Instructor: Daniel A. McFarland! ! Join your future classmates and course alumni on Facebook!! ! ! Table of Contents! I. Course Overview!

II. Requirements, Expectations and Grading! III. Schedule for Quarter (*List of Deadlines*)! IV. Course Readings! ! ! I. Course Overview! Organizations are groups whose members coordinate their behaviors in order to accomplish a shared goal. They can be found nearly everywhere in todays society: universities, start-ups, classrooms, hospitals, non-profits, government bureaus, corporations, restaurants, grocery stores, and professional associations are some of many examples of organizations.! ! Organizations are as varied and complex as they are ubiquitous: they differ in size and internal structure; they can entail a multiplicity of goals and tasks (some of which are planned and others unplanned!); they are made up of individuals whose goals and motivations may differ from those of the group; and they must interact with other organizations and deal with environmental constraints in order to be successful. This complexity frequently results in a myriad of problems for organizational participants and the organizations survival. ! ! In this course, we will use organizational theories to systematically analyze how an organization operates and can best be managed. Organizational theories highlight certain features of an organizations structure and environment, as well as its processes of negotiation, production, and change. Each provides a lens for interpreting novel organizational situations and developing a sense for how individual and group behaviors are organized. Theories are valuable for the analyst and manager because most organizational problems are unique to the circumstances and cannot be solved by simple rules of thumb. Armed with a toolset of organizational theories, you will be able to systematically identify important features of an organization and the events transforming it; choose a theoretical framework most applicable to the observed mode of organizing; and use that theory to determine which actions will best redirect the organization in desired directions.! ! In sum, the course has three goals: to become familiar with a series of real-world organizational phenomena; to learn different theoretical perspectives that can elucidate these phenomena; and to apply these different ways of seeing and managing organizations to cases. In such a fashion, the course is designed to actively bridge theory and practice, exposing students to a variety of conceptual tools and ways to negotiate novel situations.! ! ! Course Timeline! This course investigates a series of case studies of educational institutions, non-profits, private firms, cooperatives and governmental organizations, and focuses on the change efforts and experiences occurring within them. In addition to going over the cases, the videos for each week

General Syllabus for Organizational Analysis, Fall 2013!

will introduce a new theory for making sense of the complex social reality of these organizational contexts. The first week provides an overview of the organizational elements we will use as the basis for our analyses. Subsequent weeks progress through the field of organizational theory, from its early treatment of organizations as isolated units of decisionmaking, through current perspectives that focus on their interconnectivity.! ! Course Topics:! Week 1: Introduction Week 2: Decisions by rational and rule-based procedures Week 3: Decisions by dominant coalitions Week 4: Decisions in organized anarchies Week 5: Developing organizational learning and intelligence Week 6: Developing an organizational culture Week 7: Managing resource dependencies Week 8: Network forms of organization Week 9: Institutions and organizational legitimacy Week 10: Organizational ecologies and course summary! ! !

II. Requirements, Expectations and Grading!

Depending on your time and interest, you may choose to achieve one of three types of certificates entailing increasingly greater demands basic, distinction, and advanced distinction. ! ! Basic Certificate! The basic certificate is relevant to students wishing to develop basic literacy in organizational analysis. It involves 2-3 hour time commitment per week. The following tasks must be accomplished with an overall C grade or higher (> 72%): ! Lectures: You must view each weeks on-line video lectures by 10AM PST every Thursday. You only need to view either the with- or without-face version in weeks 2-10 to satisfy this requirement.! ! Quizzes: You must complete the stand-alone quizzes by 5M PST for each of the following due dates: quizzes for weeks 1-3 are due on October 14; quizzes for weeks 4-6 are due November 4; and quizzes for weeks 7-9 are due December 2. Each stand-alone quiz may be taken only once, but you can do the within-video quizzes as practice.! ! Forum participation: We want to encourage dialogue on the course content. Therefore, by 10AM PST every Thursday, you are encouraged to post a question on the forum OR respond to someone elses post. As part of your participation grade, you must upvote at least one question each week that you would like me to personally address -- I will review the most popular questions and discuss them in regular "screen-side chats" videotaped and posted on-line.! ! Final exam: At the end of the course, after the final lecture, you are required to take an on-line final exam that assesses how well you comprehend the course material as posted in the on-line lectures. The exam will be open book, but you are not allowed to discuss the material with classmates. It will entail around 100 multiple choice questions concerning the weekly lectures

