Recently when a colleague and I were facilitating a retreat for school district management staff, a quiet discussion about revised job descriptions quickly gave way to a volcanic eruption of resentment over altered working conditions in the central office. Logic and reason were tossed to the wind as expressions of powerlessness and exasperation filled the room. The psychological fallout of the restructuring process was paralyzing these staff members just when they were needed most. And central office staff felt that no one in the district was listening or helping.
The roles and responsibilities of upper-level executives and middle-level managers in restructuring school districts are undergoing rapid transformation. The changes are so sweeping that staff with titles such as assistant superintendent, program director, manager, or supervisor are reinventing their functions as they go.
Although educational reformers display great sensitivity to the psychological impact of restructuring on teachers, they exhibit little understanding of those in central office positions as they undergo the same process (Brandt 1991). Most of these people experience the new work as loss of power because they have viewed much of their authority as coming from their hierarchical position (Eckholdt 1989). Now that roles, reporting lines, and job descriptions are clouded, they are confused about their working relationships. Most cannot imagine how the changes can become an opportunity for greater personal influence and professional satisfaction.
Following is an illustration of what happens to upper- and middle-level administrative officials as district central offices restructure to become leaner, less bureaucratic, and more entrepreneurial. The dilemmas and frustrations of the change process are illustrated by the experiences of an assistant superintendent in a large school district.
The Old Rules Are Gone
When Clara Jones was promoted from area manager to assistant superintendent, she expected to instruct people in how to improve their schools, just as she had done as principal of one of the district's best elementary schools. She developed a system for monitoring and implementing district mandates and overseeing the schools in her areas. In addition, she saw to it that the program directors, area managers, and supervisors who reported to her followed the procedures. They were a tightly knit group, who met regularly and coordinated their activities closely.
Then the sand seemed to shift beneath her. Superintendent James Griffin announced a restructuring initiative. “This will be a fundamental and comprehensive transformation,” he said. “It will be long term, and we are in this for keeps.” It was not to be a program but a process, he explained. But what would it be? Griffin couldn't be specific beyond using such terms as “high performance” and learning organization”—words that meant nothing to most staff members.
Some schools, however, grasped the opportunity to become involved in this new initiative. They began to challenge district policy and procedure as they developed new approaches to instruction and school governance. Before long, they were seeking assistance with change-related tasks that Jones was not sure she or her staff could provide without learning new skills themselves.
As soon as the lead group of schools was off and running, Griffin met with Jones and the three other assistant superintendents. At this meeting, he told them that he expected them to reinvent their roles to focus on facilitation and encouragement for the newly empowered schools: The change process in these schools is fragile. I want you to spend time at the schools and help hasten the pace of change. Let them know by your words and deeds that they and not central office staff are now in charge of the school's future direction. Moreover, your job with schools is to help them figure out how to implement their plans. No one can say “no” to a school but me. In addition, Griffin explained that he wanted the assistant superintendents to play a leadership role for those at lower levels of the bureaucracy in the transition to a new central office.
Jones became increasingly distressed as the restructuring effort progressed. Instead of chairing a tidy compartmentalized unit as her predecessor had, she now presided over what looked to her like chaos. The superintendent frequently reiterated his wish that assistant superintendents become “leaders not managers,” but Jones didn't know what that meant, because she had lost control over her subordinates' assignments and activities. She resented her perceived loss of position power at a time when the pressures were unlike anything she'd ever experienced. Jones became increasingly bitter, and her feelings of powerlessness grew. The weekly meetings between Jones and her colleagues and the superintendent became more strained.
What Are the New Rules?
Superintendent Griffin, for his part, enjoyed broad public and community support for the district's restructuring. His goal for the central office was to transform a tradition-bound organization into one focused on facilitation and support. With this new customer orientation in mind, Griffin prepared a reorganizational plan to facilitate collaboration across departments and to create more meaningful relationships between the central office and the schools.
Along the way, however, some unanticipated side effects occurred. Different areas of responsibility overlapped. Some people found it advantageous to move their offices nearer to others working on the same project, even if it meant separating themselves from their department members. Most unusual of all, project teams consisting of lower-level staff members had a great deal of direct contact with the superintendent.
Griffin became increasingly despondent during the grueling weekly meetings with Jones and her colleagues. Each session was filled with a barrage of complaints. They couldn't handle their old job responsibilities while inventing new ones. They didn't always know what their people were doing, but they still believed they ought to know. They no longer had sole input into staff performance appraisals; other people had a voice as well, and some of them knew more about their employees' project performance. Moreover, they accused the superintendent of undercutting their authority by working directly with members of their office staff.
