I have attended many conferences and workshops on school improvement. While I always try to come away with at least one strategy or idea to apply, I typically find that it may work very well in some settings, may work only to a degree in others, and at times, may have no application at all.
The reason is actually quite simple: in applying any strategy or idea, context is important. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to educational improvement. Instead, we need contextualized approaches, which means we must understand both the strategies we are implementing and the cultural context in which we desire to implement them.
One approach to understanding context is found in the late anthropologist Mary Douglas’s framework known as Cultural Theory. Cultural Theory (CT) helps us comprehend the essence of contextual application because in CT, there aren’t endless kinds of cultures to comprehend. Rather, only four possible cultural contexts exist, and any one of those four can be understood by two symbiotic factors, grid and group.
The Grid Factor of CT
Grid refers to rules, roles and the autonomy individuals have in a work environment. Grid can be understood on a continuum of strong to weak. For instance, in some schools, the grid factor is strong, and numerous roles and rules restrict individual autonomy. In strong-grid schools, upper administration assumes the role of determining textbooks and curricula, and the teacher’s role is to teach. In essence, strong-grid rules and roles regulate curriculum, instructional methods, and many routine procedures.
In weak-grid contexts, on the other hand, few regulations exist, and educators have autonomy in most areas of the learning process. Weak-grid environments allow considerable freedom in choosing curriculum, texts and methods. Few role distinctions exist, and individuals are valued for their skills and talents. In weak-grid schools, teachers are not isolated and insulated from each other and typically possess a great deal of voice.
The Group Factor of CT
The group dimension of CT represents the extent to which people are committed to the overall school. Group deals with the holistic aspect of social incorporation and allegiance. Like grid, group has a continuum of strong to weak. In strong-group contexts, explicit pressures influence group interactions. The survival of and allegiance to the school are more important than the survival of individual members within it. In strong-group settings, personal identification is entwined with the academic, athletic, and social events at the school.
In weak-group environments, pressure for group-focused activities and relationships is relatively absent. Members of social and working subgroups tend to focus on short-term activities rather than long-term corporate objectives, and their allegiance to the larger group is fluid. People are neither constrained by, nor reliant upon, others in the context.
Four Cultural Contexts
In any school, the combination of strong and weak variations of grid and group define four possible cultural scenarios:
- Individualist (Weak-Grid, Weak-Group),
- Authoritarian (Strong-Grid, Weak-Group),
- Hierarchy (Strong-Grid, Strong-Group), and
- Egalitarian (Weak-Grid, Strong-Group).
The figure below depicts these four possible contexts.
The Individualist Culture
In individualist environments, relationships and experiences of the individual are not constrained by imposed formal rules or traditions. Role status and rewards are competitive and are contingent upon existing, temporal standards. Individualism encourages members to make the most of personal opportunities, seek risks that result in personal gain, and be competitive and proactive in carving their future.
Pros:
- Much Individual autonomy
- Much personalized learning
Cons:
- Little long-term allegiance
- High turnover of employees
When applying new strategies in Individualist Contexts remember to:
- Respect each teacher’s individuality and unique contribution,
- Allow teachers to play major role in decision making and implementation, and
- Recognize that teachers will not implement change until they are ready, motivated, and can see how the change will benefit them or their students.
The Authoritarian Culture
Authoritarian contexts offer little individual autonomy and classifying criteria focus on such factors as race, gender, family heritage, or ancestry. Individual behavior is fully defined and without ambiguity. little value is placed on group goals or survival. Authoritarianism promotes limited opportunity for advancement and opportunity, compliance to rules and procedures, lack of control of school goals and rewards by teachers, and autocratic rule by administrators.
Pros:
- Structure for consistency
- Clear chain of command
Cons:
- Little autonomy
- Little collective allegiance
When applying new strategies in Authoritarian Contexts remember to:
- Establish and maintain adequate vertical communication structure to ensure that information is transmitted from the decision maker to the implementers,
- Tie expectations to rules, roles and rewards, and
- Establish specific decision-making parameters and offer specific instructions about how and why goals are to be achieved.
The Hierarchical Culture
In hierarchical contexts, individual identification is heavily derived from group membership. Individual behavior is subject to controls exercised in the name of the group, and roles are hierarchical. At the top of the hierarchy, roles have unique value and power (generally limited to a small number of experts). All members understand that in a hierarchical system, what is good for the corporation is good for the individual. Central-office administration, site administration, teachers, students, and parents work in a cohesive, integrated system for the benefit of all involved.
Pros:
- Strong allegiance
- Strong corporate unity and identity
Cons:
- Group interests prioritized over individual
- Pressure to consider group goals and activities
When applying new strategies in Hierarchical Contexts remember to:
- Create opportunities for shared decision making, such as committees or teams,
- Motivate through group-directed goals, activities, and rewards, and
- Focus communication on both the mission of the school and the importance and interdependence of all members of the organization.
The Egalitarian Culture
Egalitarian contexts have few role distinctions, and perpetuation of group goals and survival is highly valued. Egalitarianism places a high value on unity, equal distribution of teaching supplies and space, suspicion of those outside the school community who may want to help, conformity to the norms of the group, as well as rejection of authoritarian leadership and hierarchy.
Pros:
- Collegial relationships
- Equity in resource distribution
Cons:
- Distrust of those outside the group
- Pressure to consider group goals and activities
When applying new strategies to Egalitarian Contexts remember to:
- View teachers as a team of individuals, each equally important, who are constructors of knowledge in a vibrant communal environment,
- Allow teachers latitude and control in making decisions, and
- Incorporate and reinforce lateral communication strategies.
Share your comments:
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
How have new ideas been implemented?
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
I was in an authoritarian cultural environment. Unfortunately, the boss seemed individualistic because, to him, he knows best, and we must follow his ideas and suggestions”. This didn’t really work because therevhave been innovations that he’s not abreast of. Insisting that his ideas should be implemented consistently drags the organization back and lags behind in the market. This makes all the staff non-committed, and many don’t care what happens again as long as they are paid a salary. this gives room for the exodus of staff and those that couldn’t go continue managing in the non-inclusive environment. Eventually, we migrated and metamorphosed into Hierarchical Culture, and things started looking up for the organization.
As I read through the various contexts, I can see a little of each in our organization, however, ultimately, we definitely operate in the hierchical contexts. While we are all individuals and have some autonomy, the focus is on what is best for all involved, which includes students, community, teachers and the district as a whole. There is room for growth for individuals but that growth has to benefit the district. The issue that may be there, is sometimes the people making the decisions do not seek input from various sources on what is best for the district. While I have very minimal complaints about our district, there have been several instances where something has been passed off as “what is best for the district”, when in fact it was just the path of least resistance. This is where the pressure to consider group interests is shoved in our faces and we just have to accept decisions even though many know it truly wasn’t the best for the district. To build a great culture within an organization, it is important for leaders to be aware of various contexts and truly consider what is correct for their district.
I like the beginning of this blog, where it states there have been many school improvement professional developments, but when you think about it, some of the strategies are not a one-size-fits all. Rural schools are often overlooked when school improvement strategies are designed because there isn’t always the resources bigger districts have, therefore leaders have to apply strategies with a context within their building or district.
Jesi, I have always loved autonomy, though with little control and supervision. Most of the time, the hard and fast rules don’t bring out the best in people. Yes, the group setup is also good and follows the rules, but autonomy allows growth and expansion. I agree that culture determines a lot of things, including what happens and what is done in a school and/or a district.
I currently work in an Individualistic culture. Grants have limited rules (other than what is structured by federal and state) from leadership and allowed freedom to interpret and impose individualized rules and structure for their program. When we find new ideas conducive to our program, we do generally introduce them to leadership with when and how we will implement them and ask if there is any suggestions, edits, or changes we should make before doing so. Because we have this independence it isn’t exactly necessary to ask “permission” before implementing them, just more of a respect. Implementation is normally a seamless process. Once our grant decides to make a change, we just follow the necessary steps to add it to our proposal and go with it. We don’t normally see push back from leadership. That is one thing I am grateful for in our department is the ability to bring ideas out and implement them.
My current work environment is an individualist culture, but I believe that our leadership would like to move to more authoritarian culture. As a counselor, we have a great deal of autonomy on dealing with our day to day job requirements, but there are major task that need to be completed throughout the year that require everyone working together to achieve them. This becomes problematic when communication is poor or people are not committed to the cause. Our new administration plans to work on the group dynamics of our counseling crew of seven people. New ideas are often presented from our principal with little choice given in participating in them. Generally, there is a lot of push back that occurs when new initiatives are presented.
The ceremonies and rituals would emphasize what the school administration is wanting to accomplish. The difference between authoritarian and egalitarian context is authoritarian is directed and credit is taken by leadership and completed by the stakeholders. Egalitarian is completed by the entire group and everyone takes credit for the results. Ceremonies are on celebrated but could bring moral levels down in the authoritarian context because it’s more for accountability than a celebration of completion. Egalitarian will have the ceremony to celebrate and reflect the results.
Authoritarian culture focuses on following the rules and procedures set by the figures set in place. Rituals would consist of a lack of group goal setting and more procedural reminders and rules already set in place. There would be very little open dialog, and more lecture-style information and decision-making.
The egalitarian is more group-based, so the rituals would probably include frequent shareouts of what is going well and where there is room for improvement. This share-out would be from all instructors, sharing a common goal.
In an authoritarian context, rituals and ceremonies would emphasize what the top wants to accomplish or acknowledge. Leadership would make the decisions. Success could be determined by following agency initiatives and achieving goals set by the administration. This context also reminds me of my agency’s semi-annual all-staff meetings that are completely organized and facilitated by the administration without input from other staff. In an egalitarian context, rituals and ceremonies would involve input from all staff, regardless of rank or position. Various groups or individuals could implement the rituals and ceremonies. Our annual Strategic Planning and Goal Setting meetings remind me of an egalitarian context. All staff is invited to chair committees, make decisions, and implement changes. At my weekly division meetings, my team members have the opportunity to decide on our weekly goals. Success could be determined by meeting division-level goals or committee accomplishments. I see the annual events like ceremonies and the everyday, or regular, events as rituals. Both are important depending on the situation. In an authoritarian context, rituals and ceremonies can give staff a sense of belonging and unity. In an egalitarian context, rituals and ceremonies can give staff value and motivation.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context, ceremonies and rituals might emphasize success in following the rules that have been set forth by the administration. It could possibly reward a group or individual that has correctly followed a procedure or completed something assigned by the decision maker(s). In the egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals might emphasize group success. For example, in a school it might be a celebration of all 3rd-grade classes passing a test. If this were to come with an award of some kind, in this context all of the teachers would equally share the benefits.
I believe the authoritarian culture can be beneficial if you have enough people in the decision-making process to distribute the top-down information. Rewarding people that are doing what they are told is beneficial, but it does not leave room for experimentation. Celebrations are key to a positive group and grid environment.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an egalitarian context ceremonies and rituals would be more likely to focus on group goals and achievements. This would advance the sense of community and established norms. In contrast, ceremonies and rituals in an authoritarian context would likely focus on adherence to rules and procedures that were executed according to the goals set by the administrators. This would support the chain of command and consistency that the organization is run by.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Ceremonies and rituals in the authoritarian context, I believe would focus more on individual achievements over the group as a whole where as the focus would be on the group in an egalitarian context. The program I work in definately more in the egalitarian context with much autonomy in our work day. Sometimes there may even be too much autonomy with some not following procedure the way they should. A balance between the two is necessary for to function efficiently .
Sally, I agree there needs to be a balance between both the authoritarian and egalitarian contexts. Understanding and following procedures while having flexibility in everyday work seems to allow for the best efficiency.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
I feel that ceremonies would place an emphasis on group achievement in an Egalitarian context. Whereas in an Authoritarian context, I feel that individual rewards would be recognized in those that successfully carried out pre-established procedures and expectations.
Rituals would focus on promoting group achievement in an Egalitarian context versus an Authoritarian context that primarily focuses on distributing information from the top-down.
I agree that authoritarian context would focus on the individuals that carry out the prescribed procedures and expectations. This would encourage adherence to goals set at the top of the organization.
Currently I work in a hierarchical setting. We have clearly outlined expectations, but are valued and heard, allowing for a strong culture. New ideas come from all over the school. Primarily, one of two sets of teams toss around new ideas, but everyone is allowed and encouraged to share new ideas and/or strategies to make our school more successful. New ideas are always considered.
I believe new implementations were mostly successful. We have tried a couple of things, and realized they didn’t work, so we changed them. But as a group, we are mostly accepting of trying new things for the betterment of the group.