and comparison of the theories. The final will be available on December 5 after 6pm PST, and it will close a week later on December 13 at 6pm PST. The exam cannot be downloaded, and it must be taken online in a single, continuous 3-hour stretch. Save often in case your connection fails, so then you can login again and take up the exam from where you left off. All students are asked to observe the honor code. The code states it is the student's obligation to not only avoid cheating but to report persons engaging in such behavior.! Extra Credit: You can earn up to 5 points of extra credit by participating in online, video-based group discussions based on class topics. We will have five discussion sessions throughout the course, each lasting around 50 minutes. You can earn up to 5 points of extra credit (i.e., 5% of your grade), one per session you participate in. We will post details about this extra credit assignment, and instructions for using the system, in the first week of class.! ! Discussions will be held online via video conferencing on the talkabout platform (https://talkabout.stanford.edu). Talkabout is a system built around Google Hangouts. You will therefore need to use Google Hangouts to participate in these discussions. ! ! Certificate with Distinction! A certificate with distinction is relevant to students wishing to develop an in-depth capacity for analysis and application. It involves 6-9 hour time commitment per week.! ! In addition to completing the basic track requirements above, you must accomplish the following tasks with an overall C grade or higher (> 72%):! ! Paper writing: Write 3 partial-essay papers that present and analyze a case using the theoretical lens presented that week (note: you cannot switch writing tracks, so please only do essays related to the certificate with distinction). For each of the three papers, you will be presented with a 2/3-completed essay that describes a case and theory. Your task is to you to finish the paper by applying the theory to the outlined case. The writing assignment here will likely be around 750900 words. You will submit the first paper by 5pm PST on October 15th and it will concern a theory presented in weeks 1, 2, or 3. You will submit the second paper by 5pm PST on November 4th and it will concern a theory presented in weeks 4, 5, or 6. The third and last paper will be submitted by 5pm PST on December 2nd and it will concern a theory presented in weeks 7, 8, or 9.! ! Peer evaluation: Peer evaluation is a key part of your learning experience that helps you see how others use and apply theories to cases. Moreover, the writing component of the course will not work unless we utilize peer-assessed evaluation. As such, students will not get a paper-grade unless they engage in peer evaluation. For each writing assignment, peer evaluation must be done within 5 days after each paper submission (by October 19 for the first paper; by November 9 for the second; and by December 7 for the third). The peer evaluation process will proceed as follows: (i) You will first go through a brief training period where you learn to apply the grading rubric and match the instructors grades. (ii) Once you achieve sufficient accuracy you will move on to grading four of your peers papers and your own paper. You are welcome to assess more than three submissions---this is a great way to help your classmates with more accurate grades, as well as read many different perspectives.! ! ! ! !

! Advanced Certificate with Distinction ! An advanced certificate with distinction is relevant to students wishing to meet nearly the same course requirements as in-class Stanford students. It involves a 10-12 hour time commitment per week.! ! In addition to completing the basic track requirements above, you must accomplish the following tasks with an overall C grade or higher (> 72%):! ! Paper writing: Write 3 full essay papers that present and analyze a case using the theoretical lens presented that week (note: you cannot switch writing tracks, so please only do essays related to the advanced certificate with distinction). Each of these papers will be between 1500-2500 words. The papers will present and analyze a case using the theoretical lens presented during the papers period in the course (e.g., paper 1 weeks 1-3; paper 2 weeks 4-6; paper 3 weeks 7-9). Potential questions are listed in the syllabus for each week at the bottom of the page, but you should feel free to come up with similar questions and case examples of your own. You will submit the first paper by 5pm PST on October 15th and it will concern any theory presented in weeks 1, 2, and 3. You will submit the second paper by 5pm PST on November 4th and it will concern a theory presented in weeks 4, 5, or 6. The third and last paper will be submitted by 5pm PST on December 2nd and it will concern a theory presented in weeks 7, 8, or 9. ! ! Peer evaluation: Peer evaluation is a key part of your learning experience that helps you see how others use and apply theories to cases. Moreover, the writing component of the course will not work unless we utilize peer-assessed evaluation. As such, students will not get a paper-grade unless they engage in peer evaluation. For each writing assignment, peer evaluation must be done within 5 days after each paper submission (by October 19 for the first paper; by November 9 for the second; and by December 7 for the third). The peer evaluation process will proceed as follows: (i) You will first go through a brief training period where you learn to apply the grading rubric and match the instructors grades. (ii) Once you achieve sufficient accuracy you will move on to grading four of your peers papers and your own paper. You are welcome to assess more than three submissions---this is a great way to help your classmates with more accurate grades, as well as read many different perspectives.! ! Note: Stanford students are also asked to perform an extended group project on a case of their choosing. In addition, they are called upon to do all the readings and engage in weekly case applications, class discussions, and collaborative activities. Depending on student inclinations, you may decide to self-organize such activities on the forum for group discussions and study groups. ! ! Students finishing the advanced certificate with distinction will only receive a certificate with distinction from Coursera. As such, I will supplement this with an email confirming completion of the advanced certificate with distinction. Moreover, you can document this accomplishment and what it entailed using accredible.com (described more below).! ! Course Expectations! Within each class session I will assume students have viewed the weekly video, taken the quizzes, engaged on the forum and rated some of the posted questions. I believe this will make the class a far more interactive and engaging experience for everyone involved.! !

