International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 9(1), 27–42
Organisational Challenges
for School Development
and Improvement: The Obstructing
Role of Sub-Groups and an Overly
Positive School Culture
Anne Dorthe Tveit
University of Agder, Norway
Velibor Bobo Kovač
University of Agder, Norway
The purpose of this study has been to identify and analyse obstacles embed-
ded in the school organisation that impede organisational development and
improvement. The general findings show that the school structure comprised
sub-groups and had characteristics of a diversified organisation. This led to
dysfunctional discussions that challenged school development and improve-
ment. Second, the findings revealed that the nature of the school culture may
challenge school development processes. Positive features of the school cul-
ture, such as engagement, good relationships and high self-esteem might
deter the effectiveness of the schools, e.g. the schools’ ability to prioritise
and improve the pupils’ academic achievements.
Keywords: school development, management, school improvement,
organisation, challenges, sub-groups, school culture, learning
Introduction
There is an explicit expectation that schools should continuously improve
the functionality of their internal structures and dynamics. Hence, a con-
siderable amount of international research focuses on school development
with a view to identifying obstacles and suggesting improvements (Dolph,
2017; Donaldson & Weiner, 2017; Feldhoff et al., 2016; Tuytens & De-
vos, 2017). However, school improvement is actually a complex research
area comprising multiple processes and factors that might impede the
prospects of developing a satisfactory educational learning environment for
all involved actors. For example, school dynamics might be affected by the
existence of multiple types of pressure promoting different interests that
affect the outcomes, including the tensions between problem orientation
and learning orientation, leadership and development issues, individualism
and collectivism, and unprofessionalism and professionalism (Liljenberg,
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/9_27-42.pdf
28 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
2015). Other obstacles relating to school development and improvement
might be embedded in school structures. Research suggests that schools
do not seem to realise the potential that already exists within them with
respect to resources and various types of data that can be used to achieve
informed decision-making. It appears that energy and efforts are frequently
used to develop the school from an accountability perspective, while there
is a lack of knowledge and skills relating to how to use data to improve
instruction and set learning targets (Schildkamp et al., 2017). For exam-
ple, Murray (2014) concludes that the existing resources and pupil achieve-
ment data should be user-friendly to allow educators to make use of this
information in their daily work. However, to promote this type of school ad-
vancement, Murray (2014) also suggests that all school representatives
should be educated in how to utilise the existing data and other available
information.
In the process of developing and improving school, as well as any other
organisation, it is also useful to consider where the locus of causality for
desired change is situated. It is fair to say that initiatives to develop and
improve schools often originate with the education authority in the municipal
administration. Some empirical findings suggest that school development
might fail if it is not embedded in the school organisation. For example,
Pollock and Winton (2012) found conflicting demands between the local
school focus and the district and regional focus when it came to priorities
and development. Similarly, Adolfsson and Alvunger (2017) found that great
resource investment on the part of the central authorities in the school
organisation did not necessarily lead to changes in teaching practice. All
this suggests that top-down initiatives are not likely to succeed if the main
obstacles that impede the school organisation are not identified.
Dalin and Kitson (2004) describe that the school organisation consists
of five main dimensions: surroundings, relations, values, structures and
strategies. The dimension ‘surroundings’ includes the local community and
the society at large, consisting of both people and organisations that might
help schools to do their work. Examples of topics that schools must take
a position on regarding their surroundings are transparency, openness and
the way of creating a constructive relationship to the surroundings. The
dimension ‘relations’ refers to human relations in the informal school or-
ganisation, e.g. individual and group norms, power, influence and interac-
tions contributing to the school climate and the quality of human relations
(Dalin & Kitson, 2004). Such norms govern people’s perceptions, attitudes,
feelings, and behaviour and are context-dependent, fluid and capture the
group in the context of other groups (Hogg & Reid, 2006). ‘Values’ is a
term referring to the basic values in the school ideologies, ceremonies and
symbols, including both formally expressed objectives and informal values
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Organisational Challenges for School Development and Improvement 29
(Dalin & Kitson, 2004). Values contribute to the organisational culture as a
‘pattern of development reflected in a society’s system of knowledge, ideol-
ogy, values, laws, and day to day ritual’ (Morgan, 1998, p. 112). ‘Structure’
refers to questions of who is making decisions and what they make de-
cisions about (Dalin & Kitson, 2004). The final dimension that describes
the school as an organisation is ‘strategies,’ which refers to the question
of how the school is run, e.g. mechanisms and methods for developing
schools, solving problems and making decisions (Dalin & Kitson, 2004). It
is important to note that these five dimensions are overlapping and mutu-
ally interdependent, implying that school organisations can only be under-
stood by analysing all the processes that comprise all the above-mentioned
dimensions.
