models developed in the West (p. 79). They summarize their analysis as follows:
In general, each time the environment is involved, the theory developed
for Western settings does not apply, because it assumes contingencies that
may not be valid for developing countries. In these situations, utilization
must be preceded by a situational analysis to identify the relevant contingencies
and their interrelationships. To the extent that contingencies for the utilization
of administrative science in developing countries differ from those of industrialized
countries, the transfer of management knowledge and technology (e.g., management
development, curriculum development, technical assistance) should emphasize
process rather than content theories and methods (p. 81).
In an attempt to formulate a more global model of administrative
behavior that could take into account the contingencies of administration
in developing countries,
Riggs (1964) conducted a comparative study of administrative practices in
societies ranging from "traditional" to "modern". He characterized the components of administrative
structures in traditional agrarian societies as "fused", or unspecified and
particularistic in nature, and those of modern industrial societies as "diffracted",
or differentiated and specialized in nature. He then argued, however, that neither
of these two extremes adequately explains the administrative systems and practices
that exist in developing countries. Consequently, the theories and models of
administrative behavior derived from an analysis of "fused" and "diffracted" structures
are of limited use to administrators in such settings. Riggs then went
on to characterize the administrative systems in developing countries as "transitional", or in a process of evolution, with elements of
fused and diffracted structures intermingled within the same system. The administrator
in such a system must be "bifocal", and maintain a dual orientation to both
the past and the future, that is to the traditions of the community as well
as to the imperatives of the emerging institution. Faced with such a reality,
the administrator must maintain an "eclectic" outlook and be highly resourceful
with regard to the range of administrative options that can be brought to
bear
in a given situation. The question then becomes, by what criteria are particular
options to be chosen? In Riggs analysis, the administrator in an institution-building
role such as that which occurs in developing countries, must be particularly
attentive to
the relationship between the institution and the cultural, political and
economic environment within which it operates. To address such considerations,
he proposes
the development of an "ecology of administration", in which attention is given
to "the identification of sensitive variables in the environment - whether they
form a part of the culture or not - and the demonstration of at least plausible
patterns of correlation between these variables and the administrative items
which are the focus of analysis" (p. 428). The purpose of Riggs' ecological approach, however, is not to determine which
administrative choices should be made, but to establish the boundaries within
which choices are available. By understanding the interplay between institutional
forces and those in the surrounding environment, the administrator is better
equipped to formulate and assess new administrative options in terms of there
functional value to the community. If the function of the institution is to
provide services to a non-Western cultural clientele, and if the structure available
for providing those services is not yet wholly adequate or fully developed,
an essential characteristic of effective administration is the ability of the
administrator to accurately interpret diverse environmental variables and to
formulate new organizational and administrative strategies as a guide to action.
As such, administration in developing countries can be seen as a necessary process
of continual and deliberate adaptation, in response to external as well as internal
contingencies. We see then that successful administrators in the bureaucracies of developing
countries, as with the managers in Japanese industry, have had to develop models
of administrative behavior that are sensitive to the cultural environment in
which they operate. They have learned how to anticipate and accommodate new
variables through flexible and adaptive organizational structures, and they
have overcome the constraints of conventional variable-reducing administrative
practices. The task now is to apply what we have learned from these two situations
to outline the characteristics of an alternative organizational and administrative
approach that has the potential to address the educational needs of cultural
minority communities. Organization for Diversity Along with all the usual technical details of budget, personnel, curriculum,
etc, administrators of schools with significant cultural minority populations
must also be prepared to deal with the institutional consequences of diversity
and change. These conditions, more than any others, distinguish the administrative
landscape of minority institutions from their mainstream counterparts. So it
is this inherent variability in the environment, reflected in the diversity
of cultural traditions to be served and the continual change brought about by
the convergence of variant traditions, that must be addressed if we are to develop
an alternative organizational and administrative approach. We are not, however,
pursuing the development of multiple models of administrative practice, each
one specially tailored to the unique circumstances of a particular cultural
group. We are, rather, seeking to identify some of the characteristics of a
more generalizable, processual approach to the organization and administration
of schools, that can then be adapted to accommodate diversity and change in
any situation. One of the few attempts to systematically examine the
mechanisms by which we organize diversity in our daily lives is that by
Wallace (1970,
1971). Building
on his notions of cognitive mazeways and equivalence structures, he has identified
four basic "principles" that describe the way members of a society "articulate
to form the equivalence structures that are the substance of social life" (1970:110).
These are:
Ad hoc communication - Most human activity requires a constant flow
of communication that, among other things, enables the participants continuously
to readjust and expand their own cognitions, including their knowledge of
the communication system itself (p. 111).
