Administrators’ unintentional sensegiving and system reform outcomes

Abstract

One popular diagnosis for the problem of inequitable educational opportunities is the need for schools and schooling systems to undergo systemic change. While research shows that leadership support is essential for implementing system reforms, critical questions remain about how leaders help shift other’s understandings and practices. Employing the theory of sensegiving, this longitudinal, multiple-case study examines how administrators help teachers and other administrators make sense of a system reform during the first two years of implementation. I found that administrator’s unintentional sensegiving complicated others’ understandings of the new system reform, which complicated implementation. Based on these findings, I introduce the concept of unintentional sensegiving to theorize how leaders can give sense in ways they do not intend, yet have large impacts on how others understand and respond to a reform. Before championing a system reform, leaders deserve opportunities to (a) become familiar with the details of that reform and system reforms in general; (b) carefully study their existing systems, including their local contexts, and consider what dynamics might be created when they implement the new reform; (c) explore how their existing systems could shift to match the design of the system reform; and (d) practice drawing on their wells of knowledge to help others shift their understandings about their practice.

School Board Sensemaking of Federal and State Accountability Policies

“…Nonetheless, school districts still had to externally report their assessment data. The disconnect between Vermont’s messaging and policy mandates may have generated “unintentional sensegiving” wherein ambiguous or inconsistent messages from upper levels create greater variance in implementation of educational reforms on the lower levels (Wong, 2019). Vermont’s AOE used hortatory policy instruments to signal opposition to aspects of NCLB assessment reporting, yet their policies still held districts accountable to NCLB, thereby sending inconsistent messages to local boards.…”

Designing the University Competitiveness Management System: Functions, Levels, Objects

“…But the speed of actual changes in educational technologies and the technological base of education has significantly accelerated, therefore, universities in developed countries are adjusting their development in line mode (Abad-Segura et al, 2020). The transfer of this experience to developing countries and, in particular, its implementation in Russia may be hampered by insufficient access to financial resources and management's unpreparedness for constant structural changes (Parakhina et al, 2017;Wong, 2019). It can be stated that there is a structural nature of the management crisis affecting the whole system of university education (Parakhina et al, 2017).…”

“…The key criteria for assessing the competitiveness of universities were the commercialization of developments, export of educational services, etc. (Hwang et al, 2017;Budzinskaya, 2018;Wong, 2019). Regional competitiveness and university spillovers foster innovation activity of entrepreneurial firms (Audretsch et al, 2012).…”

From Compliance to Improvement: How School Leaders Make Sense of Institutional and Technical Demands When Implementing a Continuous Improvement Process

“…However, leaders might also respond to this conflict in other ways that appear less purposeful and more unwitting (Greenwood et al, 2011). They may engage in assimilation, a kind of form-focused implementation where leaders unconsciously notice and attend to those aspects of policies that reinforce their beliefs, knowledge, and assumptions, thereby developing and passing on to teachers a distorted view of what the policy entails (Coburn, 2005; Stosich, 2017; Wong, 2019). In addition, when leaders lack an understanding of a new initiative or perceive it to be unhelpful, they might respond with compliance: adopting visible practices and structures to maintain external legitimacy, but in a way that does not support a coherent purpose (Anagnostopoulos & Rutledge, 2007; Ganon-Shilon et al, 2020; Louis & Robinson, 2012; Marsh et al, 2017; Matsumura & Wang, 2014; Woulfin et al, 2016).…”