I would like your help making the forums as much of a civil and welcoming learning environment as possible. To this end, please! ! Be friendly and considerate when talking to your fellow students.! ! Use up-votes to bring attention to thoughtful, helpful posts.! ! Post in the appropriate sub-forum.! ! Search before you post / affix tags to posts so search is facilitated.! ! More specifically, I would like you to follow Stanfords Code of Conduct in your interactions and to follow the Honor Codes of both Stanford and Coursera when submitting your work. This means participants are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner and not plagiarize their work. It also means we all have a duty - for the good of the community - to report peers who violate these policies. Violators of the honor code and / or code of conduct will be removed from the course and fail to acquire a certificate of completion.! ! ! Grading! We will calculate grades using the following ratios:! ! Basic Certificate! 50% Final exam (Graded as % correct) 25% Stand-alone quizzes (Graded as % correct)! 25% Forum rating of questions (#/10 weeks rated) ! ! [Extra credit: 5% Group discussion: (#/5 discussions participated)] ! Basic certificates will be awarded to students with an overall grade of C or greater (> 72%); grades will be posted on your certificate.! ! Certificate with Distinction and Advanced Certificate with Distinction ! 60% Papers (Average of three paper grades normed to 100)! [note: certificates with distinction will entail partial essay papers; advanced certificates with distinction will entail full essay papers]! 20% Final exam (Graded as % correct) 10% Stand-alone quizzes (Graded as % correct)! 10% Forum rating of questions (#/10 weeks rated) ! ! [Extra credit: 5% Group discussion: (#/5 discussions participated)]! Certificates with distinction and advanced distinction will be awarded to students with an overall grade of C or greater (> 72%); grades will be posted on your certificate. ! ! The grading scale for each track will be as follows:! A+ = 10098% A=9794% A=9390%! B+ = 8987% B=8683% B=8280%! C+ = 7977% C=7673% C=7270%! D+ = 6967% D=6663% D=6260%! F= below 59% or any fail! !

! Late policy: ! We have a strict late policy that there are no extensions, so please look at the calendar carefully and manage your time appropriately. Quizzes and papers will be due every three weeks: quizzes for weeks 1-3 and the first paper assignment are due on October 14; quizzes for weeks 4-6 and the second paper assignment are due November 4; and quizzes for weeks 7-9 and the third paper assignment are due December 2. The system is automated, and does not allow for late quizzes or late paper submissions. Peer assessed evaluations are due October 19, November 9, and December 7. Late peer evaluations are also not allowed.! ! ! Documenting your achievements! Coursera and Stanford limit the number of characters listed on Courseras certificates. As such, it is difficult to tell how much work you did and what a course entails. To help you illustrate your accomplishments, we will be encouraging students to document their work via accredible.com. Accredible is a platform that enables you to easily document your learning, knowledge, and skills and showcase it to the world in a beautiful, engaging way. You create a knowledge profile and individual Slates for the unique courses and skills you have. By using the unique sign-up for the course located at: https://www.accredible.com/c/organalysis, you will be able to upload the relevant materials and track your progress towards completing one of the three certificate types for this class (Basic, Certificate with Distinction, and Advanced Certificate with Distinction). See below for an example of such a portfolios signed-in view:! !

III. Schedule for Quarter (*List of Deadlines*)!

! !

September 2013!
Sun! 1! ! 2! ! Mon! 3! ! Tue! 4! ! Wed! 5! ! Thu! 6! ! Fri! 7! ! Sat!

8! !

9! !

10 ! !

11 ! !

12 ! !

13 ! !

14 ! !

15 ! !

16 ! !

17 ! !

18 ! !

19 ! !

Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 1!

20 ! !

21 ! !

22 ! !

23 ! !

24 ! !

25 ! !

26 ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 1! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PDT! Lecture 2! Screen-side chat 1!

27 ! !

28 ! !

29 ! !

30 ! !

Notes:!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

October 2013!
Sun! ! ! Mon! 1! ! Tue! 2! ! Wed! 3! ! ! 6! ! 7! ! 8! ! 9! ! Thu!
Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 2! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 3! Screen-side chat 2!

Fri! 4! ! 5! !

Sat!

10 ! ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 3! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 4! Screen-side chat 3!

11 !

12 ! !

13 ! !

14 ! !

Due 5PM PST! Paper 1 Quizzes for Weeks 1 - 3!

(all tracks)! (advanced and distinction track)!

15 ! !

16 ! !

17 ! ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 4! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 5! Screen-side chat 4!

18 !

19 !

Due 5PM PST! Paper 1! Peer Evaluations!