Inclusion - Cooperating members of highly differentiated work teams
involving dominant/subordinate relationships, (e.g., specialist and client)
must have some elements of their individual plans in common in order for
their interaction to proceed toward mutually satisfactory goals (p. 114).
End linkage - Differentiated work teams that do not have authority
relationships with one another (e.g., small teams of highly trained co-workers)
achieve articulation of efforts by a precise complementarity of subplans
that sum to a complete plan (p. 115).
Administration - The larger the number of cooperating
individuals, and the more complex the individual component plans, the
more need their
is for a regulation of communication, inclusion, and end linkage relations
by administration. Administration provides for the design and continuous
adjustment of diverse component plans in a group of cooperating individuals.
It requires a hierarchy of authority relations, with an individual or
executive
group "at the top" whose plan in principle includes at least the abstract
framework of all the subplans of the group and who have a recognized right,
and duty, to ensure that the several relationships of inclusion and end
linkage are mutually consistent, adequately tight, and sum to a productive
total plan, and that ad hoc communication is always effective enough to
ensure the correction of errors (p. 117).
While the mechanisms of ad hoc communication, inclusion, and end linkage contribute
to the regulation of interaction amongst members of all social groups, Wallace
is particularly concerned about the role of administration as a mechanism for
organizing diversity in contemporary industrial society, and the problems inherent
in the bureaucratic structures that have been spawned to facilitate administrative
processes in such a society.
Since the task of any culture, and particularly the cultures of large industrial
societies, is to organize diversity rather than to destroy it, and since
large industrial societies are increasingly dependent upon bureaucratic
systems of management, a major task of cultural reform for continued human
progress must be to design bureaucracies that are resistant to exploitation
and are adequately sensitive to their clienteles (p. 120).
The task of the administrator in a culturally diverse setting then, is to create
and maintain an organizational environment that will facilitate maximum ad hoc
communication, that will insure the inclusion of minority community perspectives
in the work plans of all school staff, and that will foster complementarity
in the linkages of all components of the system. The accommodation of diversity
by a school system requires, therefore, an extensive framework for participatory
decision-making to allow complementarity to emerge from the diverse points
of view (cf. Conway, 1984). Through active curriculum committees, planning councils,
community/school associations, etc., all participants can contribute to the
jointly established goals of the system in mutually beneficial and cumulative
ways, without having to surrender their uniqueness to do so. One of the essential characteristics of such a system is that it be decentralized
as much as possible, so that the scale of the functional work units is small
enough to permit effective interaction and communication, and so that maximum
accommodation can be made to the local cultural and physical environment. The
larger the system and the more distant the decision-making is from the clientele,
the more difficult it will be to effectively accommodate diversity. Conversely,
the closer the system is to the people being served, the fewer the bureaucratic
constraints that tend to interfere with the relationships between the various
participants in the system, and the greater the opportunity for complementarity
rather than conformity. Decentralization and distributed decision-making must
be implicit in the system if there is to be any real exercise of local community
control. Another characteristic necessary for school systems to respond favorably to
cultural diversity is that the various components of the system be loosely
coupled, so that the system can have enough organizational slack to maintain
a flexible, adaptive and open-ended posture in response to new contingencies. "Loosely coupled systems preserve more diversity in responding than do tightly
coupled systems, and therefore can adapt to a considerably wider range of changes
in the environment" (Weick, 1976:7). Through the use of "end linkage" mechanisms,
for example, a system can be made up of semi-autonomous units such that each
unit can make appropriate accommodations without posing a threat to other
units.
A rigidly structured, closed system will have considerable difficulty responding
to the variations in personnel requirements and procedural tasks (i.e., staffing
and scheduling) that a culturally sensitive approach to schooling requires.
Attention must be given, therefore, to the devolution of administrative control,
so that organizational authority is in the hands of those closest to the
locus
of activity. To maintain order and complementarity in a loosely coupled system, the administrator
must strive to achieve a unity of purpose among participants, so that
everyone is working toward the same end. Once a collective consensus has
been
established on the overall goals and direction of the system, only the most
general framework for managing the flow of organizational activity is necessary
to guide participants in their semi-autonomous roles, while at the same time
allowing for enough "organizational turbulence" to stimulate creativity and
enthusiasm. In this way, greater latitude can be provided to allow work units
to adapt to new variables that they encounter as they go about their tasks,
on the assumption that such adaptations will be made in a manner consistent
with general organizational policy and procedure. If such a loosely structured approach to school organization is to succeed,
careful attention must also be given to the socialization processes necessary
to draw participants together into a social system that is sufficiently integrated
to insure complementarity of the component parts. This can be accomplished through
the provision of appropriate training programs and information distribution
systems that contribute to the development of support networks across
interdependent components within the system. Formal and informal communication
channels should be established that provide for the free flow of information
amongst all the participants within the system, as well as to and from the community
being served. Community participation must be built into the system
in explicit and meaningful ways, so that the community can make substantive
contributions
and develop a
sense of ownership, rather than simply serve as passive recipients of the
systems services. If the history of community participation in a particular
school setting
has been weak, this may require a prolonged and active process of solicitation,
encouragement and support to draw community members into the system sufficiently
that they become a significant force in shaping educational programs and
policies.