Using the above-mentioned dimensions as our point of departure, the
purpose of the present research was to analyse obstacles embedded in the
school organisation that represent an impediment to organisational devel-
opment and improvement. In the following we use qualitative data from four
schools in the Norwegian education system. Each school was approached
and analysed as a case study where potential aspects of school organi-
sations were examined. The data from all four schools were initially anal-
ysed and subsequently compared. The analysis across five dimensions of
school organisation revealed the presence of two prominent processes that
represent a typical challenge for school development: sub-cultures in the
organisation and challenges with the school culture.
Methodological Approach
The basic methodological approach in the present research project was a
case study where each institution represented one case (Yin, 2009). The
data material was collected by two researchers who were assigned two
institutions each. Two of the institutions were primary schools and the other
two were lower secondary schools, all located in the same relatively large
Norwegian city. The schools were purposefully sampled (Patton, 2002) and
selected from a large quantitative study where the aim was to map the
general school learning environment. The schools were selected according
to the principle of maximum variation, representing both the upper and lower
results from this study.
While collecting data we adopted several techniques within the realm of
qualitative methodology: individual interviews with four participant groups
(head teachers, deputy head teachers, teachers and parents), observation
of the classroom climate in four school subjects (mathematics, native lan-
guage, foreign language and physical education), observations of children
and adults and their interaction during the breaks, spontaneous situational
conversations with various actors and our impression of the institutions
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
30 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
as a whole. Triangulation of the sources provided us with better insight
into the inner workings of each school organisation. In the present study
we report findings based solely on the data collected from the individual
interviews with the head teachers, deputy head teachers, teachers and par-
ents. However, it is important to note that our general understanding of
the school organisation in the selected schools is most likely influenced
by these additional means of collecting data. For example, our approach
included situational conversations that spontaneously emerged during our
visits. These conversations were approached in an informal manner and
were not planned, but of course had the purpose of the study in mind.
The researchers’ behaviour during these informal observations (e.g. dur-
ing breaks in the staff room or random conversations in the hallway) was
more active in nature as opposed to mere observation. Nevertheless, in all
these settings we were aware of our outsider perspective and we actively
attempted to preserve this role (Patton, 2002).
To obtain variation in the present data and gain better insight into the
school organisation from different perspectives, we conducted interviews
with four participant groups in each of the four schools: the head teacher,
the deputy head teacher, two teachers and two parents; a total of 24 in-
terviews. The informants were purposefully sampled where the institutions
were asked to choose information-rich informants (i.e. informants who pre-
sumably have an opinion about the school and credible grounds for that
specific view, see Patton, 2002). The informants represented both genders
and varied in age.
The data collection was based on a pre-developed interview guide. The
interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions covering a wide
range of topics about the school, such as experience of the school leaders,
how the teachers related to the pupils, the nature of relationships in the
school, the nature of cooperation, identification of challenging processes,
how the pupils thrived at school and so on. Both researchers conducted
interviews and worked closely to coordinate and adjust the content of the
interview guide during the data collection. The interview guide was naturally
somewhat different from one informant group to the next.