(advanced and distinction track)!

20 ! !

21 ! !

22 ! !

23 ! !

24 ! ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 5! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 6! Screen-side chat 5!

25 !

26 ! !

27 ! !

28 ! !

29 ! !

30 ! !

31 ! ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 6! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 7! Screen-side chat 6!

Notes:!

! ! !

! !

November 2013!
Sun! ! ! Mon! ! Tue! ! Wed! ! Thu! 1! ! Fri! 2! ! Sat!

3! !

4!

Due 5PM PST! Paper 2 Quizzes for Weeks 4 - 6!

(all tracks)! (advanced and distinction track)!

5! !

6! !

7! ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 7! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 8! Screen-side chat 7!

8!

9!

Due 5PM PST! Paper 2! Peer Evaluations!

(advanced and distinction track)!

10 ! !

11 ! !

12 ! !

13 ! !

14 ! ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 8! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 9! Screen-side chat 8!

15 !

16 ! !

17 ! !

18 !

19 !

20 !

21 !

22 !

23 ! !

THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING BREAK! BREAK! BREAK! BREAK! BREAK! (USA)! (USA)! (USA)! (USA)! (USA)!

24 ! !

25 ! !

26 ! !

27 ! !

28 ! ! !

Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 9! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Lecture 10! Screen-side chat 9!

29 ! !

30 ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

December 2013!
Sun! 1! ! 2! ! Mon! 3! ! Tue! 4! ! Wed! 5! ! ! Thu!
Due 10AM PST! Watch lecture 10! Post or Rate Q! Opens 10PM PST! Screen-side chat 10!

Fri! 6! ! 7!

Sat!
Due 5PM PST! Paper 3! Peer Evaluations!
(advanced and distinction track)!

Due 5PM PST! Paper 3 Quizzes for Weeks 7 - 9!

(all tracks)! (advanced and distinction track)!

Final Exam Available after 6pm (PST)!

8! !

9! !

10 ! !

11 ! !

12 ! !

Due 5pm PST! Due 8pm (PST)! Quiz 10! Completed Final Exam!

13 ! !

14 ! !

15 ! !

16 ! !

17 ! !

18 ! !

19 ! !

20 ! !

21 ! !

22 ! !

23 ! !

24 ! !

25 ! !

26 ! !

27 ! !

28 ! !

29 ! !

30 ! !

31 ! !

Notes:!

! ! ! ! ! !

IV. Course Readings!

! In this course, I will discuss various readings. You are not required to purchase any. However, you may find the main texts and suggested optional readings especially useful and worth acquiring if you want to have a summary of the course, or if you want to dig deeper into the material. To help with this, we will be using SIPX, a new web service that provides access to reading materials. We took great care in choosing quality readings at the lowest possible cost to you. Sometimes these readings are under copyright ownership and you might need to pay copyright royalties to authors and publishers. The SIPX service will manage these payment transactions for you, and also make all digital documents (including those that don't require royalties) available for you in the most efficient and easy way possible, for all our class readings. ! ! Core Reading: Course Textbook! This year, we have worked hard to organize and compile a custom made textbook, Organizational Analysis, specifically for this course. We hope to make this textbook available before the first lecture goes live so all can access the material as an e-reader, and possibly as a nice bound copy if the shipping can be arranged. We imagine the e-book will around $5 US dollars. While the video lectures give you an overview of the organizational theories and some potential applications, the textbook will present the same material in a cleaner fashion and allow you to achieve a deeper understanding and ownership of the concepts from the course. To purchase the textbook, use the following link through SIPX:
http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-3de037ac-2170-11e3-8857-1231393fb797

! ! Supplementary Readings ! In addition to the textbook, we will also recommend supplemental readings to further enrich the material covered each week. The supplemental readings are not required for any of the tracks. Each week, we recommend around 100 pages of reading. The majority of these are primary texts rather than secondary compilations, because textbook compilations tend to massage the original ideas into the editor's argument, and I want you to leave with a toolkit of theories that you feel have some distinctiveness from one another. The readings in each week fall into one of three categories:! ! ! Theory A detailed exploration of a theoretical approach to understanding organizations and their behavior. ! ! Application - Scholarly applications of an organizational theory to a real-world phenomenon.! ! Case A narrative about a real-world organizational issue or process that has not been analyzed. ! ! The videos will heavily deconstruct the more dense theory readings, but the organizational cases will hopefully be fairly straightforward.! ! All of the supplemental readings for the course are available electronically, with the exception of one book in Week 8 (Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector, Goldsmith and Eggers). The Supplemental Readings page on the main website will direct you to SIPX, a digital course materials service, which will list the links to these readings. ! !