Only with active community participation at all levels of the system can
the kind of "professional control" refered to earlier become a reality. Organization for diversity is not an easy task to achieve, but it is a necessary
task to pursue if we are to begin to move toward a more culturally sensitive
approach to schooling. We must devise systems that can encompass cultural variables
beyond those reflected in our present monocultural institutions. The skills
required of the school administrator in pursuing such a goal, however, extend
beyond those required of the conventional variable-reducing administrator. A
different form of administrative behavior is called for, where the requisite
skills are more akin to those described by Gregorc and Johnson (1973) in their
assessment of an alternative approach to school administration:
An emerging view of a new breed administrator is becoming evident. S/he
is seen as an implementor, facilitator, and evaluator of education programs.
S/he is seen as a synergist, teacher of teachers, an organizational designer,
a political statesman, and an accountability monitor. S/he must be aware
of interpretations of equal opportunity, program design, trends in curricular
and personnel administration, and of local community mores. In this view,
the school administrator is less a bureaucrat and more of a leader and facilitator.
S/he is expected to understand individuals and groups and to utilize their
individual talents rather than just manage an organization with fixed positions
to be filled by replaceable, standardized parts. This type of administrator
needs more than training in scheduling classes, disciplining students, increasing
efficiency and managing an organization. S/he needs professional assistance
in identifying and interpreting differences and likenesses among individuals
and groups. Further, s/he needs guidance in how to organize collective efforts
toward positive ends.
With such considerations in mind, we will turn now from organizational considerations
to a delineation of some aspects of administrative behavior that are particularly
well suited to situations of cultural diversity and change. Administration for Change If we are to make a successful transition from a variable- reducing approach
in administration to an approach that is capable of sustaining the organization
of diversity, the new approach must be consistent with and reinforce the essential
features of the organizational strategy outlined above. The qualities of leadership
called for in such a situation are not unlike those exhibited by Japanese managers
and successful administrators in developing countries. School administrators
in cultural minority settings must be flexible and adaptive in temperament,
far-sighted and wholistic in outlook, and process- and people-oriented in style.
The administration of a decentralized, loosely-coupled system with strong participatory
decision-making requires a well-developed sensitivity to variations in individual
and group communication and interaction patterns, and a repertoire of skills
for organizing peoples diverse talents, interests and efforts so that they fuse
into a coherent collective endeavor. The administrator in such a situation functions
less as an authority figure and more as a facilitator, coordinator and mediator,
leading by example and consensus rather than by decree. Whenever possible, interaction
with others is informal and personalized, with communication readily flowing
both ways. Educational problems in minority communities are oftentimes only vaguely defined
with multiple variables responding to erratic forces in a generally unpredictable
manner, so that proposed solutions to the problems are often elusive and at
best tentative. The administrator grappling with such problems must be able
to tolerate the high degree of ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in the situation,
and must approach solutions with a long-term evolutionary perspective,
recognizing that todays solution may become tomorrows problem. It is in this context that administrators with a background in the minority
community can have a distinct advantage over those who come from outside the
community, for they bring with them a cumulative history of the solutions that
have been tried in the past and can build on that experience as they pursue
a new generation of experimentation. Administrators from outside the community
(or country), with their own pet programs, career aspirations, and good intentions,
will often impatiently implement a new program without recognizing that the
community has seen it all before and is simply being subjected to another round
of unfulfilled expectations. Minority administrators in a school system can,
therefore, be important contributors to the effective restructuring of educational
programs, while at the same time providing an essential link with the community.
The greatest benefit is derived by the community and the school system when
there is a balance of minority and majority administrators in the system, so
that both perspectives can be brought to bear as issues arise. Recognizing that a fundamental function of minority education is the empowerment
of minority people, school administrators must understand the relationship between
individual behavior and the social organization in which it occurs, the relationship
between institutions and the clientele they serve, and the nature of cultural
and institutional change processes. Rather than reducing variables in the systems
they manage, administrators of change must be able to move beyond even the maintenance
of existing variables, to nurture and stimulate the development of new variables
that take into account unanticipated and constantly changing circumstances.