At first, Griffin thought that their resistance might be the normal noise associated with any change. Then, over time, he began to realize that something more profound was going on. The restructuring and central office reorganization were challenging the assistant superintendents' traditional notions about their role and, moreover, damaging their feelings of self-worth. He was leading people into a world in which the old rules no longer applied and the new rules had not been written.
Further, Griffin began to question his own ability to lower the anxiety level, because it was difficult for him to provide a clear picture of what the new central office would look like and how it would work. Unlike school-level restructuring, for which there are models of good practice around the country, few central offices are far enough along in the process for others to learn from.
The Dynamics of a Restructuring Central Office
The very different views of Jones and Griffin say much about the changing nature of central office work. However hard it is for superintendents to remake strategy and structure, they themselves will, in all likelihood, retain their identity, status, and sense of control. For those below them—in this case, assistant superintendents, directors, and managers—structural change is often much harder.
People like Clara Jones were trained to do things by the rules—but the rules are gone. In the new central office, staff members must learn to operate without the crutch of hierarchy and have only themselves to rely on (Hanna 1988). Success now depends on figuring out whose collaboration is needed to act on good ideas. In short, the new work implies very different ways of obtaining and using power and influence.
Not only is the restructuring central office smaller and flatter, but it also has many more channels for action. Cross-departmental projects, joint ventures with other agencies, collaboration with unions and professional associations, and activities outside the mainstream reporting lines contravene the traditional organizational chart and ignore the chain of command (Tewel and Holzman 1991).
The existence of new channels for action has several important implications. For one thing, these new channels create more potential centers of power. Simply put, the opportunity for greater flexibility undermines hierarchy. As more and more action takes place in these new channels, the tasks that take place within conventional departments decline in significance (Lawler 1987).
Traditionally, these heads of offices surveyed the terrain for new ideas and resources. In a restructuring district, environmental scanning is an important part of everyone's job at every level of the central office and in all schools. And the environment to be scanned includes many potential outside partners—including the private sector. At the same time, all staff members are encouraged to think about what they know that might have value elsewhere. In schools handling their own budgets and hiring their own personnel, for example, it is not unusual to find finance personnel working with school leadership teams to develop accounting and ordering procedures.
Every central office staff member must think cross-functionally because everyone plays a role in dealing with systemwide as well as school-level problems. In fact, in the new central office, the ability of assistant superintendents to get tasks accomplished depends more on the number of team networks in which they're involved than on their position in the hierarchy.
This new strategic and cross-functional collaborative function is particularly important as central office staff assume the roles of integrators and facilitators, no longer watchdogs and interventionists. They need to demonstrate the value of their services to the schools they serve, in some cases competing with outside service providers.
For example, one district in Canada recently placed all central office personnel with the exception of the superintendent on a pay-as-you-go basis. Schools can hire central office consultants at set per-hour fees, or, if they wish, contract with private consultants or consulting agencies.
As managers and executives spend more time working across boundaries with peers and other staff members over whom they have no direct control, their interpersonal and negotiating skills become essential assets. Power evolves from personal strengths, not from organizational structure. At the same time, more staff members at more levels are active in the kind of external relationships that only the superintendent or selected senior-level staff were formerly authorized to conduct (Kanter 1989).
Because cross-departmental teams and task groups often bring together people from different professional communities, good deal-making depends on the capacity to step into other people's shoes and appreciate their goals. As one social studies specialist stated about being a member of a cross-departmental middle school team: I'm gaining experience anticipating the reactions of other people on my team. While we occasionally disagree about important issues, we no longer have the destructive conflict that erupted during our first few meetings. Before I present the social studies point of view, I ask myself what others will say. Sometimes I alter my proposal before I present it.
An increase in the number of channels for contact means greater opportunities for people with ideas to stimulate action. Innovative suggestions for resolving systemwide problems come from central office staff who traditionally carried out the ideas of others. As assistant superintendents spend more time on cross-departmental tasks, they are forced to delegate more responsibility to lower-level staff members who, over time, feel greater authority to chart their own direction. As a special education director in a restructuring Minnesota district noted: Participating in the district high school admissions committee made me understand the basis for school grievances about the centralized student assignment system. I also began to understand how the existing policy was set to meet the needs of the district for control rather than the needs of the schools for early information for counseling and scheduling purposes.Our development as a group gave us the courage to draft a plan for radically altering the way students move from middle to high school. We further decided that our proposals had to be presented directly to the superintendent.