Accessing readings: cost and logistics! The link by each reading will take you to SIPX, a digital course materials service. If this is the first time you have used SIPX, you will need to provide your email address to create a SIPX account. If you have a .edu or similar email address associated with an institution of higher learning, please sign up with it- you may receive extra discounts as a result. Once you have made your account, you can select individual works that you would like to access for the course. If an article or book excerpt is provided for free, you will be given immediate access to a PDF copy; if not, then you will need to pay for it via PayPal, and then you will be given access to the PDF. You may purchase items individually or all at once. These copies will be licensed for your personal use only - please do not redistribute them. See the SIPX FAQ or more information and a direct link to ask questions about the system.! ! Readings range in price from free to US$17 (for a book). If you choose to purchase all of the readings, you can expect to pay just over US$100. You may also want to explore other means of finding the readings - for example, through an account with your school or public library, for sale by a private vendor like Amazon, or elsewhere on the web. I will try to provide a more thorough summary lecture of readings that are costly or less available. We can also make them more a part of the screen-side chats in class.! ! !

WEEKLY READINGS! ! ! INTRODUCTION! ! ! Week I. Organizational Elements and Organizing Narratives (73pp)! ! Theory: (27pp) ! Scott, Richard. 2003 (5th ed). The Subject is Organizations, Chapter 1 (pp. 3-30) of Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-01a81ee6-1cb9-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Case: (46pp) ! Metz, Mary Haywood. 1986. Adams Avenue School for Individually Guided Education. ! Chapter 4 (pp. 57-103) in Different by Design: The Context and Character of Three Magnet Schools. Routledge: New York. ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-e35adf7c-1ca5-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Guiding questions: ! How do these readings fit your experiences in organizations? Think about your experiences in educational, governmental, non-profit, and for-profit organizations. Think about the elements of these organizations their goals, technology (curriculum), social structure (roles and rules), participants, and salient environment. What seemed to matter most?! ! Many organizations try to change or reform how organizing is done. Think about how various reforms treat and characterize organizations. What organizational elements are seen as central to a reform? What level / unit of analysis is of concern? What is the boundary to an organization and a reform effort? Who and what matters in the environment? What makes for a successful or unsuccessful reform?! ! What kind of account would you give for an organization and its reforms? Would you characterize the organization as rational, natural, or open system?! ! Example paper question: ! Consider Metz account of a magnet school and its organization. How do Scotts organizational elements and rational-natural-open models apply? Do they help you think more richly about the context?! ! !

PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING ! ! ! Week II Decisions by Rational and Rule-Based Procedures (98pp)! ! Theory: (25pp) ! March, James G. 1999. "Understanding How Decisions Happen in Organizations." Chapter 2 in The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence, pp. 13-38. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-6dda4a0a-1cbc-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Application: (29pp) ! Allison, Graham T. 1969. Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The American Political Science Review 63, 3:689-718. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-0bfabdca-1d60-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Case: (44pp) ! Dorothy Shipps, The Businessmans Educator: Mayoral Takeover and Nontraditional Leadership in Chicago, in Powerful Reforms with Shallow Roots, ed. Larry Cuban and Michael Usdan, pp. 16-34 (NY: Teachers College Press). ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-92680f3a-1cba-11e38857-1231393fb797! Bryk, Tony. 2003. No Child Left Behind, Chicago-Style. In Peterson, P. W., and West, M. The Politics and Practice of School Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 242-268. ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-69e0ee5c-1ce6-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Guiding Questions: ! Many decisions were probably made in the organizations you belonged to. In your experience, how many of those decisions were based on a logic of consequence or a logic of appropriateness? Who made decisions, when, and in what situations? What went into making them? Did actors learn and adapt from experience or forget and make the same mistakes? ! ! Compare the rational actor model to the organizational process model. What are the main tenets of each theory? What organizational elements does each emphasize? What preferences matter? What rules, identities, or values matter? How do the rational actor model and the organizational behavior model apply to the Chicago cases? What influences the decision process? Are options weighed? What occurs and what does not? ! ! Example Paper Question: ! Apply the rational actor model and/or the organizational behavior model to one (or both) of the Chicago reform cases OR compare and contrast the applicability of the two theories using the Chicago case(s). Note their strengths and weaknesses.! ! !