In an authoritarian context, rituals and ceremonies would emphasize what those at the top want to accomplish or acknowledge. The highest level would be the decision-makers without input from other staff. At my agency, this reminds me of our semi-annual all-staff meetings that Sr. Leadership organizes and facilitates without input from other staff. In an egalitarian context, there is no distinction in roles and ranks. Everyone plays a part in the decision makings. Ceremonies and rituals emphasize what everyone involved wants to acknowledge or accomplish. At CareerTech, our annual Strategic Planning and Goal Setting meeting is a ceremony that involves all staff in the process. All employees have the opportunity to chair committees, share ideas, make decisions, and make changes. My division has a ritual of weekly team meetings where everyone has input into the weekly goals. I think both contexts are valuable in various situations. Rituals and ceremonies in the authoritarian context can provide a sense of unity and belonging for everyone if done properly. In the egalitarian context, rituals and ceremonies allow those that the decisions directly impact, to make the decisions and design the outcomes. This is important for divisions that are far removed from the upper administration.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In and authoritarian context, ceremonies and rituals might emphasize success in following the rules that have been set forth by the administration. It could possibly reward a group or individual that has correctly followed a procedure or completed something assigned by the decision maker(s). In the egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals might emphasize group success. For example, in a school it might be a celebration of all 3rd grade classes passing a test. If this were to come with an award of some kind, in this context all of the teachers would equally share the benefits.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work? My work is a combination of hierarchical and authoritarian. Within our school district, we have close to 15 total schools. Each school is ran an operated in a hierarchical system where principals consider thoughts and feelings of staff and makes decisions best suited for their school needs. Having said that, I find that many times when schools, more specifically my school, have new ideas or want to implement things that aren’t being implemented at all other schools, that our district leaders may deprive each individuals school’s growth at times. If the principal of our school or teachers are looking for progress, sometimes it seems that our superintendents office ultimately trumps these ideas based on a consideration for all other schools.
How have new ideas been implemented? New ideas come forth from collaboration between our schools administration and teachers. I believe that our principals do a great job of listening to our teachers collectively through PLC’s and staff meetings where there is an open dialogue for innovation and policy reformation. For example, we have implemented a before school program to cater to our in-season student athletes strength and conditioning needs. Our district building was reluctant on okaying this for us as other schools are not as progressive as ours. The voice that our schools athletic staff gave to not only our administration but also the district leaders was heard and the program was then cleared.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been? The implementations of things such as virtual learning for severe behavior students, teachers ability to express their concerns and plans for progress, and student council influence on school-wide events has created an open door between admin, teachers, and students. I find that when all parties of the school system are allowed a platform to be heard, that the rationalization of new implementations are successful based on having majority rule and the nature of the hierarchical system in our school.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context? In an authoritarian context, I believe that ceremonies and rituals will have a sort of “cookie cutter” aspect to them which would take out some of the joy from the celebration and recognition process. I think that the lack of people involved the process due to the nature of authoritarian platform leaves for little collaboration which inhibits staff and students to feel a part of the ceremony/ritual. In an egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals would have more meaning to all those apart of the ceremony/ritual since all parties of the school play a part in what that event may look like. I think there would be greater interest and more attentiveness to the event since all individuals become a part of the process and decision making of that ritual or ceremony.
I can identify with all four cultural contexts in my work setting. The individualistic culture resonates with me because the administration trusts the teachers in my building to teach the essential standards and we are given lots of autonomy. The authoritarian culture can be observed by looking at the chain of command for communication, the district policy rules that must be followed, and the approvals we need when selecting curriculum. PLC meetings reflect a hierarchical culture as members work together to establish essential standards, construct pacing guides, create common formative assessments, and analyze student data together. I feel that the Egalitarian culture is present because the administration tries to make sure that all teachers have the resources needed to teach their students effectively.
New ideas are usually implemented by the administrators after they have met with the department chairs to discuss the ideas and to work together on how to propose the ideas to the rest of the faculty without overwhelming them. The administrators have high expectations for the teachers but also do not force policies overnight. I feel that teachers are more willing to work towards the goals that administrators have set if they are provided time to find the best ways to implement their tasks into their curriculum without disrupting the strategies that they know work to improve student learning.
Star,
I resonated with your statement of administrator having high expectations for teachers but also not forcing policies overnight. I think that in a hierarchical system, like most school systems, having that collaboration and open communication with teachers prior to policy change or reformation is vital to the trust and growth of the relationship between teachers and administration. Administration having continuous observations and professional development with their teachers can play a huge role in helping teachers work towards their goals in their class and curriculum, just as you said.
Starr, I could practically restate everything you have said. I think you describe and apply each cultural context very well. I feel the right mix of each cultural context is needed to find the right balance for each individual school.
I agree as well. A balance is so important. As a leader you must know your staff and develop a style that works for that group of people. Some people need to be managed differently.
Within an authoritarian culture, when seeking changes an individual would have to move up chain of command. The top of the chain would have total control in determining if any changes were to be made and what those changes would be. This works great for a company that is making a product, such as cars, and involves a large profit margin. The same situation in an egalitarian culture would involve the group setting the goals and making the changes. This seems to be more efficient in educational settings. Often in education the top of the organizational structure is so far removed from the classroom that even identifying how to implement changes is sometimes hard.
I agree with you that in a school an egalitarian culture would be more beneficial. Teachers are often combatting ideals and programs that are implemented at higher levels (often by the state) that are too far removed from the students that they are affecting.
Becky, I agree that an egalitarian context definitely seems more efficient. If individuals are able to set their goals and make necessary changes, there will likely be greater success.
Becky, I agree that an egalitarian context can be very effective. When people are part of the decisions, they have more “buy-in” and tend to participate more.
I feel that in my current building Hierarchical culture. Our building administrators have created an environment of mutual respect and allegiance towards one another. We have a clear identity as the staff of Canyon Ridge – this is evident when we attend district wide meetings. On the downside, it does seem that decisions are made as a collective. Ideas are merged and one general group idea is formulated based on opinions or ideas from various people. Weekly PLC provides a lot of ideas but does tend to lead to a group mentality of we all have to conform and be on the same page which does not give much autonomy to individual teachers.
New ideas are implemented by committees and through collaboration. Our administration has been considerate of the group ideas and goals. We work collaboratively to consider all aspects of a decision or problem and decide as a group on how best to solve the problem or answer a question.
To me, I feel that when we implement new ideas they have been successful. Our administration is good at observing and enlisting feedback from anyone involved. Feedback is consistently analyzed and new ideas are tried and analyzed again. Our administrators in some ways are perfectionists and continue to try to make adjustments and improvements to ensure maximum success.
The district I work in would have to be a hierarchical culture. The pros and cons describe the environment accurately. There is a strong unity within the district, and brand identity is known; pressure to conform to group norms and activities happens often. Regarding the district and school administration implementing new ideas, I feel they do a phenomenal job in implementation. The process goes something like this; inform the group of the plan, explain the why, aligning the implementation to vision, mission, and belief statements and leaders seek out and ask to receive feedback and reflection before moving forward, all implementation is data-driven and based on sound research and the stakeholders are involved in the process. No implementation is done without looking at research, data, potential impact, alternatives, and aligned to our vision before being implemented. It seems the last five years have required leadership to implement change. We had a flood, teacher strike, new technology, and recently, covid required new practices. Overall, I believe the implementations were successful, which does not mean they were perfect, but the ongoing reflection and striving for excellence lead to improved implementations.
My current teaching position is in an egalitarian organization. Relationships are highly valued, there is a sense of allegiance, and all are working toward a common goal. While this is a vital piece of a successful organization, there are also plenty of situations in our school where structure would be appreciated. For example, before Covid, our school would have weekly assemblies. We would recite the pledges, school creed, recognize students ‘ achievements, etc. These assemblies have built a strong sense of community, but are often unorganized and not efficient. I think that all successful schools have a balance between egalitarian and authoritarian.
Organizations operating under an authoritarian style will most-likely struggle with creating a foundation for things like ceremonies and rituals. For these to occur, an organization must ensure their staff has a sense of self-direction, autonomy, creativity, etc. Having a defined culture, or establishing symbolic aspects of the mission (which should always have the focus of the students in mind) will allow teachers to feel equitable. Things like ceremonies and rituals should be accepted with a little more ease and excitement under an organization operating with an egalitarian approach. However, there may be less acceptance of new ideas from outside sources, potentially restricting creativity and organizational growth in the long run.
I worked in an authoritarian atmosphere at a previous school. There was no clear direction but rigid expectations. Support was not available and everyone was left to figure things out on their own. There were strained relationships and no trust. It directly impacted students learning because instructors weren’t happy and lacked compassionate leadership.
Egalitarian leadership offers the exact opposite. Support and encouragement are at the forefront to reach a common goal. Individuals are driven to grow which is beneficial for their students learning. I currently work in an egalitarian environment and I feel motivated and included. The culture represents shared values and goals where we each have a clear direction but also the opportunity to give input especially when decisions are being made that directly affect us.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Ceremonies and rituals in an authoritarian context almost seem like they would follow a dystopian apocalypse novel model. Assemblies would emphasize the rules, highlight how important it is to follow the rules, and what would happen if you didn’t follow the rules. That in itself would be a ritual that all people would attend as part of their duty.
In an egalitarian context they would look like team building activities. Ceremonies would highlight the strengths of individuals and celebrate the positives happening within the community. Rituals would include ways to build the community as well as making sure everyone had everything they needed to succeed.
I have worked in an authoritarian context within an elementary setting. Even though there was a set clear chain of command, trying to contact someone almost seemed impossible. We had no ceremonies or rituals. The school used CHAMPS as a school-wide behavior plan. However, there was no training for new teachers or clear concise ways on how to implement it into your classroom. Nobody really worked together and it was basically a sink or swim type of environment. No goals were set and/or accomplished.
When looking at the egalitarian context it values the sharing of goals and working towards a vision together. A school building is united within from students to teachers to support and administration. This type of context allows for goals to be achieved more easily and effectively while also providing a positive atmosphere for all. More can be accomplished within this environment.
I feel like as a teacher we strive to work in egalitarian schools. We are almost wired that way. Everyone working together to reach the common goal.
Malarie,
I have never experienced a full authoritarian culture, but I have always felt the sink or swim environment does nothing to create a healthy environment within a school setting. I completely agree with your statements about the egalitarian context, as groups that are united, students, teachers, admin, support staff- everyone has buy-in and cares about what happens to the group, which in a school environment is much more productive than the sink or swim mentality.
So have you taught in another school besides authoritarian? Honestly, that school seems like it is lacking energy. Ceremonies and rituals just seem to bring life to school districts and I hate to hear so many kids and staff members missed out on those. I do agree where you say more can be accomplished in egalitarian as more can be accomplished in this environment where everyone has a common goal.
I feel that my school is a combination of all of these. I doubt we would rank high or low, but somewhere in the middle.
The individualist Culture is represented because the faculty has the discretion to choose how we teach and the curriculum that works best for us. We are expected to use the Oklahoma Academic Standards to guide our instruction but are not forced to use a prescribed curriculum or follow a pacing guide. We are treated as professionals who are experts in what we do and are given that respect as long as students are successful. Collaboration is encouraged, but not demanded. Individual achievement is rewarded.
When reflecting on Authoritarian Culture, I can see that our school has a clear chain of command that everyone follows. We say the American and Oklahoma Flag Salutes every morning along with our Broncho Creed that encourages everyone to be respectful, responsible, and ready (The Broncho Way!) Our principal is the final say in almost every decision but always welcomes discussion and ideas.
The Hierarchical Culture is exhibited when decision-making is shared. There are various committees in my school including STEM/Technology, Reading, Math, Carnival, and Team Leaders just to name a few. These small groups are empowered with making the best decisions for our school/students. The principal has the ultimate approval when it comes to important decisions, but the committees and committee leaders take care of many small ones.
Finally, the Egalitarian Culture is slightly present in our school because the school does allow teachers latitude and control in our decisions in our classrooms. Staff is encouraged to discuss and collaborate with administrators to find solutions or justify big decisions.
The last new idea introduced to our school was a tech grant to supply our students with one-to-one Chromebooks. The grant was significant and required the entire staff to commit to training for a year to receive the technology. We have worked together in grade-level groups to implement the training (online because of Covid) and assist each other so everyone is successful. It has been difficult, but the staff has been resourceful and positive throughout. The teamwork is phenomenal. The principal sends out an email with the instructions for the training, and we work together to complete each component. I feel the implementation would have been easier for some teachers if the training had been in person instead of videos and Zoom meetings It is difficult for some of the teachers to keep up or even know what questions to ask when they get behind or lost. Having someone who had mastered the technology in the room with us would have been helpful.
In an authoritarian context, there is a clear chain of command. There is no autonomy among the staff and students and this makes it difficult to maintain a system of rituals throughout the district. This context provided little room for advancement and rewards and people do not want to work harder for no recognition or build work relationships. Ceremonies would be hard to manage as there is no allegiance to the school or the district and the lacking of school goals. However, in an egalitarian context relationship building and sharing of goals and value of unity is placed very high. Teachers and administrators in egalitarian rely on the relationships they have built within the work environment, but are not eager to seek out others for assistance within the community. Ceremonies and rituals would be highly encouraged, but lack of role distribution could cause chaos when trying to plan and manage these activities.
I like that in an egalitarian culture, everyone feels like a valued member of the group. I also like the emphasis on lateral communication. But you brought up an interesting point about potential organizational challenges when there is not vertical communication and a hierarchy.
Ceremonies and rituals in an authoritarian context would likely place most emphasis on two factions; those to whom authority belongs, and those who enable/prolong the positions of those in authority. Contributions to the organization or group by individuals would be given little recognition. The credit would be given, instead, to the administration. Member motivation would likely be low and the ceremony itself would inspire only a few new and future ideas or individual contributions.