Only with such a variable-generating administrative posture can the kind
of unintentional subversion of innovative new ideas that occurred with the Inupiat
Eskimos be avoided. Instead, innovation is welcomed by the astute administrator
and can be used to overcome conditions of institutional inertia, apathy and
routinization. The enthusiasm generated by the successful implementation of
new ideas, encouraged by a responsive and supportive administrator, can serve
to redirect and revitalize an otherwise dormant institution. Success of a variable-generating approach to administration requires, however,
an ability to anticipate the consequences of change, for the educational well-being
of the students as well as for the social and cultural well-being of the community.
It also requires the ability to recognize and remove institutional obstacles
to change when change is necessary, to resist change when it is unproductive,
and the ability to distinguish between the two. The role of the variable-generating
administrator in minority education is similar to that of the organization-building
administrator in a developing country:
Ministries of education, as well as schools, universities,
and other educational institutions are strategic "organizational personalities" in
their societies. Some are live and dynamic, responsive to new ideas and
vigorous. Others
are tradition bound, resistant to change, and lethargic. Some develop the
talents of key personnel in the hierarchy; others stifle initiative and
deplete precious human capital. And in all cases, much depends upon the
men at the top - the organization builders - and their capacity to perceive
both the goals of society as well as the artful science of building a
team
(Harbison, 1973:75).
Although school administrators are not the only ones responsible for the success
or failure of educational programs in minority communities, they have an enormous
influence in shaping how the programs are to be implemented. The organizational
perspective and administrative style they bring to their role establishes the
parameters within which people and programs must operate. It is critical, therefore,
that they approach their task with as wide a range of skills and techniques
as possible, so that they can accommodate cultural diversity and change with
minimal imposition of inappropriate monocultural administrative and organizational
biases. Since the administrative and organizational approach outlined here is intended
to be adaptable to any cultural circumstance, it obviously is not limited in
its applicability to cultural minority situations. By adding a consideration
of cultural variables to the mix of conventional institutional variables addressed
by all administrators, we have simply brought into clearer focus those administrative
practices that are likely to enhance the organizational effectiveness of any
institution, majority of minority. The purpose, however, has been to shed light
on some of the particular problems of schools in cultural, ethnic and racial
minority situations, and how administrative practices can serve to exacerbate
or alleviate those problems. With a bit of ingenuity, flexibility and tolerance,
maybe we can begin to develop educational programs and practices that are sensitive
and adaptive enough to be truly applicable across cultures. References Barnhardt, R. (1977). Administrative Influences in Alaskan Native Education.
In R. Barnhardt (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Issues in Alaskan Education (pp.
57-63). Fairbanks, AK: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, UAF. Conway, J. A. (1984). The Myth, Mystery, and Mastery of Participative Decision-Making
in Education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 11-40. England, G. W. (1983). Japanese and American Management: Theory Z and Beyond.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 131-142. Gregorc,
A., & Johnson, E. (1973). Trespassing in the Holy Land: Relations
Between Anthropologists and School Administrators. Urbana, IL: Unpublished
paper, Harbison, F. H. (1973). Human Resources as the Wealth of Nations . New
York: Oxford University Press. Hofstede, G. (1983). The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and
Theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75-89. Hopson, E. (1977). Inupiaq Education. In R. Barnhardt (Ed.), Cross-Cultural
Issues in Alaskan Education (pp. 3-6). Fairbanks: Center for Cross-Cultural
Studies, UAF. Kiggundu, M. N., Jorgensen, J. J., & Hafsi, T. (1983).
Administrative Theory and Practice in Developing Countries: A Synthesis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28, 66-84. Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G.
(1981). The Art of Japanese Management
. New York: Simon and Shuster. Riggs, F. W. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries . Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co. Rohlen, T. (1979). Creating the Uedagin Man. In
R. Barnhardt, J. H. Chilcott, & H. Wolcott (Ed.), Anthropology and Educational Administration (pp.
183-203). Tucson, AZ: Impresora Sahuaro. Tyack, D. (1974). The One Best System . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. Wallace, A. F. C. (1970). Culture and Personality . New York: Random
House. Wallace, A. F. C. (1971). Administrative Forms of Social Organization
. Reading, MA: Addison-Wessley Modular Publications. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19. Weinshall, T. D. (1977). Culture and Management. New York: Penguin Books,
Wolcott, H. (1979). The Elementary School Principal: Notes
From a Field Study. In R. Barnhardt, J. H. Chilcott, & H. Wolcott (Ed.), Anthropology and
Educational Administration (pp. 379-404). Tucson, AZ: Impresora Sahuaro.
|