Week III. Decisions by Dominant Coalitions (124pp)! ! Theory: (7pp) ! Scott, Richard. 2003 (5th ed). The Dominant Coalition (pp. 296-303) of Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-01a81ee6-1cb9-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Application (Allison from last week): (104pp) ! Hula, Kevin W. 1999. Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press (chapters 1-5, 7, and 9 [pp.1-77, 93-107, 122-135]). ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-60abd0ba-1cc1-11e38857-1231393fb797! Allison, Graham T. 1969. Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The American Political Science Review 63, 3:689-718 review 3rd model from last time. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-0bfabdca-1d60-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Case: (13pp) ! Quinn, Rand. 2005. The Politics of School Vouchers: Analyzing the Milwaukee Parental Choice Plan. Stanford University School of Education Case. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-22ac1ca4-1ce7-11e38857-1231393fb797! Witte, John. 1999. The Milwaukee Voucher Experiment: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Phi Delta Kappan, September: 59-64. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-92de7c06-1ce7-11e38857-1231393fb797! Hurricane Katrina -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina! ! Guiding questions: ! Compare the organizational behavior model to the governmental politics / coalition model. Apply them to the Chicago, Milwaukee, and Hula cases (esp. education lobbying). How can a coalition form when multiple actors have inconsistent preferences and identities? How is agreement even tenuously accomplished? Is school and non-profit governance the result of strange bedfellows? What about home-schooling advocates (secular and fundamentalist groups) and voucher programs (Milwaukees African American community and Republican politicians)? Can coalitions have extended lives? If you are a manager of a coalition, what can you do to manage it successfully?! ! ! Example Paper Question: ! Use the coalition/conflict approach to analyze the Milwaukee case or one like it. Be critical and discuss the strengths and weaknesses afforded by this theoretical perspective in elucidating the case.! ! ! !

Week IV. Decisions by Organized Anarchies (144pp)! ! Theory & Application: (144pp)! Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, second edition. Chapter 4-8 (pp. 71-195 [Chapter 9 (pp. 196-209) is optional, but recommended]). Longman. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-1bb38ee4-1be0-11e38857-1231393fb797! Birnbaum, Robert. 1989. The Latent Organizational Functions of the Academic Senate: Why Senates Do Not Work But Will Not Go Away? Journal of Higher Education 60 (July/August) 4: 423-443. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-58c9280c-1cb7-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Case (same as last week): (0pp)! Quinn, Rand. 2005. The Politics of School Vouchers: Analyzing the Milwaukee Parental Choice Plan. Stanford University School of Education Case. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-22ac1ca4-1ce7-11e38857-1231393fb797! Witte, John. 1999. The Milwaukee Voucher Experiment: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Phi Delta Kappan, September: 59-64. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-92de7c06-1ce7-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Guiding Questions: ! Is Garbage-Can Theory merely a descriptive theory or can it be used to improve management? How can you better manage in a world of organized anarchies? Can we take Kingdons argument and better understand why certain issues in education are more salient to policy makers than others? What would we need to know to apply Kingdons model? Reflect on all the issues, policies, and shifting participants shaping educational policy at the national level. Which ones have languished? Which have reached the public agenda only briefly? Which remain there or arise repeatedly? Who and what make them salient or ignored? From your experience which actors and what meetings serve to establish the education policy agenda is it the bureaucrats, the elected officials, or the lobbyists? Is it a yearly meeting, an unscheduled crisis, or an election issue? What other issue streams compete and push educational policy issues off the legislative radar? How are faculty senates much like an organized anarchy?! ! Can we apply Garbage-Can Theory to the Milwaukee Voucher case? Whats missing? What kinds of things do we need to know in order to apply it? How can managers get issues heard and decided upon in these circumstances? ! ! Paper Question: ! How does GCT apply to the Milwaukee choice plan? Where does it find support? What other information is needed? What does it suggest about how the choice plan could be managed? Or select another case of policy-making where coalitions arise. Apply the theory critically, identifying its limits and strengths.! ! ! ! ! !

Week V. Organizational Learning and Intelligence (98pp)! ! Theory: (55pp) ! Brown, John Seely and Paul Duguid. 2000. Practice Makes Process, and Learning in Theory and Practice. Chapters 4-5 (pp. 91-146 [and endnotes appended]) in The Social Life of Information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-accf4178-1cc8-11e38857-1231393fb797! ! Applications: (43pp) ! Leithwood, Kenneth and Karen S. Louis. 1998. Organizational Learning in Schools: An Introduction. Chapter 1 (pp. 1-8) in in Organizational Learning in Schools. Tokyo: Swets & Zeitlinger. ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-9f8a7e18-1cac-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! Louis, Karen Seashore and Sharon D. Kruse. 1998. Creating Community in Reform: Images of Organizational Learning in Inner City Schools. Chapter 2 (pp. 17-46) in Organizational Learning in Schools. Tokyo: Swets & Zeitlinger. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-9f8a7e18-1cac-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! Lieberman, Ann. 2000. Networks as Learning Communities: Shaping the Future of Teacher Development. Journal of Teacher Education 51, 3: 221-227. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-72d52ef0-1cd3-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Case: ! Read about the World of Warcraft and information on guilds:! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft! http://www.wowwiki.com/Guild! View the BigThink video of John Seely Brown discussing the World of Warcraft (this is also posted as a lecture on Coursera) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhuOzBS_O-M! ! Guiding questions: ! How do organizations remember what works, identify problems, and then solve them? Where is organizational learning in an organization like a school? What would be considered improvement and signs of adaptation for the better? How are these adaptations transferred and diffused? How does Liebermans notion of learning communities try to relate to organizational learning? How does this compare to Liebermans case? How can culture facilitate learning as well? How does the organizational learning / adaptation perspective differ from others? What unit of analysis and organizational elements does it focus upon?! ! Paper Question: ! Use the organizational learning approach and explain how it would apply to an organization like schools or the World of Warcraft. Be critical and consider how other theories may better apply. ! ! ! ! ! !