The superintendent receiving a report that did not bubble up through the traditional hierarchical channels was suddenly confronted with a new task. He now had to juggle different constituencies rather than control a set of subordinates. The assistant superintendents, in particular, felt bypassed and were preparing a negative response to the report.
At this point, the superintendent's task was to work with everyone inside and outside the central office to get people past power and turf issues and build a network of cooperative relationships (Walton 1985). The superintendent, for his part, observed that it's been much harder to gain consensus in a restructuring district. More people and more groups speak up. It takes a great deal of balancing. The new way gets more done, but it also takes more time.
The restructuring process clearly places added burdens on the superintendent during the transition period. The new organization exists on a chart in name only and is not really functional. While the old organization no longer exists on paper, however, it continues to haunt the minds, habits, and performance of staff.
New Incentives Needed to Sustain Change
Motivational strategies are changing fast. The old bureaucratic incentives are disappearing as opportunities for promotion are curtailed by the flattening of hierarchical levels. In some districts, the shift in power has resulted in a downgrading of central office compensation scales. One California district, for example, has capped all central office positions at a level no higher than the highest paid school position.
- Create an environment conducive to mutual trust and risk-taking. This item is a precondition to everything that follows. Discussing ideas, discovering new ways of thinking, and experimenting under conditions of trust and respect enhance commitment and increase receptivity to new viewpoints. Restructuring will require significant risk-taking and a radical shift in the way things get done—both of which are impossible in an environment where open communication, mutual trust, and risk-taking are not nourished and actively encouraged.
- Develop a shared mission. Helping people believe in the importance and value of their work is essential, particularly when other forms of security have evaporated. Pride in one's work and recognition for accomplishments are frequently stronger motivators than the traditional promotion-based reward system.
- Empower staff members to use their professional discretion in making decisions. People need to feel some control over their professional lives. Superintendents can provide this by encouraging central office staff to develop pet projects and seeing that they have time to carry those forward. A second strategy is to foster a results orientation by working with staff members to develop outcomes and then letting them decide how to achieve them. Greater latitude in work assignment can be negotiated individually with staff as a reward for significant accomplishment.
- Provide opportunities for learning. The chance to learn new skills or apply them in new ways becomes important in a restructuring central office. In a turbulent environment, learning enables people to create a niche for themselves in the new organization. In a climate where pay incentives are largely nonexistent, access to new training is a major inducement. In one Florida district, for example, applicants for central office positions tripled when a new training and development program was put in place. Moreover, the district began to attract people genuinely interested in service rather than power and position.
- Afford professional visibility. Superintendents can provide public recognition (a) by acknowledging the innovations of school and central office staff members, and (b) by helping people to connect with professional networks outside the district.
- Eliminate barriers to change. Barriers to change can be both individual and organizational. Organizational obstacles include narrow rules for accomplishing work, rigid job definitions, and lack of a common language for articulating goals. Individual barriers include lack of awareness about the need for change, and an absence of critical skills necessary for making reform efforts succeed (for example, skills in problem solving or in participatory management). Again, focused education and training are vitally important. Through education, a superintendent can communicate new organizational values and demonstrate long-term commitment to the importance of the change effort.
- Be focused and consistent over time. Although developing a new organizational form takes a long time, a superintendent can erase years of progress, in just a few weeks through inconsistent behavior. This is especially true during times of crisis. Staff members can see through glossy programs and superficial efforts. The change process must be ongoing and constantly renewed.
A New System of Autonomous Schools
Regarding Clara Jones, did she finally adjust to the changes in her district? How did Superintendent Griffin fare with the central office restructuring? There are, as yet, no answers to those questions. All of this is not easy. Feelings of powerlessness and frustration, however, do not need to occur.
Superintendents and change agents must empathize with the dilemma of central office executive and managerial staff members in a restructuring district. It is not unusual for fundamental change efforts in large organizations to take several years to show signs of progress and more than 10 years to reach a state of self-renewal (Fiorelli and Margolis 1993). With a better understanding of how continuing change affects the roles of these staff members, superintendents can employ positive strategies that demonstrate how new responsibilities can become an opportunity for greater personal influence and professional satisfaction. The result will be a new kind of central office that supports an innovative system of autonomous schools.
