Developing a perspective on schools as complex, evolving, loosely linking systems

Abstract

The rationale for this article is to give complexity the central place it warrants in school leadership, management and organisational practice and research. We analyse the relevant literature, particularly that relating to complex human systems and their loose coupling nature. The analysis reveals the dimensions of complex human systems and consequences that emanate from those dimensions, which include system evolution. We use the dimensions, together with notions of interactional capability, opportunities for interaction, the legitimacy of interactions and the extent to which the institutional primary task conditions interactions, to create an organisational/institutional perspective on schools as complex, evolving, loosely linking systems (CELLS). Five main systems of a school as a whole-school system are identified: the teaching staff system; the ancillary staff system; the student system; the parent system; and significant other systems in the wider system. In the article, we illustrate the nature of the teaching staff system from a CELLS perspective. We discuss issues arising from our analyses: interaction, influence and leadership; ontological issues; the nature of ‘the school’; the significance of the parent system; the special nature of interactions between the members of the teaching staff system and the student system; and institutional performance.

The Growth of Multi-Academy Trusts in England: Emergent Structures and the Sponsorship of Underperforming Schools

“…Other factors such as the heterogeneity of interactors, the number of interactors and the opportunities for interaction also frame a system's interactional nature (Hawkins and James, 2018).…”

“…~~ The consequences of the growth of multi-academy trusts ~~ The evolution of MAT structures over time indicates a continuum of complex, loosely coupled, organic systems (Hawkins and James, 2018) at one end and tightly controlled, hierarchical systems at the other. Those schools opting into the academies programme early on were able to take advantage of the promised autonomy (DfE 2018) of academy status by exercising the freedoms to grow the MAT according to their own agendas, take on the sponsorship of underperforming schools and expand or control growth as they saw fit.…”

“…Arguably, as schools come together as groups the number of stakeholders that have an interest in any school in the grouping increases, adding intricate networks of collaboration. The way MATs emerged as structures in the English education system, therefore, has all the hallmarks of the way complex systems evolve (Hawkins and James, 2018; Mitleton-Kelly, 2003; Mitleton-Kelly and Davy, 2013).…”

“…The early growth of MATs in England was emergent with very little planning by central government or indeed local government, which has been largely marginalized in the growth of MATs. Emergence is one of the key consequences of systemic and organizational complexity (Hawkins and James, 2018). It arises from the central feature of complex human systems, that of interaction.…”

“…MAT growth in the early stages of the MAT policy implementation was emergent and MATs as organizational structures evolved. In this regard, MAT growth reflected the properties of complex human systems (Hawkins and James, 2018;Mitleton-Kelly and Davy, 2013) in the way it developed. The motivations of school principals, parents, teachers and governors, who are key players at school level, are significant in underpinning the process of a school deciding to become an academy, and in MAT growth, especially in relation to the sponsorship of underperforming schools.…”