All the interviews were recorded and transcribed. Both researchers anal-
ysed the data-material, focusing on the two institutions where they con-
ducted the interviews. We used NVivo 10 to conduct an in-depth study of
these texts. The first step in the analysis was to read thoroughly through the
interview transcriptions. During this step the authors summarised the find-
ings at each institution into the categories ‘what functions well’ and ‘what
is challenging.’ In the present article we report findings from the latter cate-
gory. The analytical approach resembled an open coding process (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). By continuously asking the basic question ‘What challenges
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Organisational Challenges for School Development and Improvement 31
does the school have?’ several codes emerged during the subsequent re-
view of the material. The researchers then agreed on the most prominent
codes. Considering that many codes revolved around the same process,
we started to cluster them into more overarching categories in accordance
with Miles & Huberman’s (1994) descriptions. During this additional anal-
ysis it become apparent that two distinct themes emerged and dominated
the collected data material: challenges with sub-groups in the organisation
and challenges with the school culture. The last step in the analysis was
to return to the data material and point out relevant findings within each of
these topics. Below, these findings are both summarised and presented as
extracted quotations.
Findings and Discussion
Challenges with Sub-Groups
The first category that emerged from the data analysis representing an
obstacle to school organisation and its development was related to the
existence of sub-groups in the teacher faculty. Two distinct types of sub-
groups were identified. First, people tend to form groups according to rather
informal criteria, meaning here such categorisations as age, gender and
professional/dispositional characteristics of the teachers in the schools.
In School 1, when the head teacher was asked to describe the relations
between teachers and the teacher faculty in general, the grouping and the
criteria for the description of variations between teachers are described in
this manner:
We have some older teachers and some [. . .] younger teachers. And
we have teachers who are quite decisive, and some teachers who
are more like [. . .] easy-going, who take things as [. . .] open [. . .] and
come up with new proposals and ideas. Some teachers are [. . .] not
directly old-fashioned, but they have their own ways when it comes to
teaching, while some others are more active in terms of differentiating
the instruction for each pupil [. . .] In addition, some teachers are like
‘I need a little help’ when it comes to teaching and differentiated in-
struction. It’s my responsibility, as a head teacher, to help all teachers
in the school. [. . .] I think that this is quite normal for a school.
In the extract above, it is clear that the head teacher is describing a
diverse faculty. It is interesting that the head teacher simultaneously con-
veys two somewhat opposing views: (1) acknowledging that this diversity
might create tensions, and (2) perceiving tensions as ‘normal.’ The head
teacher’s descriptions of the sub-groups in the school are strikingly echoed
and reaffirmed by his deputy head teacher:
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
32 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
It’s not easy to talk about teachers (in our school) as a unified group,
considering that they are very different [. . .] Not all of them are pre-
occupied with the rules [. . .] I don’t have problems with any teacher
in the school but there is a difference in enthusiasm amongst them
[. . .] it’s rather common I suppose in schools. But there are some
who are more passionate about matters than others [. . .] while others
merely want to do their own thing in their own way without contributing
when it’s necessary. But this is to be expected, people are in different
phases in their lives.
In their interviews, both the head teacher and the deputy head teacher
describe an organisation consisting of informal groups with older and
younger teachers, strict and lenient teachers, traditional and modern teach-
ers, passive and ambitious teachers, dependent and independent teachers,
rule-oriented and relationship-oriented teachers, and community-oriented
and self-oriented teachers. The head teacher in School 1 explains that
there might be tensions between these groups and that is why they put
teams together meticulously. The head teacher describes the difference in
the ‘pupil perspective’ as being the biggest challenge for the teacher faculty.
This is then confirmed by what the deputy head teacher says: the informal
groups represent a challenge and there are teachers who do not want to
work together due to differences in the ‘pupil perspective.’ According to
these informants, this difference is seen in a group of teachers who believe
that rules govern pupils’ activities and a group of teachers who believe
that the way they interact with the pupils matters. Thus, it seems as if the
groups are only loosely coupled together and that the difference in the way
they perceive the pupils might be a symptom of a diversified organisation
where the existence of informal groups is dominant. It is unclear, however,
when it comes to the degree to which the tensions between these informal
groupings impede school development and improvement and create poten-
tial obstacles to innovation. On the one hand, the divisions in a faculty into
informal groups is unavoidable, not necessarily negative and accepted as
‘normal,’ as suggested by the school leaders in the interviews. However, it
is also clear that the existence of latent diversification in the organisation
might be costly and has the potential to discourage innovation (Mintzberg,
1989). In a school, the way pupils are perceived is a key feature of its
culture. Differences in how pupils are perceived might create tensions in
several settings and confirm the differences between the informal groups.