Week VI. Organizational Cultures (~140pp)! ! Theory:! Martin, Joanne and Debra Meyerson. 1988. Organizational Cultures and the Denial, Channeling and Acknowledgment of Ambiguity. Chapter 6 (pp. 93-125) in Managing Ambiguity and Change, L. Pondy, R. Boland, and H. Thomas (Eds). http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-826fba70-1cbe-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Application:! Kunda, Gideon. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. (Read chapter 1, skim 2, and then read intro/concluding sections of chapters 3-5 as well as the text following every section heading within those chapters. Skim chapter 6.) http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-6baf86ca-1cc4-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Case: (+10 pp, Metz is same reading from week 1) ! Diehl, David. 2006. The Mill Town Case and Small Schools Reform. Stanford University School of Education Case. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-454f5478-1ce8-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! Metz, Mary Haywood. 1986. Adams Avenue School for Individually Guided Education. Chapter 4 (pp. 57-103) in Different by Design: The Context and Character of Three Magnet Schools. Routledge: New York. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-e35adf7c-1ca5-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! ! Guiding Questions: ! In section, you will be asked to imagine how an organizational culture can be engineered and managed so as to serve the goals of schooling (imagine a classroom or school culture engineered in the Kunda-way). How could it be engineered at the Mill Town High School?! ! How is culture and its interpretation relevant to the study and management of organizations? How do managers create and alter organizational cultures? How do members negotiate and adapt to them? What are examples of codified ideologies in schools? How do actors engage in presentation rituals that generate an organizational culture? How do individual persons relate to an organizations culture? Reflect on schools that appear to have a real mission, ideology, and set of ritual practices (e.g., private religious schools, Deborah Meiers school, etc) and imagine how Kundas concepts apply. Can we translate Kundas ideas so as to engineer positive school cultures? Why or why not? How does the organizational culture view speak to small school reform efforts?! ! Paper Question: ! How can we use the culture approach to engineer a more productive organizational culture? Think about the cases and organizations that interest you how do we create a healthy, effective organizational culture that helps accomplish organizational goals? ! ! !

! PART II. ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS! ! ! Week VII. Resource Dependencies (58pp)! ! Theory: (27pp)! Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. Selection from Organization-Environment Relations (pp. 315-326). In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3 (2nd ed.). Eds. Marvin D. Dunnette and Leaetta M Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. (Focus on resource dependence parts and ignore references to transaction cost economics and population ecology [if such theories interests you, those pages/refs can be found in the reserves copy of the chapter])(reader). http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-b95036c6-1ce8-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! Scott, Richard. 2003 (5th ed). Resource Dependence (pp. 118-119) and Managing Task Environments (pp. 197-212) of Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-01a81ee6-1cb9-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Case: (31pp) ! Sarah V. Barnes. 1999. A Lost Opportunity in American Education? The Proposal to Merge the University of Chicago and Northwestern University. American Journal of Education, Vol. 107, No. 4:289-320. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-c8186ea8-1cc5-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Guiding questions: ! What are the resources in the Barnes example? What/who is dependent on whom for those resources? Think about Channel 1 and vending machine contractors coming into schools, what kind of compromises are made in such alliances? What about universities and big donors? Is there a potential for cooptation or unwilling compromises in these instances? How can reformers co-opt local participants without losing sight of the mission/goals? Isnt that something the public sector is doing with philanthropic organizations (Gates) and non-governmental organizations? How do resource dependence relations play a role in all this? How does a manager behave if they believe resource dependence is key to organizational survival and success? Can you imagine how and why school districts can merge? Why would schools merge and how would that alleviate interdependence? ! ! Paper Question: ! Use resource dependence theory to explain the University of Chicago and Northwestern case. What does it help explain? Where does it fail to hold? Would other theories we have covered apply better? Where would successful management have focused in the Barnes case? Or select a case that interests you and apply resource dependence theory to it in a critical fashion.! ! ! ! ! !

