Adaptiveness of Organizations

Until recently, most school organizations enjoyed considerable autonomy in their daily operations and did not concern themselves with the development of specialized adaptive functions. Political influence, formal and informal expectations, authority, and problems of perceived legitimacy have fostered a climate of accelerated change, compelling educational organizations to become increasingly responsive, innovative, and adaptive. The underlying factors driving transformation in public education's areas of operation are well publicized. Federal and state supported initiatives, like charter schools, vouchers, parental choice, high-stakes testing, teacher and administrator turnover and decentralization, coupled with shrinking budgets for professional development, families living in poverty, and fulfilling the needs of ethnically diverse and special education student populations, provoke substantive questions in the minds of many about the future of public education. In particular, the recently revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Public Law 107–110, presents sweeping implications for those who work in educational organizations. These pressures have also resulted in a not-so-subtle transformation in how school organizations view themselves, their roles, and most important, what it means to be successful.

The texture and slope of this precarious landscape has produced public perceptions of chaos and disequilibrium in the “fields” that interact with educational organizations. More specifically, these various external pressures have resulted in heightened anxiety around the manner in which school organizations and in particular [Page 22]school leaders will conceptualize and implement effective responses to these emerging demands. Undoubtedly, these types of adaptive problems press complex organizations, like public schools, to articulate and eventually depend on forms of knowledge, expertise, and operations not necessarily related to the principal tasks of the organization. Although the organizational literature provides a significant body of research focused on issues of organization adaptation and change, the ability of complex organizations to successfully adapt to social and regulatory forces continues to be the subject of much theorizing and research. Issues of structural inertia created by organizational age, size, and density raise questions about the tolerance of school organizations to adapt their structures and conform to institutional pressures in order to be perceived as legitimate and remain competitive in this turbulent environment.

What is adaptiveness of organizations? There are numerous theoretical orientations that have examined adaptive mechanisms and “logics” used by organizations to respond to changing environments. In each instance, adaptive functions are focused on the survival of the organization. Extant literature suggests that adaptiveness of organizations implies a process of transitive learning and an appropriate response to change. Adaptation involves a deliberate process in which organizational leaders (managers or subunits) systematically scan relevant environments for threats and opportunities in order to develop strategic responses and modify organizational processes and structures accordingly.

Scholars have pointed to the fact that institutionalizing adaptiveness requires increased levels of organizational learning, communication, and leadership. As organizations find themselves enmeshed in rapidly changing milieus, their ability to scan the environment and modify search strategies is important. An unambiguous perception of the organization's relationship with the external environment greatly affects adaptive activities. It also requires leaders to be cognizant of organizations' existing competencies in light of these changing demands. Modification of existing organizational structures and routines is accomplished through a “social process” directed at organizational learning. Although leaders provide a formalized context for this process, learning in these instances is organic and evolutionary. It involves a process of socialization (e.g., sharing the tacit knowledge of individuals) around the pressing issues of the organization, making that knowledge explicit through dialogue and collective reflection (e.g., metaphors, analogies and concepts), and then internalizing and acting upon it by members of the organization. Through the learning process, leaders utilize knowledge to establish an organizational environment that is more dynamic, flexible, and responsive to change.

...