Bear in mind that standardisation of norms might be a coordinating mecha-
nism that contributes to everyone functioning according to the same set of
beliefs and helps to hold an organisation together (Mintzberg, 1989).
Second, in addition to these informal divisions of their organisations,
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Organisational Challenges for School Development and Improvement 33
the schools were also characterised by divisions based on predefined struc-
tures. These formal groups, formed by the school leaders, were embedded
in structural groupings according to the different study groups in the given
schools. One of the teachers in School 4 describes the institution as fol-
lows:
Like many other schools, our school is almost three schools in one.
You have year eight, year nine and year 10. There are big differences
between these three-year levels. And this is not visible when you ex-
amine one particular school. You need to see the school as a whole,
then separate the year levels, and only then will you begin to see it.
This informant feels that there are virtually three schools under the same
roof. These separations are based on the structures embedded in each year
level and corresponding teaching teams. During our visits it was also rela-
tively visible that the physical surroundings were arranged according to the
year groups. The head teacher explained that when the school was ren-
ovated their plan was to facilitate for cooperation between the teachers,
between teachers and pupils, and between pupils in the same year. Accord-
ing to the headmaster, they prioritise continuity in these teams and only
replace a teacher for special reasons. She points out that a new teacher
in the team may be positive, but that ‘one must not change so much that
it destroys the good relations and routines we have.’ Thus, the school ad-
ministration, the physical surroundings and the organisational structure are
pulling in the same direction because the school has been organised to fa-
cilitate for these functional teams. One teacher describes how this structure
impacts everyday life:
I have my shifts there. I have my lessons there. I have subjects there. I
know their names. We have common rules that we have agreed upon.
We have offices there. So, we’re all teachers together at this year
level. And I have more influence here. So, I know less what is going
on in the school, I must admit.
The teacher explains that membership in the team impacts what she
feels responsible for, her daily routines and who she is acquainted with,
both when it comes to the pupils and teachers in the school. We are cer-
tainly not sceptical about this way of doing things. It is logical to prefer to
establish a team of teachers to promote the school’s tasks in general and
to relate to and educate the pupils. However, the findings in this study reveal
that such teams also might represent challenges for school development
and improvement. For example, several informants in School 4 explain that
the pedagogical beliefs are different within the teams, with different peda-
gogical ideas about how one sees the pupils and enforcement of the rules
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
34 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
(e.g. using written reprimands). This is the reason why the head teacher
plans to develop a common educational platform for the whole school. She
explains that she wants the team working with relationship-oriented class-
room management to function as a driving force when she initiates a pro-
cess where the entire faculty is to develop a common ideological approach
with the same set of beliefs. However, the diversification of an organisa-
tion might be costly and discourage innovation (Mintzberg, 1989). This is
demonstrated in the findings in this study when Teacher 2 describes how
the sub-groups in the school organisation impact discussions within the fac-
ulty in a negative manner and complicate the process the organisation is
trying to agree on to establish a common educational platform:
[S]o, they feel that their efforts are not appreciated and that the
school leaders and others do not perceive them as competent. What
you get is the group of teachers in your section who are very demoti-
vated, even frustrated [. . .]. Dealing with new ideas is not a problem,
but we’re forced to put aside everything we’re working on just to start
doing something new. It’s not surprising that people are feeling under-
appreciated, if you have done something over many years and had the
impression that you have been doing a pretty good job. Then someone
comes along and informs you that what you’re doing doesn’t work, re-
search shows that you’re doing it all wrong. Now you’re going to do it
[. . .] like this. It’s quite offensive for someone who has given so much
of him- or herself to the job.