Ceremonies and rituals in an egalitarian context would place emphasis on groups, and to a lesser extent, individuals, who contributed to the organizational collective. Ideas and initiatives that promote the equality, unity, and strength of the group would be recognized, praised, and promoted. Member motivation to innovate for the good and goals of the group would be high.
Interesting insight! I had not thought of the chaotic situation due to the lack of assigned roles in an egalitarian context.
Authoritarian and Egalitarian are on two different ends of the spectrum when it comes to goals and environment. Ceremonies and rituals in an authoritarian context will be focused from the top down, more centered on the business itself and not the people that are part of it, while egalitarian will focus on the group as people. As the author of the blog states, egalitarian culture does not do well with “self” but instead group, so the ceremonies and rituals will emphasize togetherness, what is best for the group and improvement of the group. Authoritarian culture ceremonies and rituals would emphasize the “order of things” – the Monday Memo, reciting the motto of the business are things I could see for this culture.
In an egalitarian culture, the rituals and ceremonies would emphasize the group goals and activities. They would recognize group achievements over the achievements of individuals. Unity is of the utmost importance but that also means there is a distrust of those outside the group. I wonder how new group members are ‘initiated’ into this type of culture. How do they earn the trust of the group?
In an authoritarian culture, rituals and ceremonies are tied to expectations and emphasize the chain of command. Group unity would not be emphasized. Falling in line would likely be celebrated more than creativity and innovation.
I am not currently teaching, but when I was a tutoring director and a childcare director, they were both hierarchical contexts. I worked for a corporation in both careers, and there was the understanding that what is good for the corporation is good for the individual. Myself, along with the other members of the administration team worked together collaboratively. This teamwork benefited the corporation, admin team members, teachers, students, and families. The main focus was on the organization’s mission statement, vision, and goals. At my childcare center, there were teams of teachers from each age group that would share the decision-making at team meetings and staff meetings. I would recognize achievements and handout rewards at these meetings for accomplishing goals. At my tutoring center, we would have an annual favorite teacher party which invited teachers and administrators from the community to come to our center and celebrate. Each summer I would implement a teacher reward system where compliments were posted in the break room of teachers catching each other being awesome, and there was a weekly drawing for prizes. At both centers, we would revisit corporate’s mission and goals frequently throughout professional development and feedback sessions.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
I work for Epic Charter Schools, and as a whole, Epic works within a Grid system, varying from strong to the median range. Within Epic, each staff member works in teams, so I work within a team of teachers, overseen by my principal. This team is very much a strong group for the most part.
How have new ideas been implemented?
Many new ideas are implemented from the top down, However, our principal meets with her team weekly for various reasons, but every week she talks about “wins” for the week, followed by discussions of how to “win” next time. This discussion leads to new or improved tactics to achieve success and meet goals.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
Many times implementations are successful. When ideas are not successful, principals share struggles and obstacles with upper administration to seek opportunities to restructure and revamp what is being asked of the teachers. Also, Epic relies heavily on anonymous surveys to elicit feedback from teachers and staff throughout the school year. Many times you will see changes come about shortly after a survey has been collected.
I have read about grid and group before, and I always find it difficult to classify my own work setting. We really sit in between a lot of these classifications. We are pretty hierarchical in that there is a clear delineation between administrators and everyone else. However, there is also a strong individualist streak amongst many of us because we are given wide latitude in how we do our jobs. As far as my experience goes, most new ideas are implemented top-down. I am not really sure how successful they are because it can be unclear sometimes how success would even be defined by the administration. I do think that a more egalitarian approach to problem-solving would be a step in the right direction.
Brad,
I agree. It is hard for me to say exactly which one of these my school is on any given day. Some people work well together, others refuse to work with certain people. Most of the time we are given complete freedom until an admin decides to come down hard about something. It is constantly changing. I wish it one more clearly one way so it didn´t seem so chaotic.
I was previously working in an Authoritarian atmosphere. It ruined Team culture, suppressed employee potential and lead to no idea if school goals were met because they were never clear, changed often and there was no follow through. This type of environment can be very difficult and frustrating to work in.
I believe there is a beautiful relationship within the Egalitarian & Hierarchical culture. Both of these together allow for individuals to grow and fulfill their potential and embed it into a group effort. It takes the individual sport + a team sport and blends it together where individuals can shine in the teams success and failures.
I work for Project ECHO at OSU, which has many dimensions/roles involved in efficiently operating meetings. I believe the cultural context in which we operate the most is hierarchical. The daily operations to function with data, participant management, meeting generation with speakers/cases/didactics, need assessments through new ECHO lines such as COVID-19, and preservation of the ECHO model are all subject to a group effort in a hierarchical culture. This can be seen through the experts employed and engaged in the different ECHO lines, hired by the experts managing OSU Project ECHO. Teams exist motivated by central goals, and when Project ECHO as a whole is successful, everyone involved gets to share in the group success. However, since my role as a research grad assistant is temporary, my role may be considered in an individualistic culture. I am encouraged to “make the most of personal opportunities, seek risks that result in personal gain, and be competitive and proactive in carving the future.”
Currently I believe our district has moved to a more Hierarchical Culture, with the occasional Authoritarian approach sprinkled in. In the past, the district was much more authoritarian, giving very direct and distinct commands, from a top down approach. The only benefit I see from this approach is that their are consistent procedures in place, otherwise I feel that it is overbearing and it puts much strain on the district culture as a whole. The district has now evolved to more of a hierarchy, in which individuals have specific roles, and leadership is a top down method, with a small group of experts at each level. These small groups are entrusted with making the best decisions for the group as a whole and represent the majority, sharing their feedback when big decisions need to be made. At this point, we have a district philosophy and vision, but also allow teachers and staff to use the vision as a guide and have the autonomy to be creative, and utilize the passion that teachers have for their craft, so long as all stakeholders (teachers) are on the same page. As a former teacher, I have only experienced Hierarchical and Authoritarian Leadership approaches. Without a doubt I can say that working for an authoritarian leader was the most undesirable approach in my opinion. Individual stakeholders’ opinions were not taken into account and most times, the organization as a whole was not on the same page.
How have new ideas been implemented?
Were the implementations successful?
If not, how could they have been?The
The cultural context of the forensic laboratory where I work is definitely that of a hierarchical culture structure. This structure is characterized with a high grid and a high group such that the roles and rules are clearly defined and the success of the organization is dependent upon the actions of all group members. In this cultural structure, administrative oversight is led by top management, which is comprised of a single director, a quality manager, and an operation manager that oversees all technical disciplines. Each discipline is led by one individual who oversees two or more scientists.
Ideas for improvement and change can be offered by any individual within the hierarchy; however, such change must be approved and implemented by top management. Therefore, control remains at the top of the structure due to the regulated enterprise. Although the implementation of new ideas is a highly controlled process, it does ensure standardization and success but comes with the tradeoff of time since such change is often slow. The reason for this slower approach to change is to allow for an ample consideration of the risks that come with the opportunity for change in order to prevent nonconforming work from affecting the results of testing.
I honestly work better under the individualist culture. My supervisor is more for the egalitarian approach. To quote from the blog, “In individualist environments, relationships and experiences of the individual are not constrained by imposed formal rules or traditions. Role status and rewards are competitive and are contingent upon existing, temporal standards. Individualism encourages members to make the most of personal opportunities, seek risks that result in personal gain, and be competitive and proactive in carving their future.” I can tell you I could care less about the status or rewards. I could care less about personal opportunities. My organization pays me well for what I do. I am probably to best at what I do and the leadership knows it. I am extremely productive and self-motivated. I thrive well under and the individualistic environment because I can’t stand when indecisive people on a team can hold up a plan or program. I have a team of self-motivated people around me as well. I have noticed that many in leadership are afraid to make a decision on their own. They like safety in numbers and to me that is garbage and I don’t have time for it. We make a decision and move forward. We can redirect later but we need to keep going and keep moving. I am the way I am not for reward or satisfaction, I just can’t stand people unwilling to move unless there is a consensus. The first person through the wall is usually the bloodiest. We move and if it is not good we ask for forgiveness and redirect.
I currently work in an individualist culture. There is high turnover and little buy-in from those who remain. Is it not conducive to student success. We are working on changing that by including teachers more in the decision making process, but not in such a way that it is a burden to their already full plate of responsibilities.
I feel that my school is a mix of all of these. I doubt we would rank high or low. Our culture would just sort of sit in the middle. The faculty have a type of Individualist Culture when it comes to autonomy. We are given a set of objectives to cover and are not told how it has to be done. We do share ideas with each other when asked, but no one tells us how to teach. We do have a fairly high turnover though, in my opinion. I think this has more to do with the low pay as opposed to the culture.
We also fall under the Authoritarian Culture in that there is a clear chain of command that everyone follows, and we must have structure for consistency. The Hierarchical Culture is also visible because we do share in decisions made for the school because there are numerous committees for everything from technology to grounds keeping. There is also a strong focus on the school’s mission.
Lastly, I feel that we also have a strong Egalitarian Culture because the school does allow teachers latitude and control in our decisions. Also, no teacher is more valued than another. No matter your degree, we are treated equally. However, we are paid differently according to our title, but I don’t really think of that as culture.
Within the last year, we have moved to a hierarchical culture. When I took over as the principal, and now as superintendent, the teachers were used to just being told what to do with an authoritarian culture.
Now, new ideas are implemented after I present them, and we determine, as a team, if this is the route we want to take. The implementation process takes time. Therefore, our current state with COVID-19 has taken some of that precious time for team decision making while making the changes that must occur. The team takes time to meet and discuss new ideas and implementations. We whittle down and get to the goal, and determine the best way to reach that goal.
The implementations have been very successful. We had already begun discussions about curriculum before COVID-19 hit. We had narrowed our choice to two curriculums. One of the curriculums was readily available during the school shut down. We decided this was the chance for a trial run. The team was pleased, and that is now our choice for next year. It would not have been as successful if I had told them what they were going to do. Making decisions as a team gives everyone ownership, and there is greater buy-in.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work? I would say I work in a largely bureaucratic environment. Some of the leaders attempt to give things an egalitarian “feel”, but at the end of the day the hierarchy and bureaucratic colors shine through.
How have new ideas been implemented? New ideas are usually implemented either from the “top down”; or there are smaller committees that are formed and put in charge of disseminating the information. This is the attempt at a more egalitarian structure. But ultimately the leader decides and the committees are to help make the changes.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been? In one particular area, I would say they look successful on paper; but actual implementation is not. This is in regards to the schools can literally check the boxes on what this program/change is supposed to look like, but the true implementation is not what is happening.
It is interesting to look at this question in our current situation. I currently work in egalitarian environment. We do everything as a team and work well with each other. We used to meet on Fridays and shared ideas on upcoming lessons, how our students were doing, what are each of us doing that is successful and everything you would expect out of a team of teachers. However, now that our instructions have come down to us and we have to all teach the same lesson, we struggle. We have lost our autonomy in the classroom our cohesiveness as a group. In the authoritarian context we want to push back, drag our feet, and revolt to being told how to teach and what to teach.
On a student perspective I think the same thing happens. When students are given autonomy and choice to do things the way their group wants they fare far better than the students who are told what to do and how to do it. They are just like us and they act out, they do not do the work and they revolt.
I think I’d like to work in a district/building that had equal parts of all four. I like the idea of teacher autonomy, but I’ve worked with teachers who did not have the same internal drive and needed someone to “tell them what to do.” I’ve also worked in buildings where there was not a clear vision for the group and as a result everyone just did their own thing which caused feelings of isolation, like mentioned above. It truly is a delicate balancing act!
I did really appreciate that this article gave advice on how to implement change based on the type of grid/group we may one day find ourselves leading. Change, or conflict, is difficult for many to work through, but having the correct implementation strategy may make the transition occur more smoothly.
I completely agree with you Shelly. No matter how flexible we think we are, we are reluctant to change. As leaders we need ideas on how to make changes to keep things moving in a positive direction. Just like we need to have different leadership types, we also need to have different strategies for changing groups that function in different ways.
I believe my school functions in somewhat of an egalitarian environment as described in this article. I see this because there is a lot of emphasis on group and often rejection of the hierarchy system that is loosely in place. New ideas are generally brought to the principal, or created by the leadership team. Depending on the reaction of the group, the new idea falls through or is truly implemented. In my personal case study I am digging into an incident in which a “new idea” was rejected and therefore wasn’t carried through. This is rather common. Depending on who and what is being implemented, the follow through often lies in the reaction of teachers.
In the authoritarian context, I would imagine an award assembly to be recognizing the whole group or individual that has achieved something that was clearly lined out. Something that was a high expectation and clearly depicted.
In the egalitarian context, I would imagine the assembly to be honoring a student, teacher, or group for something that they have done that may not have listed standards behind them. Maybe something like “student of the week” or “teacher of the quarter” that teachers submit or vote on. Something that is not necessarily structured by highlighting the individual.
I work in a mostly egalitarian environment, but there is a little authoritarianism sprinkled in.
I see this in how our district communicates. Anytime bad news is spread, or trying times come the images are always of the collective, of teachers, or students etc. However whenever good news is shared it tends to be with the image of the superintendent. However, our daily world works primarily as a team.
