Constancy and Change in Work Practice in Schools: The Role of Organizational Routines

Abstract

Background/ContextThough change is constant in organizations, determining how to successfully implement planned change has been a perennial challenge for both organizational scholars and practitioners. While the empirical knowledge base on planned change in schools and other organizations offers numerous insights, the inattention to activity, or the practice of leading and managing change, remains. Organizational change theory, and specifically organizational routines, offers a useful lens with which to examine planned change in work practice in schools.PurposeThe purpose of this study is to understand the role organizational routines play in changing school work practice.Research DesignWe employed a longitudinal case study of leadership practice at Adams, a K–8 urban school, over the course of four years. We spent 90 days collecting observations, interviews, and artifacts from a wide range of individuals (e.g., teachers and administrators). We identified one key routine, the Five Week Assessment Routine, and analyzed the ostensive and performative aspects of the routine, identifying similarities and differences in the routine over time. In addition, we identified two different kinds of change, planned and unplanned, as well as the reasons why participants changed the routine.ConclusionsOrganizational routines structure work practice, stabilizing it over time, even in the face of considerable change. They represent one mechanism for sustaining leadership. In addition, routines can be a source of both episodic and continuous change in the work place. New routines can serve as a mechanism to build instructional coherence, internal accountability, and professional community. This account suggests that one way to change norms and culture in an organization is through the design and implementation of new routines. Leaders can create opportunities for change in school practice. By designing and supporting an organizational routine, the leaders at Adams focused the practice of the faculty on improving teaching and learning in ways they had never done before. The case of Adams demonstrates that in the enactment of a routine, school staff can also create change in practice. How they make sense of the routine, and integrate it into their practice, can create shifts in teaching and learning. Change happens in the interplay between individual agency and the structure of the routine. Through a case study of one organizational routine in one school, we analyzed how organizational routines can enable both change and constancy in school practice.

Integrating Social and Emotional Learning: Creating Space for Afterschool Educator Expertise

“…Although some relationships may occur naturally, many afterschool educators intentionally cultivate them (J. N. Jones & Deutsch, 2011). Finally, program culture, defined as norms or "the way things are done around here," can be intentionally shifted by educators to encourage SEL (Hemmelgarn et al, 2006, p. 75; S. M. Jones et al, 2017b;Sherer & Spillane, 2007). For example, school-based research shows that educators can set expectations for children to use respectful language and show empathy (Bradshaw et al, 2008;Thapa et al, 2012).…”

“…In addition, 12 educators described shaping a program culture and routines to support SEL. Research shows that program norms can create psychological safety and are important for child outcomes, including SE skills (S. M. Jones et al, 2017b;Pierce, 1999;Sherer & Spillane, 2007;Wanless, 2016).…”

Paving the way for sustainable educational change: Reconceptualizing what it means to make educational changes that last

“…The ostensive aspect represents standard operating procedures, taken-for-granted norms and one's subjective understanding of the routine, whereas the performative aspect represents the everyday practice of specific actions, taken by specific people, at specific times (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). Practically, examples of such organizational behavior include developing and communicating a clear vision, developing standard operating procedures, and holding teachers accountable for their own practice (Sherer & Spillane, 2011).…”

“…This is a goal at the level of the school, and therefore, it can be assumed that schools are likely to want to continue the positive changes made by individual teachers (or, at the very least, not cancel them out). Second, it is likely that schools want to change the quality of the education they provide in a way that is not dependent on individual teachers, but lasts even when certain key staff members leave the school (Sherer & Spillane, 2011). Third, previous research has extensively showed how teachers' practice and the changes they are (not) willing to make within that practice are influenced by organizational factors, including: receiving support, guidance and feedback from colleagues; a supportive school climate; and a learning culture (Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015).…”

Theories and Research Methodologies for Design-Based Implementation Research: Examples from Four Cases

“…R. Nelson, 1994). Although traditionally associated with stability, scholars have recently explored how organizational routines can be a vehicle for the diffusion of innovation (Sherer & Spillane, 2011;Spillane, 2012;Spillane, Gomez & Messler, 2009).…”