The teacher explains that dealing with new ideas is not a problem per
se. Nevertheless, she also points to the differences between the teams
as challenging, even employing a war metaphor when talking about future
educational discussions, calling them ‘minefields.’ Correspondingly, when
faculty groups holding opposing attitudes about their work are placed in a
relation of dependence, the organisations may have trouble dealing with a
type of subcultural warfare; different norms and attitudes may create hard
to handle dysfunctional situations (Morgan, 1998). As this informant says,
the presence of opposing educational views that are developed in ‘isola-
tion’ might result in frustrated co-workers and colleagues who do not feel
appreciated, both within and between the teams.
These challenges might be especially accentuated if the head teacher
chooses to use the group with relationship-oriented educational ideology
as a driving force to develop a common ideology. Group norms are best
captured in relation to other groups (Hogg & Reid, 2006) and using one
of these teams as a driving force might increase the risk of ‘warfare’ in
faculty discussions. When asked directly about what is problematic with
these discussions, Teacher 2 answers that some teachers might feel that
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Organisational Challenges for School Development and Improvement 35
what is being communicated is that ‘either you’re a good teacher who does
this [i.e. acting on relationship-oriented classroom management] or you’re
a bad teacher who doesn’t.’ This informant seems to suggest that when
the school leaders initiate discussions to develop a common ideology in
the school, some of the teachers feel that the underlying message is that
what you have been doing has not been good enough. As noted in conversa-
tion analysis, one should not only analyse the content of the participants’
utterances, but also what the participants are implicitly saying (Schegloff,
2007).
In this school the presence of different ideologies between the sub-
groups seems to leave some teachers feeling degraded when the faculty
is discussing the possibilities of developing a common ideology. The find-
ings point out that school development is sensitive to the value-loaded po-
sitions in any given sub-group in the organisation. The identification and
analysis of the communicative dynamic in these latent divisions seem to be
highly important for any organisation aiming to develop a common educa-
tional platform. Developing a common ideology in the school might enhance
the sense of uniform belonging in the organisation. As noted by Mintzberg
(1989), the standardisation of norms may infuse the work so that the or-
ganisation functions according to the same set of beliefs, acting as the glue
that holds the organisation together.
All in all, ‘challenges with sub-groups’ relates to both the informal and
formal divisions in an organisation. Our data indicate that in spite of some
advantages, these groupings might lead to tensions when it comes to or-
ganisational development.
Challenges with the School Culture
The second category that appeared in the data material relating to school
organisation is focused on the nature of the dominant school culture in the
selected schools.
In School 2 the informants described the effect of the school culture as:
‘it’s like coming into a warm place’ and that ‘it’s nice to come to school
where you’re noticed.’ This was also reflected in the personal commitment
of the faculty, where engagement was identified as a vital feature in the
school culture. The head teacher stated: ‘engagement was the first thing I
noticed when I started to work here’ and she continues:
[A]ll this can be seen in the work effort, the willingness to initiate
efforts, handling situations and the way of addressing the pupils. Pas-
sionate engagement for our kids is what characterises daily life in the
school.
The teachers’ engagement is also noticed by the parents: ‘it’s communi-
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
36 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
cated very clearly, they’re (teachers) concerned about the pupils, [. . .] per-
haps more than is expected.’ But note that while the head teacher describes
engagement as unilaterally positive, this parent remarks that the teachers
are perhaps committed to their work beyond what should be expected. This
is elaborated on in the following extract:
[A]nd some are so enthusiastic that it becomes too much concern
about particular pupils, seems almost like they have difficulties letting
it go because they are so concerned that pupils should not fail. It
seems like some teachers are exhausted in getting some pupils to
progress through school levels. They get so personally involved. But
when all is said and done, it’s just a job.
Thus, ‘the extra engagement’ mentioned as unilaterally positive by the
headmaster is questioned by parents who have an outside perspective.
Systems have their own agenda, often with unspoken implicit goals (Senge,
2006) and values in the school organisation are not always clear and ex-
plicit. The difference in the descriptions of the teachers’ engagement, be-
tween an outside and inside perspective gives reason to speculate whether
there is an unspoken norm in the school culture that personal commitment
beyond what is expected from a teacher is highly appreciated in this school.