At our district we also have a strange system in which committees are almost always formed in such a way that the results are what the upper echelon wanted in the first place, then they get to say, “the such and such committee comprised of all stakeholders has recommended that we…” I’ve been in these meetings and they definitely feel steered towards one result.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In the authoritarian context, ceremonies and rituals would emphasize the individuals who followed the set rules and regulations provided by the top in the chain of command. Since there is not room for individuality or even promotion, only those individuals who did what they were told would be recognized. In an egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals would emphasize the groups who worked together to reach a common goal. The rewards would be implemented to groups instead of individuals since there is no hierarchy within the group and few role distinctions.
I work in a hierarchy starting with the board of education, superintendent, cabinet, principals, assistant principals, etc. Goals for the district are generated from the top-down. It definitely fits into the strong grid, strong group category. There are set rules and regulations employees to follow, but the school district recognizes that it is a group effort. The more the employees buy-in to the overall mission and work collaboratively to achieve that mission, the more successful the school will become. My school district does a great job of forming committees to give teachers a voice. Collectively, employees understand what is good for the group is good for the individual.
As the inventory and ordering manager for my department, I would say that I am more of an authoritarian leader in this aspect. In order to maintain a strict budget and insure that our students have all items that’s needed for a successful completion of their program.I feel like systems go along with ceremonies and rituals. Having said that, I feel that organizations work best when they have a balance between Authoritarian and egalitarian approach. The article spoke of “one size fit all Approach”, within an organization I feel that if you have to much of either this can disrupt the culture.
When I think about my administrators: My director shows more signs of Authoritarian, but he has a balance with our assistant director who has more of an egalitarian approach. However, both are well balanced and great leaders. Now I have noticed the difference in the two when thinking about individuals i work with. Our front office staff can be more authoritarian: there is a lady that will not give you a stamp, receive any service from students or notarize a school form for a teacher if the teacher does not sign in front of her. (okay,they have worked together for 23 years. HAHA!) On the other hand, there are several that are always willing to share. (go ahead take whatever you need, let me know if we can help with anything, etc.) because this is how we have always done things. In closing, I don’t thing neither is bad. One just has to find balance.
I agree, Tasheika. It is all about the balance. I think some authoritarian approach is needed at times, especially dealing with budgets and items that need to be decided and structured for the many moving parts of the organization. Also, as you mention, each organization involves different players with different capacities for a given approach, so balance is key.
As a subject area coordinator, I float between buildings in my district. Our district as a whole is very successful, and most building cultural makeup are completely different. They are all successful though, so being in the position I am in I have found there are multiple ways to be successful. Ultimately it is how teachers respond to your Grid and Group preferences as an administrator. Authoritarian type rituals and ceremonies have students and teachers knowing the plan and what is expected because it is in the routine of the building. Even in assemblies, students have a routine, they have assigned seating.
I have not been exposed to a completely egalitarian school building structure, but I have been exposed to schools doing egalitarian type rituals and ceremonies. I see them more at the elementary level with the sharing of resources, like technology and school supplies. Elementary school teachers have a specific routine that they feel is beneficial to students and sometimes are hesitant to share with other buildings in our own district because those buildings are not part of their tight knit group. PLC’s has really started opening up teachers to sharing.
I suppose I might compare the authoritarian context to our end-of-the-year student awards in elementary school. The awards are earned for very specific achievement. It is black or white, either the student completed the required task and they receive the recognition or they didn’t. It could also be compared to a formal dinner. Specific attire is expected. Certain behaviors should be exhibited. The event is led from the podium by a well-prepared speaker.
I would compare the egalitarian context to our teacher of the year award or the superlatives in the high school year book. These are voted upon and decided by peers. There are some loose standards for basing nominations, but the interpretation of them are left up to the individual. It could also be compared to a celebratory company picnic. The atmosphere is casual and the purpose is for employees to enjoy themselves. Families are welcome. Fun abounds. There may be a few short words by someone in authority, but the focus is on smaller conversations throughout the group.
Those are great examples, Kimberly, my two children are elementary age and I have been to those assemblies. They are a well-oiled machine, especially in bigger districts. They have the program down because they know the student’s attention spans are short, but truthfully the parents can be shorter (haha). My wife’s company Holiday Retreat in Orlando every December, and it is such a relaxed atmosphere. You see the working professionals blend their work with their families. The company is really trying to show they support their dentists and their family to cultivate loyalty in the company. In my opinion, it is working as the company is growing larger every year.
Kimberly,
I love your examples you use. It really helps to differentiate the authoritarian context from the egalitarian context. It makes me think of valedictorian, salutatorian, and graduating in the top 10%. I also think of the National Honor Society induction and getting recognized at graduation by getting to wear a stole around your neck for meeting the NHS requirements. All of those would be authoritarian rituals. Students have to meet specific standards and there is no wavering from the rules set in place.
Kimberly your examples really nailed what I was thinking but couldn’t quite put my finger on. I do see both of these being played out in my school with our academic achievement and highest growth awards, and then we also have “Star Students” and of course the Teacher of the Year.
I think it would actually help our culture a lot at our school if we even implemented something similar to a “company picnic” that is more easy going and purposeful in having employees enjoy themselves without working an event.
Most of my experience in education has been in a hierarchy; The principal communicates with assistants and team/department leads with the whole-group mindset of reaching our shared goals. Within this hierarchy, though, I have worked in an egalitarian structure of my individual department, where members share equitable responsibilities and status; a department head might have a slight power advantage but is generally one of the team. I have also seen departments that run very individualistically, with everyone doing his or her own thing with little regard to the group.
Generally, initiatives have been most successful when presented collaboratively with lots of input from teacher-leaders before being presented by principals. Unsuccessful initiatives have those presented from an authoritative perspective with little input from teachers. Interestingly, the most successful solutions come from leadership presenting a problem as an equal member of a group who come to consensus on a solution.
As I was reading, I noticed what you touched on. A school doesn’t typically hold to just one. There is definitely an aspect of hierarchy in my school, but the egalitarian context is also very present. Sometimes we do operate more individualistically. And there are times when, out of necessity, the authoritarian avenue is evident. Like you, I would say the hierarchy and egalitarian are most evident.
In an authoritarian context, employees being on-time and following company policy would be celebrated. Rituals would be dictated by the “boss.” In an egalitarian setting, collaboration among staff would be celebrated while rituals ensuring that equity among colleagues would be at the forefront of everyone’s mind. It’s basically a rigid environment in the authoritative setting, while the egalitarian setting would be more relaxed.
I’m curious where you think your district or site fits? I wonder if our thoughts align or if our perspectives are different.
I believe that rituals and and ceremonies in an authoritarian situation would be extremely formal, with a designated speaker who would go over assigned topics with very little deviation. There would be no room for individual input for new people coming into the organization, or perhaps even for long-tenured teachers; all decisions would be made at the top and trickle down through the school to those with the least authority. An egalitarian context would function more as a community, with potentially more democratic ideals in ritual and ceremony for the school. There would be a great deal of distributed leadership, both formally and informally, and many people would have input in the decision making of the school culture.
I agree, Sean. I think of military uniforms and ceremonies within an authoritarian structure. Egalitarian structures would be more grassroots.
I believe the questions asked at the end do reveal a lot about which context you work in. How are decisions made and implemented is a big revelation to your organization.
I see that ceremonies and rituals would be different among the various cultures. In an authoritarian context, I could see this as being a recognition during an assembly for a teacher or student that achieved what the principal dictated as the exemplar. On the other hand, in a egalitarian context, I could see this as being recognition at an assembly where the group decided on who was to receive the award and the qualifications of that award.
I think Jason is on track as well with his view of authoritarian being like a lecture and the egalitarian being like a group discussion. Great visual.
Yes, the principal as exemplar would definitely be an authoritative move while the egalitarian assembly would focus more on the care and concern for others instead of the individual.
My school is somewhere in the hierarchical quadrant. There is a obvious chain of command and a large focus on the group. District goals and objectives keep schools, teachers, and students focused on the same mission. New expectations or initiatives are met with several reactions, from immediate acceptance to instant refusal. However, once the majority of the staff get on board, those hesitant recognize they are now an obstacle in any potential progress and will usually adapt for the group. Every teacher serves on at least one committee, which increases support with shared decision making.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context, I’d imagine any ceremonies or rituals would focus on the organization as a whole, or those at the top. The rituals would be consistent and structured. Emphasis would be on the importance of following the rules and providing explicit instructions. In contrast, an egalitarian ceremonies would be less consistent and structured. Focus would be on the community and the goals of the group. Emphasis on the community as a whole. I envision the authoritarian ceremony similar to a lecture and the egalitarian as a group discussion.
I think your thought of the lecture versus group discussion for these two contexts is a great way to think of the two situations. These two seem to be nearly polar opposite approaches to school culture and structure, with the emphasis on a vertical chain of command as opposed to a more horizontal community relationship.
Jason, good example of authoritarian vs. egalitarian. I always have to find things in my life to reference when trying to understand a new theory or approach. This made me think of Dave Ramsey financial peace university (free spirit Vs. nerd). Authoritarian being the nerd= buy the book, structure, strict, etc. and then the Egalitarian being the free spirit= freedom, team, free flowing, etc.
In an authoritarian context, rituals and ceremonies may emphasize how individuals or teams succeed in meeting the requirements of the authority figure. They will center on the authority and the entire event will be controlled by this person. In an egalitarian context, the rituals and ceremonies will perhaps emphasize the overall community and togetherness of the group and the accomplishments they have achieved together. They will center on the individualism that brings them together and will ebb and flow with their members.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
The authoritarian context offers little individual support. In an authoritarian state, the “leader”/”boss” is not looking for differences among staff and so would not create opportunities for ceremonies and rituals in the workplace at all. This is unfortunate as positive ceremonies and rituals (as probably seen in an egalitarian context) not only unite a team, but they also significantly encourage one another. This encouragement brings comradery, compradery brings strength, and strength leads to effectiveness!
Taya,
I politely disagree with your statement that an authoritarian context would not all ceremonies and rituals in the workplace. I would suggest instead that the rituals and ceremonies would center on the authority figure them self. They would control who received each award and why they were given. For example, in an authoritarian context, the principal could choose to have an assembly for student of the month, set the criteria for selection, ask for student names, review candidates to make sure they met the criteria, schedule the assembly, and be the sole presenter of the awards to the students of the month.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context the ceremonies would be very time honored and structured and would be the same year in and year out. In my mind it is very much like the military. In the egalitarian context these things would be very fluid and ever changing. As the times change so would the ceremonies and rituals. Teachers would have a lot more input into determining the ceremonies and rituals.
Rob – great connection on how the authoritarian context would be much like the military. I hadn’t thought about that, but it does make sense.
I like the idea of having more teacher input into determining the ceremonies and rituals. Further, I like the idea of having the kids help come up with these ideas and planning! Their leas.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context the administration controls things with little or no input from the instructors and staff. In this type of administration the ceremonies and rituals would be the same year to year with little or no change.
In an egalitarian context the control is more spread out, with input from instructors and staff having meaning. It would be possible for others to decide on ceremonies and rituals that take place with more change occurring from year to year.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Authoritarian leadership is based on sole decision making, or the part of a few, as a means to speak for the group. These decisions are then passed down to the many that are underneath the leadership, thus, making one person, or a few, the voice. In an egalitarian leadership system, the group makes decisions together, and consensus is met with voices from all. This empowers everyone involved and is the best approach when trying to build a team and positive school climate and culture.
I think of school wide decisions when administrators and teachers are both open to hearing each others views and take these into consideration. I also think of having a school meeting where a vote is taken followed by questions going forward. Team culture and atmosphere is the way to go!
My building is more hierarchical culture context. We work as teams but for a common agreed upon goal.
As for the ceremonies and rituals,
authoritarian would keep the toe to line speech, where as egalitarian is more for the team and the common purpose.
Hey there Josh!
I like your example about the culture and how you stated your teams work toward a common agreed upon goal. It is quite important for school climate and culture, especially for retainment purposes. I wonder if you think that there might be many elements throughout the year, depending on the situation at hand.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context, the directive of the ceremony or the ritual may come from one or two people. These decisions would be made by a few and past down to the rest of the organization. The first example of this that comes to mind is the structure and ritual involved in our morning announcements. We have a very long process of pledges, school creed, and announcements that cut into the beginning of our day.
In a egalitarian context there would be much more value placed on the collective group decision making. For instance, we participate in a community outreach weekend in which our students serve in the community. There are several members on this committee and all opinions are taken into consideration.
Hey there Marci!
I think your example of community outreach is great for the students. The fact that you have a committee to go forward with this is amazing, as well as the ability of the committee to work as a team, not emphasizing someone else’s opinion over another.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
I work in a hierarchical culture context. Teamwork is heavily emphasized with priority on common planning time and weekly professional learning community meetings. The early intervention assessment process and focused data meetings, teams of people are needed simply to get the caseload completed in compliance with the law.
How have new ideas been implemented?
New ideas are often introduced as professional development, followed with modeling and sometimes the use of rubrics. Continues with more seminars and various PD. New cultural ideas are introduced to teachers sometimes as a natural side effect of teaching with social-emotional methods. Educators always, always multi-task.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context ceremonies and rituals would emphasize keeping in line so to speak. It is a similar mindset to that of factory production. Do your work and don’t make waves.