Week VIII. Network Models of Organizing (145pp)! ! Theory: (7pp)! Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. Selection from Organization-Environment Relations (pp. 334-341). In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3 (2nd ed.). Eds. Marvin D. Dunnette and Leaetta M Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. (Focus on network approaches to interorganizational relations and ignore references to transaction cost economics and population ecology [if such theories interests you, those pages/refs can be found in the reserves copy of the chapter])(reader). ! http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-b95036c6-1ce8-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Application: (118pp) ! Stephen Goldsmith and William Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector (read Ch.1-5 or pp. 3-119, 156, 178]).! ! Case: (20pp)! Smith, Andrew K. and Priscilla Wohlstetter, 2001. Reform Through School Networks: A New Kind of Authority and Accountability. Educational Policy 15, 4:499-519. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-7f183142-1cd5-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Guiding Questions: ! How does the network form of organization relate to resource-dependency arguments? Whats the difference between network forms of organization, hierarchical arrangements, and markets? What are the coordination problems of network forms of organization, especially within and between schools? How can we use networks to diffuse technologies (or new curricula) and make them stick? How do we manage network forms of organization? ! ! Paper Question:! Consider how a network form of organizing can help elaborate what Lieberman is trying to accomplish. What else could be said about the case? Extrapolate and discuss what kind of data would help establish a network form of teacher community. Or select a case that interests you and answer the same questions above.! ! !

Week IX. Institutional Perspective (63pp)! ! Theory: (20pp) ! Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. A selection from Organization-Environment Relations (pp. 342, 354-365). In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3 (2nd ed.). Eds. Marvin D. Dunnette and Leaetta M Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. (Focus on institutional perspectives discussion and ignore references to transaction cost economics [if such theories interests you, those pages/refs can be found in the reserves copy of the chapter]). http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-b95036c6-1ce8-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! Scott, Richard. 2003 (5th ed). Institutional Theory (pp. 119-120) and Managing Institutional Environments (pp. 213-220) of Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-01a81ee6-1cb9-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Applications: (27pp) ! Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan. [1978] 2004. The Structure of Educational Organizations. Pp. 201-212 in Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education. Eds. Jeanne Ballantine and Joan Spade. Canada: Wadsworth. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-d2964cfe-1ccc-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! Metz, Mary Haywood. 1989. Real School: A Universal Drama Amid Disparate Experience. Politics of Education Association Yearbook 1989:75-91. http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-6014ecc0-167e-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Case: (16pp) ! Intelligent Design Rears its Head. The Economist, July 28, 2005.! Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive. New York Times, August 21, 2005. ! Bai, Matt. The Framing Wars. NY Times Magazine, July 17, 2005 (pp. 1-8).! ! Guiding Questions: ! How can rationalization in the environment influence organizations? What does it mean for an organization to have institutional legitimacy? How does neo-institutional theory differ from cultural explanations? Are educational organizations following dynamics of resource dependence or neo-institutional theory? Think about universities, high schools, and then the recent development of charters, vouchers, and schools within schools. What kind of research would establish one theory over another? How do you manage an organization if environmental myths are what matter most? ! ! Paper Question: ! How can we use neo-institutional theory to explain the intelligent design debates? What does it help elaborate? What is missing? Or - compare the culture approach to the neo-institutional approach in discussing the intelligent design debate. Which seems more applicable? What are their key differences?! ! !

Week X. Organizational Ecologies and Course Summary (38pp)! ! Theory: (12pp)! Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. A selection from Organization-Environment Relations (pp. 342-354). In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3 (2nd ed.). Eds. Marvin D. Dunnette and Leaetta M Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.(reader) http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-b95036c6-1ce8-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Application / Case: (26pp)! Renzulli, Linda. 2005. "Organizational Environments and the Emergence of Charter Schools in the United States." Sociology of Education 78: 1-26. (nice demonstration of how multiple theories can be brought to bear on a case) http://service.sipx.com/service/php/inspect_document.php?id=x-98bbd54a-1d61-11e38857-1231393fb797 ! ! Guiding questions: ! Is this a case best described by resource dependence, organizational culture, neoinstitutional theory, or population ecology? Assuming cases can be explained by a variety of theories, how do you assess which applies or not, and which does a better job explaining the observed phenomena?! ! Reflect back on these and the applications for discussion section.! 1. Magnet school reform (Metz) 2. Chicago public school reforms (Bryk, Shipps) 3. Milwaukee parental choice plan (Quinn, Witte) 4. Learning community reforms (Lieberman) 5. University of Chicago Northwestern merger effort (Barnes) 6. Charter school networks (Smith & Wohlstetter) 7. Intelligent design and teaching of evolution debate (NY Times) 8. The U.S. charter school movement ! Does each theory apply to certain levels of analysis far better than others? When would we want to focus on one level of analysis over another? Do these theories apply to certain types of organizations more than others (sector)? Do they concern different stages of organizing better than others? Can we integrate them in our explanations of multi-level, multi-staged organizational phenomena? Which narratives would act as an umbrella / connector for these types of explanations? How can a manager know when to pay attention to one view over another? ! !