The parents who see the school organisation from the outside suspect that
this personal commitment and engagement might cause some teachers to
be exhausted. This points out how important Morgan’s (1998, p. 90) state-
ment is about evolution in an organisation needing to be guided ‘as much
by the avoidance of noxiants as the pursuit of desired ends.’ Thus, devel-
opment of the ideology in School 2 must be guided by the goal to maintain
engagement as a dominant norm in this organisation, but also by the goal
to develop attitudes and introduce measures that prevent a potentially neg-
ative aspect of engagement, namely teacher burnout. However, if norms are
implicit and not identified, this may impede the advancement of such goals.
In School 3 the school culture is also positively described, both by the
parents and the school representatives. The school leaders describe the re-
lationship between the teachers and between teachers and pupils as good
and close. The head teacher uses the hyperbole ‘insanely good’ and Parent
1 says ‘I think this is the best junior high school my children could attend.’
However, the school leaders explain that the schools’ academic achieve-
ments are not good enough compared to other schools in the community
and that in the time ahead they want to prioritise the development of the
pupils’ academic achievements. Of course, there can be any number of
reasons why the school does not score high on the academic achievement
scale compared to other schools, but rather unexpectedly the data material
suggests that some of the explanation might be found in the school cul-
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Organisational Challenges for School Development and Improvement 37
ture. The findings reveal that when the head teacher talks about the need
to develop the pupils’ academic achievement, he routinely seems to add a
‘but’:
[S]o that we’ll remember to focus on reading or arithmetic while we’re
working with the other material and relations. Because we have to
bring all the things we are good at with us further. [. . .] but we have
to work with ‘how much can we expect, how much can we demand so
we get a better outcome?’ But then we have to be smarter when it
comes to relations [. . .].
Thus, his choice of words seems to suggest that academic performance
has second priority:
[W]e’re not managing to transform ourselves, as much as we wanted,
the emotional support for the instrumental aspect, by that I mean for-
mal competencies [. . .] And I think the reason is that we put too much
emphasis on the relational and emotional aspect at the expense of
the instrumental aspect.
This extract shows that the informant perceives academic achievement
as ‘instrumental,’ describing academic achievement with a slightly negative
connotation. A concept has political capacities and ‘is not simply indicative
of the relations which it covers; it is also a factor within them’ (Koselleck,
2004, p. 86). Accordingly, the choice of words in itself might imply that
the teachers at this school prioritise good relationships at the expense of
academic performance, consequently impeding the school from prioritising
academic development. Thus, the utterances in the data material give rea-
son to question whether the head teacher is giving ambiguous and possibly
conflicting signals about the school culture and that because of this aca-
demic development has second priority. This is a mechanism that has been
described by Mintzberg (1991): when an organisation has to make a funda-
mental change, an ideology that has been necessary for the effectiveness
of the organisation might become a problem and be a force for maintain-
ing the status quo. Similarly, when the school leaders want to prioritise the
improvement of the pupils’ academic performance in this school, positive
features of the school culture appear to rather contribute to maintaining the
current situation.
Additionally, another feature of the school culture seems to contribute to
maintaining the status quo and obstructing the possibilities of developing
and improving the pupils’ academic performance in this school. The head
teacher describes the school’s position in the municipality in the following
way:
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
38 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
I think about [the school name] like a school that follows the dictates
of the local education authority, but at the same time we follow our
own path, a bit ahead of other schools, by emphasising relations, it’s
well known that we’re good at that.
As we can see, the head teacher explains that the way they work with
relations in the school is ahead of other schools. Similarly, the deputy head
teacher refers to results in a national survey where the school scores better
than other lower secondary schools within the municipality on pupil satisfac-
tion. He continues to explain that they have ‘worked at and worked at’ build-
ing the school’s learning environments and have become very good at this.
He claims ‘we don’t have one single pupil who it is not included in school’
and that they have less conflicts between the pupils than other schools,
even though they have a high rate of parents with low socio-economic sta-
tus in the school’s catchment area. Likewise, in the following extract he
gives an example of how well they work at this school:
About the parent meeting that we had. It was new for me to do that.