In an egalitarian context, the team is emphasized. Common purpose and goals paramount individual needs to autonomy and recognition.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
There are many differences between an authoritarian context and an egalitarian context. Authoritarian context focuses on a transparent chain of demand. Ceremonies and rituals would be decided on by the administrators, with little or no input from others on the staff. In an authoritarian context, the administrator would carry on with ceremonies and rituals that they think are best, and disregard any other opinions.
In an egalitarian context, the group would decide on ceremonies and rituals together. An egalitarian setting would not handle authority telling them what to do. In this setting, traditions would be held on tight by the group.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In the authoritarian context, the employee gets little to no say and most likely does not feel like opinions are valued, and input is not needed nor welcome. The authoritarian gets to make all decisions, and employees are just expected to follow those decisions. Therefore, ceremonies and rituals would be set by this person, and those would be set according to their values and beliefs, not the values and belief of the organization as a whole.
In the egalitarian context, everyone would get a say. This could take time to talk with everyone and ensuring each voice is heard, and no one voice is valued more than the rest. I feel this is a more holistic approach and could be useful in some situations. However, other situations that require quick decision making would not fair well with this approach.
Mindy,
I agree with your post. I think that it would be hard to work in an authoritarian context. Having little to no input would be challenging. I enjoyed reading your post.
-Mary Murray
Hey there Mindi!
Great points and great approaches here in your comment. I do wonder, though, if you feel that these approaches are both there every day. You mention quick decision making, would that mean decision making without consensus from the team? Some decisions require this. I always recommend going toward teamwork and team-like atmosphere as it brings the best school culture and climate! Nice post!
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
The authoritian context seems to be as if the boss is the important figure within the building and that is all that matters, their way or no way. This comes along with very strict rules and very little appricaiation for their employees. I feel as like you show up to work follow the rules and come back the next day any do it again.
The Egalitarian context is very different, I feel that every employee is valued. Like I always ocme back to it takes a village to run a school and when you feel valued as an employee and are not tied down to very strict rule more than likely your school will run like a well oiled machine. In this context it is a team rather than one person calling the shots, and this is important to making every staff member and “job” within your school a success.
Hello Ali,
Your comments really are resounding and thoughtful. I think many teachers and aspiring principals have taught under less than ideal contexts and truly appreciate egalitarian contexts.
what might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Authoritarian ceremonies and rituals are very rule and regulation heavy. The emphasis would be placed on how well you followed the rules. I think you could say people in these types of organizations are like robots. If you show up and follow the rules for the next 30 years, we will give you a gold watch when you retire. Egalitarian context would see each member of the team as valuable. They would focus on how to make each roll a success. They see it as if you win then we all win. For example, former CEO of Ford, Allen Mulally, focused on creating a team like culture. If someone was struggling in one department they would stop and ask, what do we need to do to help you turn your red light into a green light? He turned the focus to “we” instead of “me”. Egalitarian cultures celebrate team wins, instead of individual wins.
Ryan, I feel like you are exactly on point! I love the celebration of we vs me statement. This describes both contexts in a simple statement.
I agree with you that the egalitarian context is much better than the authoritarian context. I believe that with the authoritarian context ceremonies and rituals will remain unchanged unless the administration changes. With the egalitarian context the instructors and staff will have more input on what types of ceremonies and rituals take place at the school.
I really feel like I would prefer a little bit of both. My military background tends to make me lean toward a more traditional type of ritual or ceremony. Very structured and rule driven. Then there is the side of me that likes to have fun and goof off. I think this would be the part that of me that would have fun activities at different times. I think there is a place for both contexts. How to share that is another question all together.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
I believe in an authoritarian context, everything has to be run exactly according to rules and regulations. For example, one may look at the NCAA and all of the rules and regulations that coaches have to follow in order to be able to do anything. For recruiting, there are rules for certain times of year, and how you have to talk to student athletes, and what you can offer them, the rules go on and on, and this sometimes can take away from the ability of the coaches to really get to know the student athletes that they are recruiting and can in turn make their job a lot harder than it could be. The job is to win ball games and sometimes all of those rules and regulations make that job a lot harder than it should be.
In an egalitarian context, these ceremonies and rituals are based on the student athletes in my example from above, I am not going to say that this system would be better than the authoritarian, but it would allow both coaches and student athletes to really be able to show all of their talents when it comes to recruiting and playing. But with this idea in mind, it makes it harder to regulate the play of the game and then the question of fairness comes into play. Again, I believe that competition breeds success and when given the opportunity to be able to compete at the highest level without any limits, some may succeed more than others.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In authoritarian context ceremonies and rituals, everything would be very tight and top down. Rules of compliance and following strict rules, procedures, and laws could make a threatening environment that doesn’t develop talent or leadership. The regulations passed by federal and state governments could outway the individual needs of the students. In egalitarian context ceremonies and rituals, the group would be considered as valuable and individuals within the group would be valued for their contribution to the whole. It would be important to have strong relationships and trust in leaders and members of the group. A clear vision and recognition for following the group goals would need to be an ongoing focus to meet student needs.
Angela, I love how you described this. In an authoritarian context it seems that it is about the boss and the process rather than the people that are doing the work, whether they be students or employees. Whereas in the egalitarian context, it is about the group as a whole and the end goal more so than focusing on following each little detail of a role instead of the end goal.
Angela I like what you stated about the authoritarian context being so restrictive that it limits the opportunity of the teachers to grow and try new ways of teaching or integrating. It also makes teachers afraid of trying to expand their horizons and ask for new tasks or responsibilities since the working environment is so strict. I also agree that in an egalitarian context each individual is recognized for their part they play within the group which is crucial to positive school culture.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
A ceremony or ritual an authoritarian context may emphasize could be the completion or “success” of a goal that was created by the administrator and then handed down. This goal/plan would have included a detailed execution strategy for each individual in the group. In the egalitarian context, this goal would have been developed based on needs or feedback from the group. The strategies or approaches on how to meet the goal may also differ based on each individual.
Although the individual needs may be conflicting, the goal in an egalitarian context still addresses their needs when being developed for the group. It seems difficult, especially with so many within the group. However, given a flexible group, this can meet great things for both teachers and students.
I agree with you, almost as if the “boss” per-say wanted all the credit for the acomplishment and then would hand it down like a gift to their employees if that makes sense. You must have feedback from employees because as a boss you do want feedback and you want your staffs support.
Good point on the egalitarian context being based on the needs or feedback of the group, and how this can differ on an individual basis
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an education system the authoritarian structure would focus on teachers and students following specific rules set forth by the administrator in charge of that organization/school. Emphasis would be placed on the individual teachers and students following specific rules or tasks assigned by the principal and then recognition of those tasks would be up to the principal based on what they see as efficient. Ceremonies and rituals would be decided on by the principal, therefore most celebrations would almost have to come from academic data such as formal assessments and this would leave little room to acknowledge success for some learners. In an egalitarianism system the focus would be on working in groups as one. The emphasis would be on building connections and relationships and making sure that everyone has an equal part in the group becoming successful. Ceremonies and rituals would be created by the group and celebrated by the whole group. This leaves little room to really focus on students and teachers unique individual skills and accomplishments. I believe the education system would thrive more if it was a blended system more like the hierarchical system- because we need a leader/principal to follow that sets expectations and ensures accountability and we need to be able to work together in groups and build connections but it’s valuable to be recognized for our(students and teachers) strengths and successes no matter if that occurs in a group or individually.
I agree. No school community needs just one system through and through. A blend or fluidity is necessary.
When I first came to this school I had been hired by a new principal who mostly kept procedures as they were under the previous principal. Since it was all new to me I was able to see it from an outsider’s perspective and found myself asking “Why are we doing this?” The answer always was along the lines of that was how the last principal did it. They had extra time built into the schedule for first hour because announcements were rather lengthy. Any assembly or ceremony was easily a half-day ordeal. Every little detail was planned by the principal and communicated. Over the years we have become more egalitarian by creating a leadership team that addresses issues and plans school events. More teachers have a say in how we do things so that now when asked why we do something more of us can explain the reasoning. The more difficult element is the details. It is not always perfect with so many involved in the process.
It is always surprising how many times people cannot determine a reason behind the purpose beyond, “This is how it has always been done”!
I can not stand that phrase! In order to remain relevant innovation must be a constant, it must be something that happens everyday. Rear Admiral Grace Hopper says, “The most dangerous phrase in the language is, we’ve always done it this way.”
In an authoritarian context ceremonies and rituals may emphasize the following of rules and maintaining the proper structure laid out by authority figures. Within the egalitarian context, group achievement and individual achievement may be celebrated. Also within egalitarian context, goal achievement can be emphasized through promotion within the organization.
Tyler- I liked your explanation of egalitarian context. I think the addition of the ability to be promoted within the organization is a huge benefit to this style of leadership. Members of an organization need to know there is a possibility of advancement, and that this choice is supported by their group. Well stated!
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an Authoritarian context the leaders (principals or administrators) control all decision making and are consistent with the way ceremonies and rituals are held. Students know that if they earn grades to be recognized for the Honor Roll, then they will be recognized. Group goals are not celebrated because all recognition is placed on individuals, so collaboration is not supported or encouraged. Historically, it was a ritual for teachers to not integrate or collaborate with other teachers, which now in the 21st century, is becoming the norm. When one person is calling all the shots, it usually turns out that that person is making decisions based on personal feelings and not for the needs of the entire group.
Egalitarianism promotes collaboration, communication, and gives teachers freedom in their decision making. Teachers can create their own ceremonies/rituals within their classroom, choosing to celebrate the progress of students, whether that be academically or behaviorally. Egalitarianism doesn’t have a specific leader in charge, and in a ceremony, tasks would be delegated. This could cause some uncertainty or confusion when completing tasks, where as in an Authoritarian context, there is a go to person for questions and individuals are assigned specific tasks.
Karynn, I liked how you related the authoritarian system to how things used to be done or old school and how the egalitarianism system is related to 21st century schools and learning. I thought that was a good comparison. I can see this in my school when things aren’t being done the way certain teachers think(whether they are new or veteran teachers). I think that is why it is important to get buy-in or have a leader that can truly blend these two styles effectively.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context, there is little to no room for autonomy or group goals. Subordinates are expected to follow the rules and procedures without question, and are not allowed to offer any ideas to make changes. Little choice in what is taught, what is used to teach, and how things are taught. The chain of command is clear.
In an egalitarian context, working as a group toward a goal is highly valued. There is equal distribution of supplies among everybody, and workers are encouraged to work with their colleagues. Everyone works together simultaneously, so there really is no set hierarchy.
When having a monthly staff meeting, implementing new policies or procedures would be extremely different when considering the two contexts. In an authoritarian context, policies and procedures are set, and teachers are expected to implement them, no questions asked. In an egalitarian context, there would definitely be more communication and input from staff members about how to effectively implement new policies and procedures…they would be created as a group, and instead of saying, let’s find out the best way to implement this new idea, a school leader might ask the staff, “How can we make the lunchroom procedures more effective?” and give the staff an opportunity to talk about it and share ideas.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Ceremonies and rituals in an authoritarian context would likely be very consistent. While clearly articulated and understood by all, there is a risk of having less buy-in since it would be more likely that the ceremonies and rituals would be dictated from the leader instead of being co-created. They would likely emphasize predetermined rules, roles, and rewards specific to individuals.
In an egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals would have been more likely to have been co-constructed by the group. While this groups values relationship and equity within the group, the challenge would be introducing and welcoming outsiders. These would likely emphasize unity, equality, and community.
The terminology you used of being co-created and co-constructed really caught my attention because they would foster much stronger group buy-in for any culture. Also, I agree that it can be a challenge to keep open to introducing and welcoming outsiders when groups are too tight or in some cases none existent.
So true Michelle. Some people like the clearly defined predictable ceremonies and rituals of schools, while some do not have a lot of buy-in so they don’t participate much just follow along. When they are co-constructed most of he people in the group want to make it successful and participate, but you are also correct in that it would be hard for others to want to join. For instance the other stakeholders in the school system.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals would emphasize everyone is a winner and everyone gets a prize. It creates a school in which everyone is treated as an equal and everyone has a say in how things are done. Everyone in an egalitarian system would have some input as to what the ceremonies and rituals would look like and how they would be handled.
Authoritarian ceremonies and rituals would have more of a single winner with one person making the decision of who won the prize. The ceremonies and rituals would not differ in any way as they would consistently be the same. One person would create the ceremonies and rituals and everyone else would be responsible for following.
I agree. I feel like a good system would be a balance of both. It takes an administrator to figure out what policies and procedures need to be put in place, but I believe that collaborating and getting lots of ideas for good practices would result in a better functioning system.
Every situation calls for a different, unique response specific to the environment and needs. I agree with Megan that it take a thoughtful administrator to determine which approach is appropriate for each circumstance.
I am unsure of my new site, but my previous site was certainly egalitarian. We were a very tight-knit group and approached almost everything together. Community, equality, and valuing everyone’s voices were very important to the group.
We often sat down has a whole group to discuss large decisions. We redrafted our mission and strategic plans as an entire group of 15. Everyone had the opportunity to share their perspective and the success of the group was the primary concern. We even did interviews under this model. (However, we all agreed being interviewed by 12+ people was horrific, it was what always ended up happening). Every individual shared their voice and that was what was important. If it had been a mandate or conceived by only a few people, it was usually worried to the point that it had to come to the full group.
