Early findings regarding management of organizations emphasized on the consolidation of authority in top managerial levels (Wood, 1973). Additionally, with the presumption that the supreme employee incentive towards safety could be achieved through economic benefit and the organizational productivity could be maximized by simplification of job, consolidation was in the common interest of both the employees and the firm (Wood, 1973). Moreover, operational viewpoints dictated professionals to be in charge of planning and coordination functions, while managerial and control function were oriented toward formal and ranking organization order. Furthermore, Fayol (1949) insisted on integration of command and power chain, and suggested that workers should obtain directives from only a single superior, who controls comparable sets of operations and handling emergency cases (Wood, 1973). Therefore, communication must go up the hierarchy and be conveyed via the management vertically to the lower levels.
Therefore, for a healthy organization, there must be a smooth flow of communication from the management to the junior workers and vice versa. Moreover, there must be constant involvement for all stakeholders in the operations of the organization in their distinct capacities, in order to achieve the intended purpose of the organization. Similarly, after a long agitation by individuals like Dan Griffiths, school administrators together with education professors embraced the possibility that a school is actually an organization and that, it has organizational properties in its structure (Miles, 1969). However, the education system has its special properties, including goal ambiguity, variability of input, invisibility of role performance, low interdependence, vulnerability, problems of lay-professional control, and low investment in technology (Miles, 1969).
Moreover, for many reasons, it is complicated to specify precisely the output of educational organization because of the difference in capabilities of the individual students undergoing change. Similarly, various school goals are frequently given priority in the public declaration, while others are termed as background occurrences (Miles, 1969). Additionally, there is an extreme variation in input from the environs, especially concerning children and personnel. This is because a school, and as publicly responsible, admits students with a very huge range of abilities and determination to perform its activities (Miles, 1969). Further, comparing the education sector or a school with product producing systems appears to be a comparatively low interdependence of components (Miles, 1969).
This tends to reinforce the pyramidal technique of administration, which is detrimental to an organization’s success. Additionally, the American public school is subject to jurisdiction, evaluation, and a wide range of requirements from the external environment (Miles, 1969). Therefore, parents and the public can evaluate all stakeholders from the board members to teachers. Moreover, in most cases, nonprofessionals regulate American public schools; most of them have not operated in the school environment for many years prior to their admission to the school board (Miles, 1969). Obviously, this hinders smooth governing of public schools.
Eminently, public schools should have intervention principles to ensure smooth operation and achievement of the intended goals. For instance, there should be team training, which allows the members to work as a group. Teachers can meet away from their work station with consultant help for a stipulated time span and examine their effectiveness and the effects it has to the organizational environment (Miles, 1969). Additionally, survey feedback should be conducted to ensure clear flow of communication, which results to objective clarification and problem-solving practices (Victoria Independent School, 2006-2011). This lowers the notion of being misunderstood and rejected, and makes the challenges more open to solutions.
Moreover, role workshop assists in clarifying the roles to be undertaken by particular stakeholders, effectiveness, and enhanced fit between the person and the intended role (Miles, 1969). Nonetheless, target setting is fundamental in a school organization to ensure collaboration between superior and subordinate staff in tasks allocation and achievement of individual goals. This enhances accountability and unity in achieving the larger organizational goals. Similarly, school organizational health requires frequent organizational diagnosis and problem-solving techniques to focus the attention on the organization’s current functioning (Victoria Independent School, 2011).
In conclusion, in the quest for a healthy school organization, there must be constant involvement for all stakeholders in the operations of the organization in their distinct capacities to achieve the intended purpose of the organization. Similarly, a healthy organization is characterized by focus on the goal, adequacy in problem solving, adequacy in communication, equalization of optimal power, utilization of resources, morale, cohesion, adaptation, and autonomy. Furthermore, there must be a clear flow of communication from the board all the way to the junior stuffs. Moreover, self-study, relational emphasis, increased flow of data, temporary system approach, and expert facilitation should be emphasized for the induction and maintenance of a healthy organization. Finally, incorporating these recommendations in a school setting requires intervention principles to ensure smooth operation and achievement of the intended goals.