They put a team together and worked with the issue. It was fantastic.
As we can see, from the head teacher’s point of view, the planning and
implementation of a parent-teacher meeting deserves top marks. Thus, he
describes the school in a very positive manner by explaining that the school
works hard on issues. This might be the case and the background for the
high self-esteem that characterises the school culture.
The point here is not to dispute that School 3 is a good and well-
functioning school. The findings indicate, however, that the high self-esteem
that characterises the culture in this school might contribute to ‘the school’
not being aware of the need to improve. The following extract from the in-
terview with the deputy head teacher reveals that one consequence of the
school’s high self-esteem may be the inability to act on feedback from ex-
ternal sources:
[W]hen we say that we’re not satisfied with the pupils’ performances
and knowledge, in any way that these competencies that are as-
sessed by PISA and other national tests, we feel that we have a po-
tential for improvement. We can actually get better on everything. It’s
that simple. But if you ask if we’re very good at everything [. . .] or at
least in many things, the answer is ‘yes.’ Guaranteed very good and
very loyal to each other.
The deputy head teacher thus reflects over the school’s PISA results. He
acknowledges the school’s need to improve the academic performance, but
it must also be noted that he states ‘we’re very good at everything [. . .]
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Organisational Challenges for School Development and Improvement 39
or [. . .] many things’ and concludes with the assurance that the school is
‘guaranteed very good.’ This train of thought might indicate a belief that the
school organisation does not need to develop and change, as also noted
by Parent 2:
The school is very good [. . .] at boasting that everything is going well.
It’s a good thing, but can be sometimes [. . .] I’m afraid that some-
times we’re not able to see things that don’t work well [. . .] think it’s a
bit scary if we proclaim: ‘here all pupils are enjoying themselves’ and
‘here there is no bullying,’ and so on.
Thus, the school’s high self-esteem is noticed by the surroundings and
is not seen as unilaterally positive. Parent 2 also says ‘I would like to hear a
bit more humility occasionally. Acknowledgment that things occasionally are
not so easy.’ Similarly, Parent 1 characterises the school as self-righteous
and somewhat arrogant, and when asked about the parents’ possibilities
to have influence he answers:
I don’t think so, in fact. Because, I have a feeling that they are so
satisfied with themselves that they don’t want to change anything.
Thus, Parent 1 has noticed that the school is pleased with itself and
argues that this may mean that it has no desire to change. The findings re-
veal that School 3 seems to have characteristics of what Mintzberg (1991)
calls a missionary organisation where the ideology plays a key part. The
ideology reflects the school culture, and in this school, it seems to override
the need to prioritise other significant tasks in the school. The ideology im-
plies that the school leaders send ambiguous messages about the need
for the school to improve the pupils’ academic achievement by emphasis-
ing the importance of good relationships. Moreover, high self-esteem is a
prominent feature of the school culture that seems to prevent the school
from developing new organisational goals. The ideology is unique for each
organisation and binds the members to it (Mintzberg, 1989, 1991) and it
might be challenging for members of an organisation to discover that pos-
itive features of their prevalent ideology might undermine the possibilities
to develop and improve.
All in all, this section demonstrates that the school cultures in both
School 2 and School 4 are characterised by positive features, such as en-
gagement, good relations and high self-esteem. The findings reveal, how-
ever, that these positive features of the school culture might also detri-
mentally impact developmental processes in the school organisation. By
allowing these features to dominate, the school leaders might overlook the
need to introduce measures that could block a potentially negative aspect
of engagement that sends conflicting messages about the need for the
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
40 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
school to improve the pupils’ academic achievement and could lead to a
state of inertia, i.e. they are less inclined to change and develop. Develop-
ment in educational institutions depends on several underlying processes
that support schools in motion (Kovač et al., 2018)). The findings in this
study reveal that school development also depends on having insight into
such underlying organisational processes.