This was likely not the most efficient and probably unnecessary, but for our small site, we were able to make it work. We each have strengths and areas of growth, and we all wanted to be a part of decision making because we were all so heavily invested in each other, our students, and the school.
I would say my school district has a Hierarchical Culture. There is a top down culture that incorporates group decisions through the use of PLCs and through teacher trainers that meet with their schools and district administration on a regular basis. There is pressure to consider group goals. This past year the implementation of project based learning was pushed through staff development and the requirement for every class to implement at least 1 project per semester. This year one low performing elementary school is being changed to a complete project based site. The implementation was accepted mostly by those that already held a belief it could be successful. As a whole I saw many teachers ignore the implementation and nothing was changed in the majority of classrooms. The district did a much better job though of including teachers in the selection of our math curriculum. Meetings were held and materials were made available for all teachers to peruse. The final choice was what most teachers wanted. The implementation of the new curriculum should be successful this year due to the teacher input and buy in.
I think all of the cultural types and mindsets are necessary for effective leadership because I don’t think it’s about the leader – I think it’s about the processes. Depending on the characteristics of a process (operational/humanational), each part of the group and grid is necessary. Again, there is an art to this. I absolutely believe in micromanaging the compliance/task components ahead of time so that they do not come off so much as directives as they just are. If they are implemented correctly, they should be almost invisible. A healthy culture is reflected in positive perceptions of climate and holistic systems leadership is critical for group and grid synchronization. I think we are definitely a hierarchical culture with small pockets of egalitarianism. The hierarchical evidence is seen by the number of players who work in a cohesive, integrated system for the benefit of our students. However, there is also evidence that we have a number of people who still operate almost exclusively from a positional authority perspective. The egalitarian characteristics are seen mainly at individual sites that have concentrated on building collaborative and equitable relationships. While they actually seem to embrace the group goals and activities, there is some distrust of outsiders.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
I would think that in an authoritarian context ceremonies and rituals would be used to reward those individuals who did as they were told. I would expect it to be a dog eat dog environment where everyone is out for themselves.
In an egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals would probably be more group-based and all or nothing. We all sink or we all swim.
I think all of the cultural types and mindsets are necessary for effective leadership because I don’t think it’s about the leader – I think it’s about the processes. Depending on the characteristics of a process (operational/humanational), each part of the group and grid is necessary. Again, there is an art to this. I absolutely believe in micromanaging the compliance/task components ahead of time so that they do not come off so much as directives as they just are. If they are implemented correctly, they should be almost invisible. A healthy culture is reflected in positive perceptions of climate and holistic systems leadership is critical for group and grid synchronization. I think we are definitely a hierarchical culture with small pockets of egalitarianism. The hierarchical evidence is seen by the number of players who work in a cohesive, integrated system for the benefit of our students. However, there is also evidence that we have a number of people who still operate almost exclusively from a positional authority perspective. The egalitarian characteristics are seen mainly at individual sites that have concentrated on building collaborative and equitable relationships. While they actually seem to embrace the group goals and activities, there is some distrust of outsiders.
I think we are definitely a hierarchical culture with small pockets of egalitarianism. The hierarchical evidence is seen by the number of players who work in a cohesive, integrated system for the benefit of our students. However, there is also evidence that we have a number of people who still operate almost exclusively from a positional authority perspective. The egalitarian characteristics are seen mainly at individual sites that have concentrated on building collaborative and equitable relationships. While they actually seem to embrace the group goals and activities, there is some distrust of outsiders.
I love that this is expanding the concepts we learned in Ethics and Culture class. I still remember where the dots for my department were clustered on the grid and group after the survey. My departments data yielded evidence of a mostly egalitarian culture that had some hierarchy. The nature of Fine Arts require their educators to collaborate. For example, the school musical is a production that requires the expertise of the drama, band, choir and art teams. Autonomy is a noted characteristic of egalitarian culture. Usually, curriculum content, goals, and programming is a result of creativity that is allowed for Fine Arts. As Matt Cook mentioned most of the staff in our department don’t feel micro-managed. However, we are keenly aware that we operate in the larger bureaucratic system. This is why the dots on our grid group were very close to the hierarchy part of the grid. All of our decisions and programing must align with that hierarchy.
I have had the privilege of working in variations of all four of these domains. When I first started teaching, my building principal had created a school culture that was extremely high grid and extremely low group. On any given day, depending on who you talked to in our building, you would have heard things that would have varied between Authoritarian or Individualist. It was polarizing in its own right, but one thing was true, and everyone knew it–the head principal was in charge and not to be questioned. For those teachers and staff members who got along with her, there was a Individualistic climate, because you could really get whatever you wanted, but there was still very little loyalty, because you never really knew if the tide was going to turn against you. For those who did not get along with her, nearly every step and facet of their day was controlled, which led to extremely low loyalty and those folks usually did not stick around long at all either.
The principal for whom I’ve worked for the last several years has created a climate that is almost completely opposite from the principal whom I’ve just described. It might be useful to know that there were several years of transition between these two leaders; they did not lead consecutively to one another. My current principal combines elements of Hierarchical and Egalitarian structures. Most everyone who works for her is respected as a professional and feels as though they have a voice in how and what decisions are made, particularly within their discipline and classroom. Although there is a clear hierarchy within the building, I cannot think of an example where anyone is deliberately made to feel controlled or micro-managed. For that reason, the only factors that can be truly “blamed” for teacher attrition are ones that are beyond her control such as competitive pay in other states, arenas of employment, etc.
I believe that my school district is best summarized as a corporate/hierarchical culture. There is a strong group mentality in my district, but there is also a level of individual autonomy to meet the mission and goals of the district. In my building in particular, the vision is reiterated quite often, and there is a big emphasis on strategizing how to live up to that vision. But, there is a lot of ways that individualism is encouraged. Such things as getting teacher input for certain strategies to tackle dilemmas, allowing the teachers in each department to choose curriculum with reason, and forming teacher committees to help navigate making big decisions.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
I spent some time thinking about this one. It’s not easy to settle completely, but I think that my workplace is mostly situated in hierarchy context. While I like to think our teachers have quite a bit of freedom and autonomy, we are fairly high in Grid. For example, we have set procedures and protocols for many things at school. We have an agreed-upon curriculum for each course and the teachers agree to follow the curriculum map, there is a procedure for selecting textbooks and curriculum across courses and departments, etc. The teachers do have freedom in how they choose to teach concepts, not two are exactly the same. We also try to have high levels of collective agreement in school goals. Therefore, we hope to be high in Group. We may fall short at times, but we are working on it!
How have new ideas been implemented?
We rely on our PLCs, Department Head meetings and leadership team meetings to make improvements and develop new ideas. Our principal is open to change, and welcomes input. This is not to say that he makes all decisions collectively, but we strive to work with our teams of leaders and teachers to develop change for the school.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
Many of them have been successful. I think about procedural changes we made that required students to complete make up work in after school Evening Alternative School settings rather than taking up class time to take a missed quiz. This one has gone well. Some changes in how we handle attendance policy have been successful. Not everything has been a smashing success of course. To make these better, we should reassess how things went and look for input from our leadership teams and PLCs to make adjustments for the better.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
This is a fairly complex question in that depending on the task at hand I feel two of the cultural contexts apply. First I would say I work in the Hierarchical area, but the current administrator is very much group orientated as well. Where the Egalitarian approach is not consistent with my workplace is that my administrator welcomes all group input, whether they are in the inner circle group or not.
How have new ideas been implemented?
New ideas are presented to the staff and then teams are usually built to carry out those tasks. Those teams are developed by interest based, or asked by the administrator who feels your strengths would be an asset to the team.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
I would say the new ideas implemented were almost always successful. One of the reasons is that the group was working towards a common goal, and the administrator acted as a guide on the side. Not in an authoritarian style, but as a mentor and part of the team to ensure we were successful in completing our goal.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?I think I work within a hierarchy. There is much individual autonomy and personalized learning is valued. For example, I am currently at a conference for world language teachers where I am literally the only person without a second language. However, I sought to explore how administrators evaluate when the delivery is not in the language of the elevator. My district supported me. However, new ideas have been implemented using a very top down system concerning the world language programs. Teachers were told what curriculum would be taught versus having input into the process. A cohort of teacher experts ranging from elementary to high school language teachers were not asked to voice their expertise. Within this new system the technology adopted was dictated to teachers. They tried to explain why that adoption was not best for language acquisition and it fell on deaf ears. Implementations that have been successful have been the district wide move to proficiency based assessments. This process of pilot groups, teacher input, and data based research created an egalitarian culture in which the implementation was successful because teachers felt buy in and ownership of the process.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
I’m with Ross on this one. I think there are organizations who promote themselves as egalitarian but in reality are more of a hierarchy.
How have new ideas been implemented?
I teach college computer science courses. I am the instructor and make adjustments as necessary (yay for academic freedom, ). But, courses are pretty much handed to us already designed.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
Ok, so I just went to a training session a few months ago (thank you for the stipend). This was more of a “this is how it’s going to be” session rather than a “we’d like to make some improvements, do you have any ideas or recommendations” session. Just because I’m being paid doesn’t mean there is automatic buy-in but thank you for the candy. We shall see how the new structure works (fall out?) in the fall. Summer teachers are currently working through it.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
I see my work situation as heiarchical, with a lot of top-down innitiatives. However, at the site level there is more room for bottom-up ideas/practices. Example: when I joined the district a few years back there was a board policy of “two grades per week” & I went to my Supervisor uncomfortable with this (I preferred a more Assessment for Learning approach). He agreed to let me bend the rules a bit by allowing my use of retakes/redos to replace the idea of two new and separate grades per week. Yet, I still had to get that cleared “up the ladder” (his exact phrase).
How have new ideas been implemented?
I suppose that depends on the breadth of the idea. Local, department (or even site-based) ideas have a tendency to spread organicslly before they became formal. District-wide practices often become part of the evaluation discussions.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
Again, that would depend on your definition of success – are staff members doing the innitiative out of compliance? Or, have staff members “bought in”?
One thing the district is trying to include more of is standard based grading at the secondary levels. While I applaud this move, I see a need at the site levels for that philosophical understanding before and physicall changes such as a shift from the traditional system of letter grades. Part of the downfall of being a large district is this philosophical disconnect that can happen. Especially when there is little to no funding for professional development. One district I know of approached this large district issue by requiring all new staff members to do quarterly half-day PD sessions for the first three years of employemnt with the district (the district paid for subs & meetings were during the school day). The first year one worked within the district, the focus was classroom management – the intent was to reduce turnover. The second year was unpacking standards & curriculum (local, state, and national organization). The goal here was to get teachers identifying key standards and separating “want to teach” from “responsible for teaching”. The third year was about assessments – mapping them out, how to use them for various outcomes, and how to write quality assessments. This led to talks on standards-based assessments and better vertical allignment for skill expectations.
Not only did this help define the shared terminology used, but it helped build cross-site and cross-level connections that many continued to nuture after the perscribed mettings were complete.
From a site level, my building is hands down the best. The reason that I say this is because there is an equal balance from this aspect, in that we (as classroom teachers) have the ability to do our jobs, yet we know that the chain of command exists.
Considering the district level, I would say hierarchical. However, we are in a transition period with leadership changes, so I am excited to see what direction our district takes over the course of the next year!
As for new ideas, etc., I am not sure as this is only going to be my second year in the district. Like previously mentioned, we are transitioning into a new era of leadership, so I think with that, there will be new ideas implemented and changes that are made.
I worked at an organization that prided itself on being egalitarian. When in fact they were very hierarchical. Initially, this was very comforting to me as a new employee as it was something I was familiar. But over the years I quickly became aware of the juxtaposition of the words that were used in meetings and the actual physical practice. In some respects, I think this culture could have benefited from Simply choosing hierarchal instead of saying one thing and practicing another.
For example: an attempt was made to come up with new goals for the coming year. People were asked their opinion and encouraged to get together in groups. In fact the CEO decided what the goals were and we had a meeting where she delivered those goals to us. It was a waste of time and energy. Her goals were great! But they weren’t our goals and therefore her employees couldn’t really get behind them because we were not a part of the process. She was a good leader from her cultural point of view. I think we all could have been leaders and made the company that much stronger.
Hey Ross, I agree about the egalitarian in hierarchy’s clothing. It seems that at times input is an illusion and the decision has already been made.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
How have new ideas been implemented?
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
I believe I work in a cultural of hierarchical contexts. Central-office administration, site administration, teachers, students, and parents work in a cohesive, integrated system for the benefit of all involved is the statement that really convinced me that my school is in the hierarchical contexts. Our central office really focuses on all stakeholders working together in order to make the best decisions for all. Since I have only been in the district for a year the one new thing they implemented across the district is the Lexia program. I think for the first year, implementation when well. We had training before school across the district and on different days. Then we also had additional trainings throughout the year.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
How have new ideas been implemented?
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
Since I work at an university I believe I work in an Egalitarian culture because I have my own role within my group. As a matter of fact, I am the only one that does what I do in my immediate environment, but there are others across the campus that have similar roles just in different disciplines. I have a liaison role in that manner because there is a larger unit that is dedicated to my actual role where others relate to challenges faced but I am located in an environment dedicated to student services and includes other specialties.
New ideas are not implemented without push back. I have been in staff meetings concerning new policies and procedures that became very hostile. Sometimes it is with blame from outside our immediate group which basically means “deal with it” and other times it is a change that needs to occur internal to make work “better”. Either way it tends to not be well received and it is likely because of “change”. People do not like change. They get set in their ways and when that gets interrupted it disrupts their flow. I’ve noticed when changes are coming down the pipeline that they are communicated as annoying or with positive outlook. I’ve also noticed that neither way makes others happy.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
How have new ideas been implemented?
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
I come from the perspective at the district level so I know it may vary from site to site within the district, however, in my opinion, I feel I work in as mainly hierarchial. It is group centered and consideration of what is best for students and student learning is always at the forefront.
The implementation of new ideas is a challenge with a larger sized school district. There is great effort to inform all stakeholders, provide training and reinforce it regularly, however, there are times things do fall off the radar. Another roadblock we have faced with new ideas is funding. You can initiate a new idea and think you have everything in place, but over the last 7 years funding has been so erratic, unfortunately initiatives have had to fall to the wayside because of the budget crisis. Hopefully that may change now.
The most successful implementation happens when a lot of stakeholder are involved in the process. It’s important to hear from all the stakeholder groups, include different groups in the process and then share the messaging process with them.
Overall I’d characterize a lot of my teaching experience as mostly authoritarian or hierarchical in nature. Usually at the start of the year we get the big sales push for that year. It’ll be some new rubric we evaluate each other with informally, something extra to have to write on the board every day, etc. As is often the case with the Good Idea Fairy, these new things are dropped on staff with little staff input, are rarely practiced, and whatever data from these experiments that could be refined and collated isn’t.
I believe the two cultural contexts that would resemble my place of work (school) would fall slightly under the Individualists and mainly Egalitarian quadrant. The main reason I would say Individualists is in name alone. I serve at an alternative high school and the instruction we provide is very individualized for each student and self paced. The student and teachers work together to create an individualized path towards graduation for the student. This path is created based upon the student’s strengths, weaknesses and needs.
Regarding the Egalitarian context of the school, I believe this is the dominant culture. As a staff, we have the responsibility of carefully creating a path of success for each student on a case by case basis. However, this can be in direct conflict with a Egalitarian style of our school model which utilizes school wide policies regarding student performance. We collectively support our students through an Advisor / Advisee class which supports the overall academic and character education. This also represents the fundamental goals of our school. At our school each, we have to take into consideration each situation and identify ways we can support the individual student collectively as a school. This includes staff having active roles in decision making, increasing the school’s outreach and participation within the community, authority defined and determined by support of the communal group, and decision making governed largely by group consensus. A main component of our school is teacher input regarding student and school wide decisions. Each member is expected to be an active participant. This is out of necessity, due to our size and the expectations by other staff members and the students they represent. Each staff member acts as a representative “voice” for the students and our school to collectively support our school community.
I am not joking or exaggerating, but I actually took a picture of the Four Cultural Context grid and sent it to my assistant principals and our counselors at the school I work at. I love it!
Unfortunately, our school does not always function at the Hierarchy level, but that is our goal. There are times that it has to be Authoritarian, especially when there are mandates from central office..
Hierarchy has a time and place unfortunately, especially with teaching schedules and room assignments.
But our overall goal it the Hierarchy level and as a leadership group, I want our team to shoot for this!
I believe the school district I worked in fell into the Hierarchical Culture area. The sentence that helped me come to my conclusion is “Central-office administration, site administration, teachers, students, and parents work in a cohesive, integrated system for the benefit of all involved.” To me, this is what my district stood for and believed in, daily. The is a feel on the campus that I don’t think is the same everywhere. People wanted others to know where we were from and honestly had the strong corporate unity and identity. New ideas are implemented in many ways. Some are passed down by the administration and others are formulated through focus groups and other collaborative opportunities. My school did a great job seeing that these ideas were implemented, even if it was short lived. They wanted to give the opportunity for change and improvement. As stated before, not all of the implementations were successful, but the teachers were given opportunities to succeed with the new ideas, some worked and some did not.
The sentence that you quoted is the sentence that convinced me as well. I think that sentence says it all about how a school should function. Everyone working for the betterment of all.
In which of the four cultural contexts do you work?
I believe I work in an authoritarian environment. Mainly because, while I think many of us have some great ideas and have presented many aspects of change, they fall on deaf ears. While we are told what the goal is (somewhat), we have no say in how to get there. Our job is to stay in our office and stay busy. While I love to have time in my office to work on things, I think visiting schools is much more powerful.
How have new ideas been implemented?
Mostly new ideas are passed down to us like the ten commandments. However, most of the time, these new ideas are introduced but never see the light of day afterward.
Were the implementations successful? If not, how could they have been?
Like I said above, not very many ideas have made it to fruition. The one word that seems to come to mind often is lost. We are sheep that need a sheppard.
I’m fortunate to work in both Hierarchical and Egalitarian Cultures. Groups working collaboratively are extremely important and rarely does one individual have all the power (although it has happened).
New ideas are implemented when a group and/or an individual submits them. However, school leadership almost always considers the impact of the decision on the majority and not how financially feasibly or easy it would be. Our local education association is very powerful because of its group mentality and it has successfully negotiated important changes and benefits for our entire staff. So, yes, the implementation of receiving extra benefit way was successful this year. Our administration does whatever it possibly can to compromise or meet our requests.
I feel my organization operates in these three primary cultures of context which are egalitarian, hierarchy, and authoritarian. I believe our program functions best in a egalitarian context, but we are effected by the hierarchy & authoritarian at times.
New ideas have been implemented through an advisory board that helps guide us through a SWOT analysis from stakeholders in the community. These suggestions are reviewed by our egalitarian team along with our Executive Administration team.
We were successful in our implementation because the goals were realistic and achievable through our short-term and long-term goals.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Many schools today are still operating under an authoritarian context. Authoritarian contexts seek to get the job done but only through the input of the top employees. Egalitarian contexts, however, seek to get the job done through the input of many employees of various levels. In my experience, ceremonies and rituals in authoritarian contexts tend to be about the organization as the top employees want it to be. These often are completed well, but there’s little personalization to these items. In the egalitarian contexts I have experienced, each member of the team has valued input so that the ceremonies and rituals are meaningful to them as well as the students.
Authoritarians would emphasize rituals that are very structured such as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or a school song or creed. These teach children to fall in line and follow the rules and assume their role in the school culture.
Egalitarians would emphasize rituals that focus more on connections such as greetings and taking turns being helpful with a job chart or allowing students to give morning announcements. These teach children to work together and take ownership in the things that happen in their school and community.
Jacklyn, That is a great analogy and I agree that there are times that we need to be Authoritarians and Egalitarian within a school. When times are difficult, I struggle with not taking over and being authoritarian when I could stay calm and let it work itself out. A school with a Hierarchy culture is the goal, but it is not easy getting there!
Within the Egalitarian context, ceremonies and rituals showcase the efforts and successes of the group and not the individual. The effect, through loss of autonomy and individualism, would be a reluctance to infuse new or more creative ideas into the enviroment.
The authoritarian context although higher in individualistic definitions is controlled by the administrators who are the authority and who define what strategy and success look like. Ceremonies and rituals in this environment celebrate and emphasize the ideals of the leader and not necessarily those of the individual.
We strive to become more corroborative (corporate/hierarchical) but with a collective sense of buy-in. We work together to support a shared vision among our teachers and staff and encourage input and collaboration from individuals as we craft a shared vision. This is a work in progress, made even less complete because typically we have about 12-17 new staff every school year.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Ceremonies and rituals in an authoritarian context have a high emphasis on policies and procedures, and maintaining order. These are usually defined and decided upon by the school leader, and then distributed to the teachers. These ceremonies and rituals are not relationship based, and do not acquire a community lead learning organization. However, egalitarian ceremonies and rituals rely on relationship building, shared vision/mission/goals, and equal distribution of work within the learning organization. These groups view their members as equal.
Yes, I agree. Well put! It seems like the best place would be a balance between individualism and the collective. However, individualistic ideals cannot stray too far from the collective if there is to success. I think the key would be to allow individual voices to collectively craft the group’s goals!
In an authoritarian context, ceremonies and rituals would only emphasize honoring those who jumped through the hoops of best behavior and rigid adherence to the expected standards and mores of the governing body. Creativity and innovation cannot be allowed in that context as it would single you out as a possible usurper to those in control.
Almost the same may be said about the egalitarian context. Creativity and innovation cannot be allowed, for they would make you stand out from the collective; are you trying to be above the rest of us by standing out.
I think the main difference would be who is coming up with the ceremonies and rituals, who is implementing them and why. If it is authoritarian, its coming from the main leader and the boss is telling the teachers what and how to teach. If we are looking at rituals and ceremonies from an egalitarian, they most likely have been created as a group of teachers, voted on, and implemented. The school I am at is very egalitarian, where the teachers have complete creative freedom to be passionate and engaging. I think it would be hard to be passionate and creative with an authoritarian boss.
Good points Brielle!
In a learning organization I am apart of we went from having a hierarchal culture, to a egalitarian culture. This culture has been difficult due to everyone feeling as though they are equal. Although we have a strong relationship with each other in the organization, people feel as though everyone can each ‘equally’ add their input/two cents when issues arise. This makes it difficult because there are times when people within this group need to be ‘lead’ — everyone can add their input, but no one can make the decision. We need a leader that can say what we need to do and how we are going to do it — once they have heard all sides from the group. Therefore, I feel a though when there is too much pressure on the group to make the decisions this causes conflict — we need someone to help make them for us.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context, I believe ceremonies and rituals would be more leader-centered, whereas, in an egalitarian context, they would be more community-centered. Although the two opposing contexts do have strengths, I believe their weaknesses outweigh the strengths in cultivating an effective work environment for all stakeholders. I believe there needs to be a balance between leadership and community in cultivating a school environment. Therefore, in my opinion, a hierarchy would be the most beneficial context for a school to be effective in cultivating culture and student learning.
At my current site, we tend to operate in an Egalitarian structure, with some hints of hierarchy. There is a strong sense of loyalty to the group (both the site and the district) as well as to our leaders. That said, there is also an equal distribution of attention and resources across these areas. Relationships between departments, grades, and across the group are very welcoming and pleasing.
This also means there is an approach to those from different groups as being outsiders. Perhaps not to the degree of suspicion or hostility, but certainly a feeling of being not in the group. Furthermore, the drive of preserving the “greater good,” as it were, is central in most–if not all–official functions.
Because of the strong loyalty to the overall group, implementing new ideas often relies on this foundation–we do this because it is for the “greater good.” I should emphasize that this is more than a mere “buy-in.” The idea of a greater cause and connection with the site and district stems from a working relationship where the teacher, leaders, and district work for and with one another–this last part can be a sticking point when implementing new programs with students who feel disenfranchised and separated from the group. Overcoming this stumbling block, by changing behavior and perception, will help increase success in future projects.
One of things that these cultures emphasize differently is manner in which it deals with people and the manner in which rules are expected to be followed.
This year at my school we have experienced the authoritarian culture and last year our former principal employed the egalitarian culture. Day 1 of the authoritarian system was a rough transition for me! I was 8 minutes late for our first faculty meeting of the new year and my new principal called me out in front of the faculty, telling us that sort of behavior was unacceptable and would not be tolerated. My previous principal used the first half hour of the first faculty meeting as a light breakfast and mingle, so there was some wiggle room for the starting time. The entire faculty has had to adjust from the egalitarian culture where everyone had a voice and contributed to this authoritarian culture. Many are actually leaving teaching as a result.
How cool that you have had the chance to experience both culture types in such a short period of time! I went from a very authoritarian principal to a very egalitarian culture and the atmosphere is so much more relaxed and comfortable. It gives me the courage and passion to try new things while teaching and to be creative.
So sorry, Greg! My first year teaching was under an exceedingly authoritarian leader and I almost did not continue with teaching!
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
Authoritarian ceremonies and rituals seem to be more strict on what is celebrated, individual test scores, performance, etc. Whereas, egalitarian ceremonies and rituals are focusing on groups and teams.
Education seems to flourish in a hierarchical context with multiple layers of with input from all parties.
Hi Dina,
I agree with your thoughts. I think a hierarchal context works best in education. This sounds strange, but I feel like a lot of buildings I have worked in have a hierarchal context however, within the hierarchy — at each level — there are ‘groups’/egalitarian context that is underlying within each hierarchal level. I
Authoritarianism, in schools, was the de facto 20th Century model. Superintendents and Principals were in charge of their districts and schools, teachers were to teach – with little to no opportunity for advancement, everyone complied with rules and procedures and these were handed out from the top down. Teacher evaluations were one type of ritual seen more as something that could affect teacher pay as opposed to a collaborative effort to boost student outcomes. Celebrations and rituals also appeared in the form of end-of-year awards assemblies for students and some similar type of recognition ritual for teachers. Interestingly, there is a plethora of these types of school cultures still in existence.
Egalitarianism stems more from the bottom-up. In a school scenario, this might be a more evolved representation of the standard 20th Century model. In this case, teams of teachers are collaborating in the best interests of the students. Student achievements and victories are celebrated via daily rituals. Teachers band together and support each other in numerous ways. In one school where I was employed, this took on the form of monthly pot-lucks for those who had birthdays in that month and seasonal games such as “Secret Pals”.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context? Last night, I asked my admin team how they viewed our principal’s leadership style? I asked the same question from the principal. What they all said when along with my views. I believe we are somewhere in the middle between authoritarian and egalitarian at our school. Our principal has bosses to answer to and directives to give and implement, but as teachers we are given the autonomy to manage our classrooms and build relationships with faculty, staff, and students. When we have new ideas, we are listened to and most of the time if we are doing something to improve school culture and learning, we are given the green light. We have to abide by that hierarchy and sometimes they squash our dreams, but we also have respect, trust, and freedom to be creative in how we teach that curriculum, etc.
Tamara – I agree with you that most schools are a mesh of two or more of the cultural contexts. It boils down to the students coming to school to learn, teachers teaching to the best of their abilities within their given contexts and administration keeping the business side in check while attending to the needs of school stakeholders. Transparency and communication are key, flowing both vertically and horizontally, within and without of the school building. Sincere relational skills are also critical and important in bestowing value upon each school community member.
Tamara, really spot on about a hybrid of frames being useful and beneficial to the school demesne.
*What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context? Ceremonies and rituals in an authoritarian context would emphasize those who have learned to be compliant. For example, those students who have earned good grades because they always do what is asked of them. They have learned that within this structure, they may not necessarily have to learn the material, but they always complete their work and do what is expected of them. In an egalitarian context, these same students would be celebrated for learning of the material, through standards-based grading. They may not have A’s,but they would be celebrated for their learning. Additionally, in this context, their might be an emphasis on the importance of social/emotional learning as well as academic learning. This kind of learning may be more difficult to quantify, which might make those in an authoritarian culture uncomfortable, but it would be equally important in these contexts.
Kathryn,
I agree with your view between the two. Authoritarian contexts can often have people who enjoy holding all the power. Egalitarian contexts seek to empower those within the context, not just a select few. As you mentioned regarding the grades, egalitarian rituals often upset those who are used to and enjoy holding the power of decision making.
In my school, we say the Pledge of Allegiance and the Oklahoma Flag Salute at the beginning of every single school day. To me, these are authoritarian types of rituals in that we are pledging faithfulness to a body that is greater (country and state) than one’s own self. Following the pledge and salute, we recite our school creed. Listed below, you can see that it is focused on the betterment of the student population and creating equality and goodwill for all.
Stillwater Middle School Creed:
We are Pioneers, laying the path of our future. We will be successful in life by being committed to respect, responsibility and positive relationships. We will strive to become better versions of ourselves by overcoming challenges. We will do what we can and embrace what is new. We are Pioneers!
It is interesting that you chose the reciting of your school creed as an example of egalitarianism (even if its words focus on equality) because I see this daily act as an authoritarian ritual like the Pledge of Allegiance and flag salute.
Ceremonies in an authoritarian context might place the emphasis on positions of leadership, crediting the leaders. Conversely, egalitarian ceremonies would recognize teams that accomplished stated objectives. I attended a conference where it was a mixed approach: the conference was lead by the “authorities” and conversations and accomplishments were about the great leadership and their accomplishments. One leader chose to bring her team to the podium and shared credit for her accomplishments as she also acknowledged the participation of the team. This might not be pure egalitarian, since she obviously was the authority, however, she did recognize teamwork and participation. She definitely exhibited the hierarchy even as she praised the team.
I work in an authoritarian institution: top-down structure, formal lines of communication. My ideas may never move above my division chair if she doesn’t choose to share them. Administration creates committees that are staffed by faculty volunteers. However, the ideas from the committees go back to administration. If administration values the ideas, they are shared at an in-service, but very little effort goes into creating change or the adoption of new ideas, mostly because the ideas are presented as here it is, so do it. True professional development and collaboration do not take place. “Successful programs” are always those that are led by administrators.
That must be so frustrating – not having new ideas discussed or implemented. Has anyone asked why they (administration) is not supportive of committee work/ideas?
I’m guessing that the wheel gets reinvented frequently at your school (eye roll and shrug).
Tommie,
I appreciated your response. Yes, the wheel is frequently reinvented, however, it never rolls! Guess this is a type of job security, or a chosen form of authority among admin. But it really does reduce faculty morale. Recently they paid an organization to assess the school culture.
In an authoritarian culture the emphasis of rituals would be determined from the top down. Ceremonies might reward perfect attendance or straight A’s. These should be recognized, but would be especially important in a culture that stresses following the rules.
In an egalitarian culture, ceremonies and rituals would reflect more democratic practices where all stakeholders have a voice. These rewards would look something like team STEM challenge rewards or good character recognition.
I have worked in both cultures and while I prefer egalitarian, I can see the pros and cons of both. Balance, in my opinion, makes for a healthy workplace.
Hi Cherith,
Thank you for you insight. When looking at the egalitarian context, I personally feel as though it is hard to make ‘hard’ decisions as a group, even when goals are shared. I feel as though a hierarchal context works best in large districts, especially when there are large class sizes and inexperienced teachers.
In an authoritarian context rituals and ceremonies would focus on individual performance rather that group performance. Individuals may be rewarded for achieving individualized goals or meeting specific deadlines. The celebrations are very rigid and done the same way every time with little variation. This type of context would best serve a sales team where individuals are much more concerned with their own personal achievement over that of the groups.
On the other hand in an egalitarian context, rewards and recognition would be given when the group meets a goal. The celebrations would happen more often as research has shown that student performance is elevated by frequently celebrating the small successes. They would be less structured and varied in presentation and reward. This context would best serve a school setting as everyone’s goal is ultimately student achievement.
Excellent descriptions and very clear. I like the analogies of sales teams and group goals.
I agree that the egalitarian culture in many ways is better suited to the classroom.
*What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
In an authoritarian context, ceremonies and rituals would tend to celebrate consistency, dedication to the rules, and those who have followed the program precisely. Leadership would create rituals to celebrate those who have followed the strict grid. However, in an egalitarian context, the rituals would focus more on those who create strong groups and teams. The leadership would want to celebrate teams more than individuals. An authoritarian school might create a ceremony to honor individuals for their years of service. But an egalitarian school might create a ceremony to celebrate a team of teachers who didn’t let a single student fail in their classes for the term. An authoritarian leader might create a daily ritual in the announcements that highlighted a student for their strong participation in a school reading program, but an egalitarian school would create a daily ritual that celebrated groups of students in their clubs who got together to help clean up the school.
Joshua,
I think you summed up an authoritarian celebration very well! People who know their place and promote the values of the institution are celebrated. Do you think this type of environment encourages any type of spontaneity or creativity? I don’t, which is why I am so consistently surprised to find it exists within educational institutions. Your post was great.
Mr. Taylor, I appreciate your descriptions of the differences in cultures. That really helped me understand what each looks like within the school culture. I can think of examples of each culture from two very different principals.
Mr.Taylor-
What an egalitarian group you have created with the students involved in SMAC-Stillwater Makes a Change! You have created an environment where all members are focused solely on doing what is best for the greater good-in this instance which ever charity is being served. As a parent and a fellow educator, I appreciate the lessons this experiences provides the students, faculty, staff, and community!
Mr. Taylor,
After reading your post, I have a much greater understanding of egalitarian. I honestly viewed egalitarian from a biased negative point of view, but celebrate teams of people is a wonderful way to create rituals. I do this with my classes and with my department.
Ceremonies and rituals that are carried out in an authoritarian structure are easily manipulated to get what one individual might want rather than having the participants bought into the process. However, the more egalitarian that the ritual/ceremony becomes, one runs the risk of accomplishing very little. While each of these might be beneficial in certain settings, they are each somewhat problematic in the educational arena. Perhaps something in the middle of each would best be utilized in schools; something like the hierarchical culture. There are prominent figures who help drive the ceremonial procedures, but each member has the opportunity of buying into the ritualism that is manifested.
I agree that in the educational arena that the hierarchical culture would beneficial. The administration and department leadership could promote procedures with the input and buy-in from the rest of the staff.
Kody, I think there is a great deal to said about the moderation of each culture. I think you can go to the extremes of any of these four models and have it detract from the learning environment.
I agree that a balance between the two context, such as, the hierarchical organization would be most beneficial in the school environment. An authoritarian approach can create morale issues, but an egalitarian approach can be unorganized and ineffective. To cultivate student learning, foster a positive school culture, and effectively utilize ceremonies/rituals, I believe one must integrate a balanced approach.
In authoritarian environment the rituals and ceremonies would be given by the administrator only. The rituals or ceremonies would be set into place for teachers to uphold without questions or participation in the ideals.
However, in a equalitarian environment it would be hard to understand what the ritual or ceremony of the group would be. Everything would be equally distributed among the group, but there would still be a sense of unknown. No one to take full leadership to communicate the overall ideals of the group.
For me personally, I think mixing hierarchy with individual opportunity is a great way to give full participation of all involved in the educational system to create symbols, rituals, and ceremonies. It would allow a leader to facilitate goals and regulations, while maintaining the overall goal for all those involved. It also could allow students and staff to become individual innovative learners/leaders.
I agree. Having “buy in” by all faculty and staff is important for building any type of culture in a school.
Buy in is of utmost importance if a school’s ceremonial procedures are to have any significance among its participants.
Do you think it is possible to have a “pseudo” type of culture? For instance, it might be an authoritarian environment, but on the surface tasks are delegated to enhance the picture of collegiality. I think sometimes environments are harder to predict because you may have a very top-down culture, but the image of a “family” collaboration is fostered.
I tend to think the equalitarian environment seems a bit confusing to me. Maybe it is because I have had some fabulous leaders/mentors in my life who really have made an impact, it is hard for me to imagine an experience with no one leading the way.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
It is clear that in an authoritarian context ceremonies and rituals would emphasize the task and efficient completion of the task. Contrasting egalitarian context, these ceremonies would be established by administration and ensured that they had control over the outcomes. It would also be difficult to see progression or change in these rituals unless administration changed. The investment from teachers may be low and at times rituals and ceremonies could be uncomfortable to many.
In the authoritarian mindset there is high grid but low group, which would make the rituals in play from one sided and driven from a single leader. Whereas, an egalitarian group is high group but low grid, making them a very collaborative, group effort type of culture but this environment lacks a vision or true leader as they all consider themselves equal. In my experiences the ideal culture for rituals would be in more of a hierarchy type culture where both grid and group are high.
Chris,
I agree a hierarchy environment can easily give an opportunity to create rituals and ceremonies. I do think it is important to include opportunity for individualism. I believe individual opportunity allows innovation for some people. I think each grid has some great aspects to include when thinking about becoming an administrator. I believe fostering relationships is important to get a better understanding everyone involved in order to create the right “grid”. Thanks for sharing!
Nichole,
I agree there are positive “aspects to include when thinking about becoming an administrator. I think the key to CT is that you, the administrator, can assess the culture of the institution and the personalities of the individuals within the institution. From this vantage, we can match people and positions that will reduce turnover and maintain a positive culture that can focus on stated objectives.
Chris, I think I agree with you on Hierarchy being the best environment for rituals. In a hierarchy, the rituals have clear meanings because there is still a strong structure, but there is also a strong sense of group that provides depth and commitment to the whole, making the rituals more meaningful.
What might ceremonies and rituals emphasize differently in an authoritarian context than they would in an egalitarian context?
It seems both would have limited recognition of individual teacher innovation and ingenuity that would support new and better ceremonies and rituals. Ceremonies and rituals from times past could become obsolete or lack value added.
A truly egalitarian culture that emphasizes the group over anything of the individual would likely stifle such innovation and ingenuity and stifle developing a culture in the school that brings about fresh new ideas that can better support ceremonies and rituals that build the school. Rituals and ceremonies would promote only the group and therefore stifle new advancements.
By the same token, a truly authoritarian culture would also stifle such innovation and ingenuity, preventing their occurrence given that Individual behavior is fully defined and without ambiguity and there is a lack of control of school goals and rewards by teachers. Leadership would dictate rituals and ceremonies and teachers would have no buy-in to whatever is taking place. New rituals and ceremonies introduced or executed by leadership would have little impact on school improvement for the reasons aforementioned.
“A truly egalitarian culture that emphasizes the group over anything of the individual would likely stifle such innovation and ingenuity and stifle developing a culture”, this statement really summarizes the egalitarian culture as they all work collaboratively but struggle to show initiative and rank as there is no hierarchy.
I agree with you, Chris, the truly egalitarian culture would only emphasize an individual accomplishment with regard to the effect on the group. There would be a focus on group collaboration, and individuals who chose to work alone would not receive as much social support or recognition.
Thank you for this blog. It gave a nice and easy to understand high level overview of Mary Douglas’ Cultural Theory.
I am glad you liked it. Douglas’s typology has many uses and can be very beneficial to educators in a variety of ways.
I work in a Hierarchical Culture. Our school is really defined by our International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Program status. About 6 years our lead team began researching this process. Since it was a way to offer a global learning to ALL of our students we began the process of certification. Now that IB is part of our culture our lead team looks for areas of growth and then divides and conquers. I feel like being a part of this type of culture is very “family” feel. Just like the parents are the leaders of a family our school leaders have the students best interests in mind and help the group priorities take precedence over any individual needs. We are all working toward one goal together!