Conclusion
The purpose of the present research has been to identify and analyse ob-
stacles embedded in school organisations that are potential impediments
to organisational development and improvement. The findings demonstrate
that especially at two of the schools the faculty was split into sub-groups,
thus having characteristics of a diversified organisation. The identified prob-
lem for the school organisation was that these groups, predominantly in-
formal in one school and predominantly formal in the other, contributed to
dysfunctional discussions that clearly challenged innovative processes and
development.
Thus, the findings from this study support the notion suggesting that
levels of fragmentation or integration have a decisive influence on the or-
ganisation’s ability to deal with challenges (Morgan, 1998) and might in
turn discourage innovation (Mintzberg, 1989). In addition, and rather unex-
pectedly, the findings also reveal that some positive features of the school
culture, such as engagement, good faculty relations and high institutional
self-esteem might in fact impede school development and improvement. It
is clear that while the ideological school culture can get in the way of or-
ganisational change, it also represents a driving force behind organisational
effectiveness (Mintzberg, 1991). This idea of the ‘double-edged sword’ is
supported in our data where we find that a school culture imbued with
a positive and strong ideology might in fact prevent school organisations
from developing and improving. This agrees with what Mintzberg (1989, p.
229) has presciently noted: ‘The missionary organization is more inclined
to change the world than to change itself.’
References
Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2017). The nested system of local school
development: Understanding improved interaction and capacities in the
different sub-systemsof schools. Improving Shools, 20(3), 195–208.
Dalin, P., & Kitson, K. (2004). School development. Theories and strategies:
An international handbook. Bloomsbury.
Dolph, D. (2017). Challenges and opportunities for school improvement: Re-
connendations for urban school principals. Education and Urban Society,
49(4), 363–387.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Organisational Challenges for School Development and Improvement 41
Donaldson, M. L., & Weiner, J. (2017). The science of improvement: Respond-
ing to internal and external challenges in a complex school environment.
Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(3), 65–75.
Feldhoff, T., Radisch, F., & Bischof, L. M. (2016). Designs and methods in
school improvement research: A systematic review. School Improvement
Research, 54(2), 209–240.
Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the
communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7–30.
Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time.
Columbia University Press.
Kovač, V. B., Tveit, A. D., Omdal, H., & Lund, I. (2018). Directional motion:
An empirical based model of development in educational institutions. Im-
proving schools, 21(2), 127–140.
Liljenberg, M. (2015). Distributing leadership to establish developing and
learning school organizations in the Swedish context. Educational Man-
agement Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 152–170.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An ex-
panded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange worls of
organizations. The Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1991). The effective organization: Forces and forms. Sloan
Management Review, 32(2), 54–67.
Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization: The executive edition. Sage.
Murray, J. (2014). Critical issues facing school leaders concering data-
informed decision-making. Critical Issues Facing School Leaders, 38(1),
237–240.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Sage.
Pollock, K., & Winton, S. (2012). School improvement: A case of competing
priorities! Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(3), 11–21.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in con-
versation analysis 1. Cambridge University Press.
Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C., Luyten, H., & Ebbeler, J. (2017). Factors pro-
moting and hindering data-based decision making in schools. School Ef-
fectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 242–258.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning orga-
nization. Currency/Doubleday.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Tech-
niques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2017). The role of feedback from the school leader
during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teacher
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 6–24.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Anne Dorthe Tveit is Professor of Special Education in the Department of
Education at the University of Agder. She teaches courses in special educa-
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
42 Anne Dorthe Tveit and Velibor Bobo Kovač
tional needs and qualitative research methods. Her research includes studies
in democratic processes, school home cooperation, interdisciplinary cooper-
ation, the special educator profession, and development in educational insti-
tutions. anne.d.tveit@uia.no
Velibor Bobo Kovač is Professor of educational psychology in the Department
of Education at the University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway. He teaches
courses in psychology, special education, and quantitative research methods.
His research includes studies on addictive behaviors, educational evaluation,
inclusion, the concept of trust and trusting behavior, assessments of student
behavior in the context of higher education, and development in educational
institutions. bobo.kovac@uia.no
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning