Organizational Development for the Philippines

The Philippine bureaucracy is one characterized as largely incapable of guiding the process of late industrialization because it has inherited from its colonial rulers a weak civil service. It is plagued with problems that include too many employees, uncompetitive salaries, duplication of functions and lack of accountability. It is so inefficient and corrupt that according to the Ombudsman in a recent statement, bureaucratic corruption costs taxpayers one billion pesos yearly. Even when you have reformists as leaders at the helm, the higher bureaucracy can still interpret and implement the president's reforms in a way that preserves the power, prestige and privileges of the oligarchic interest-groups that are its traditional allies. The ills that trouble our nation can be ameliorated by increasing political capacity in enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of State institutions.

David Osborne and Ted Gaebler articulate in their book Reinventing Government a new form of public management patterned after the customer service model as practiced in the private business sector. In this model, citizens are regarded as customers while the administrative role is restructured by converting policy alternatives into market choices. This approach focuses on results and promotes competition both inside and outside the bureaucracy.

While Osborne and Gaebler contemplated that the American governmental bureaucracy, which was appropriate to the industrial era and times of economic and military crisis during which it was created, is not the best system of governance for the post-industrial information age, the same may not be said about the Philippine bureaucracy.

Filipinos increasingly want quality and choice of goods and services and efficiency of producers just like the Americans in 1960s. However, quality and choice are not what bureaucracies are designed to provide, nor is efficiency possible in a system of complex rules and drawn-out decision-making. Moreover, limited national funds has made it more difficult for local government units to meet the continued citizen demand for services and increasing expectations for quality.

Osborne and Gaebler’s prescription of entrepreneurial government, which focuses on results, decentralizes authority, reduces bureaucracy, and promotes competition both inside and outside government will only work in the Philippine context given the assumption that there is a critical mass of viable private business sector models for local government units to replicate. Also, the redefinition of government's clients as “customers” who are empowered by being able to choose among providers of various services, including schools, health plans, and housing options again depend on factors that include a well informed and assertive public in the Philippines.

The dysfunctions of bureaucracy as identified by Weber include oligarchy, rationalization, calculability, and dehumanization, among others. Other sociologists before and since Weber, have identified variations of these dysfunctions or have since modified and added to the list. There is general agreement in their collective assertions especially the following: that bureaucracy tends to result in oligarchy, or rule by the few, by officials at the top of the organization because of their self-serving and self-perpetuating practices; that bureaucracies are built on the principles of efficiency and calculability; and that they progressively replace traditional social organizations with rational organizations designed to perform like machines. Other dysfunctions of bureaucracy since Weber have been proposed to include the stifling red tape created by convoluted rules of the organization; divisions of labor compartmentalizing attention and response; hierarchy can mean silos, and that employees and processes must go up and down chains of command to get things done; and certain irrationalities result as byproducts of bureaucratic processes.

Building on Weber’s view of bureaucracy, Robert Merton offers a critique of modern problems associated with dysfunctions that result from bureaucracy. In Social Theory and Social Structure, Merton, focuses on what he described as theories of the “Middle Range”, intermediate theories between minor, day-to-day research hypotheses and all inclusive, grandiose, conceptual schemes. Merton examines a “typology of individual adaptation” of which conformity is one of five types he examines. It is conformity that he sees as a concern in modern bureaucracy. Merton describes organizations as integrated set of offices, each with their own obligations and competences and disciplined by rules and responsibilities. Much Like Weber’s view, Merton described that relations between offices require sufficient formality to ensure smooth operation and consistent expectation of behavior.

As gleaned from other sociologists bureaucracies have perceived drawbacks including:

Veblen’s Trained Incapacity wherein one’s training is no longer adequate for the position, due to inadequate flexibility; Dewey’s Occupational Psychosis which describes the preferences, discriminations and biases bred by routines; blindspots that develop from routine can lead to limitations and suboptimal results; formalism leads to rigidities and inability to adjust particularly to the problem of “bureaucratic redtape”.

Sociological schools of thought at large evidently emphasize the imperfections of bureaucracy, as afforded by the application of Veblen's concept of "trained incapacity," Dewey's notion of "occupational psychosis" or Warnotte's view of "professional deformation." Trained incapacity refers to that state of affairs in which one's abilities function as inadequacies or blind spots. Actions based upon training and skills, which have been successfully applied in the past, may result in inappropriate responses under changed conditions. An inadequate flexibility in the application of skills will, in a changing milieu, result in more or less serious maladjustments. In general, one adopts measures in keeping with one's past training and, under new conditions, which are not recognized as significantly different, the very soundness of this training may lead to the adoption of the wrong procedures.

Dewey's concept of occupational psychosis, pronounced character of the mind, rests upon much the same observations. As a result of their day-to-day routines, people develop special preferences, aversions, discriminations and emphases. These psychoses develop through demands put upon the individual by the particular organization of his occupational role. The concepts of both Veblen and Dewey refer to a fundamental ambivalence. Any action can be considered in terms of what it attains or what it fails to attain. A way of seeing is also a form of blindness, a surgical focus on one particular task to a point of neglecting other tasks. In his discussion, Weber is almost exclusively concerned with what the bureaucratic structure attains: precision, reliability, efficiency. This same structure may be examined from another perspective provided by the ambivalence. He uses this knowledge to criticize the structure and considers the fallacies of a bureaucracy. In the final analysis, a bureaucracy in perfect form may seem flawless, but Merton explains that the structural rules and guidelines that make a true bureaucracy can be its biggest weaknesses.

How can the Philippine government be reinvented?

Osborne and Gaebler gave numerous examples such as contracts, vouchers, grants, and tax incentives in demonstrating that catalytic governments must separate steering, or providing guidance and direction, from rowing, or producing goods and services. In the Philippine context this concept could be applied in many aspects of the Philippine bureaucracy to streamline their operations and provide Filipinos with even just the most basic goods and services that is due them. Control of services should also be pushed out of the bureaucracy, into the community through privatization of services otherwise poorly delivered by a highly convoluted Philippine bureaucracy. The strengthening of local government units though the distribution of the central power concentrated in Manila would bring communities into the picture and empower the people who are the intended recipients of services and results in better performance. Improving both the quality and cost-effectiveness of government services can be achieved through competition rather than regulation. Introducing competition does not necessarily mean that a service will be completely turned over to the private sector rather the crucial function of competition is ending government monopolies.

The Philippine government must be mission-driven and deregulate internally to eliminate many of its internal rules and radically simplifying its administrative systems such as budget, personnel, and procurement. Leaders should require each agency to get clear on its mission, then agency heads to find the best way to accomplish that mission, within legal bounds. As a result-oriented government, Philippines could shift accountability from inputs to outputs, or results. It should measure the performance and reward agencies, so they often exceed their goals. As a customer-driven government, it could make an effort to perceive the needs of the citizens and to give customers a choice of producers and service providers. Officials should use surveys and focus groups to listen to their constituents, and put resources in the people’s hands. The government must be enterprising enough to stress earning rather than spending money. They charge user fees and impact fees, and use incentives such as enterprise funds, shared earnings, and innovation funds to encourage managers to earn money.

Philippine officials should always be proactive in seeking to prevent problems rather than delivering services to correct them. They should redesign budget systems, accounting systems, and reward systems to create the appropriate incentives. They must work to decentralize the government and transfer decision-making authority to those individuals and LGU’s at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy, closest to the people. They could restructure organizations and empower employees and create labor-management partnerships. They should be market-oriented and utilize a market mechanism instead of an administrative program to provide goods and services to the public.

Using James D. Thompson’s Organizations in Action as reference, critique his propositions on organizational rationality by applying these on an organization of your choice. Specifically on the following issues: Domains, Organizational Design, Technology and Structure, Power and Authority.

James Thompson, in his book Organizations in Action (1967), depicts two traditionally competing views of the organization: the closed-system (rational model: simplified, controlled environment) and the open-system (natural-system model: bounded rationality, organization in environmental context). The University of St. La Salle (USLS) as an organization could be considered to be patterned mostly after Thompson’s rational model. On the basis of establishing domains, USLS minimizes the power of elements potentially relevant to goal setting and attainment by maintaining status quo among the environmental elements that impact the organization such as enrolment trends, turnover rate among the staff, curricular changes and others. The curriculum and its course offering, likened to business product lines, are constantly diversified and broadened in scope as part of domain expansion, not solely for this purpose but for the manifest rationale of improving the range of services it offers to its student clientele.

It also competes with other universities for support by amplifying its prestige in the academic community through hard-work in order to place high in professional board examinations, winning national and international academic competitions, and expanding its research track. University prestige could also be underscored by acclamation of successful graduates in their respective fields. Prestige is important for USLS as an organization because this is one way by which it enhances its competitive power in the academic market. Thompson proposes that organizations with concentrated support capacity will normally seek power from those on whom they are dependent. This characteristic is shared by USLS in that its support capacity could also be concentrated on its alumni and benefactors in whom its power largely resides. A number of programs are in place to nurture its relationship with the alumni and foster linkages with current and future benefactors.

On organizational design, as any other organization, USLS seeks to place boundaries around activities which would be contingencies if left to environment. The nature of modes of operation is such that contracts are drafted not so much as to protect the interest of the other party but primarily to protect the vested interest of the institution. Waivers are commonly used in the discharge of many university duties for the same foregoing purpose.

As far as organizational design as conceived by Thompson, USLS uses the decentralized rather than the centralized design. USLS is decentralize in a sense that each La Salle institution is independent of other La Sallian institutions in many aspects including major decision making process, budget, income generation and disbursement of funds, curriculum design, and course offering. It could only be considered centralized in that all La Salle institutions all over the globe have one vision of tending to the needs of at-risk youth through the methods and charism of its founder St. La Salle.

Structure at USLS is characterized by major colleges further segmented or departmentalized, and connections are established within and between departments. It is a socio-technical system containing both human and nonhuman resources and facilities. Structure is a fundamental vehicle by which USLS achieves bounded rationality. USLS helps members gain efficiency by delimiting responsibilities and control over resources. If structure affords numerous spheres of bounded rationality, it must also facilitate the coordinated action of interdependent elements. To say that USLS is composed of interdependent parts does not mean that each part is dependent on and supports every other part in any direct way. Yet they may be interdependent in the sense that unless each performs adequately, the total Lasallian organization is jeopardized. In terms of technology and structure USLS has a structure that is its fundamental vehicle for achieving bounded rationality.

Using Thompson’s three strategies to acquire power as reference, USLS negotiates agreements with other institutions and agencies to reduce uncertainty. In contracting Internship slots with cooperating schools, the university drafts a memorandum of agreement with the other party to ensure the protection of the interests and the quality instruction of its student teachers in the field. It also co-opts or “coalesces” with other agencies and institutions to pursue common objectives. Unlike in traditional societies where power and authority are legitimated by tradition, at USLS they are legitimated by merit, acceptability, charisma and even one’s ability to perpetuate the conventions of the Lasallian institution. Administrators are entitled to the position authority, which in turns entitles them to direct the work of their subordinates. Others beneath them in the hierarchy could possess staff authority created to support, assist and advice the holders of line of authority.

Power is exercised also as described by Thompson as legitimate: based on ones position in the formal hierarchy; reward: based on the ability to distribute something that others value; expert: based on ones expertise, special skills or knowledge. Prestige-seeking is preferred in maintaining a favorable image as a way to control dependence.

References

Bedeian, Arthur G., and William F. Gleuck. Management: Third Edition. Chicago: Dreyden Press, 1983.

Colvard, J. Government Executive: “Management Effectiveness vs. Efficiency” April 1, 2001.

Daft, R. (2005). Management, (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Dunham, Randall B. Organizational Behavior. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1984.

Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London. Pitman Publishing company.

Gannon, Martin J. Management: An Integrated Framework. Boston: Little, Brown, 1982.

George, C. S. (1968). The history of management thought. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall. pages 105 - 110.

Gray, Jerry L., and Frederick A. Starke. Organizational Behavior: Concepts and Applications. Columbus, Ohio: Merril, 1988.

Lewis, Pamela S., Stephen H. Goodman, and Patricia M. Fandt. Management. 2nd ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, 1998.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Mintzberg, Henry. The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.1979

O'Connor, Ellen S. "The Politics of Management Thought: A Case Study of the Harvard Business School and the Human Relations School." Academy of Management Review 24, no. 1 (1999): 117–131.

Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Quezon III, M.L., Corruption, bureaucracy and the Philippines 2000. Retrieved May 10, 2007 http://www.tribo.org/history/corrupt2.html

Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. Transaction Publishers.

Wren, Daniel. The Evolution of Management Thought. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.

State of the Nation 2007 (Budget for Education): A Reaction

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared in her 2007 State of the Nation Address (SONA) that there has been a marked improvement in the literacy rate in the Philippines over the last few years- from 72 percent in 1960 to 94 percent in 1990. She attributes this to the increase in both the number of schools built and the level of enrollment in these schools. She reaffirms her statement in last year’s SONA that in today's global economy, knowledge is the greatest creator of wealth. A good education is the best bequest for our children. This year, her administration will invest P150 billion for education to build, with the private sector, more classrooms all over the nation; provide more books so school children do not have to share them; and provide Internet access and more scholarship grants to secondary level students. Upwards of 50,000 new teaching positions will also be created to slash the student-teacher ratio and more will be spent for the induction and in-service training of public school teachers.

Despite the Philippine Constitution mandate that government allocates the highest proportion of its budget to education, the Philippines still has one of the lowest budget allocations to education among the ASEAN countries. Be that as it may, this budget could be stretched further by amending the current system of budgeting for education across regions, which is based on participation rates and unit costs. This clearly favors the more developed regions. There is a need to provide more allocation to lagging regions to narrow the disparity across regions. Also, the president’s plan, as she outlined in her 2007 SONA, does little to stop the current practice of subsidizing state universities and colleges to enhance access. This may not be the best way to promote equity. What could be more equitable is an expanded scholarship program giving more focus and priority to the poor.

Human Security Act: A Reaction

By signing the Human Security Act of 2007 into law, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims that this is a great measure to curb insurgency and terrorism in the country. The act will penalize terrorism with life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. It gives law enforcement agencies more teeth in going after suspected terrorists and monitoring possible funding for terrorist attacks. It shall be the basis for more effective anti-terrorism measures that are intended to not only crush the terrorist movement in the country but also to keep it away from Philippine shores. The law would also make the government "more effective in fighting terrorism" with South-East Asian neighbors.

Civil rights and leftist activists oppose the Human Security Act because it authorizes the 72-hour detention of suspects without charge and allows for surveillance, wiretapping and seizure of assets. They claim that it could be used by the government of President Gloria Arroyo to stifle political dissent by persons or groups simply expressing legitimate democratic concerns under the cover of anti-terror operations. A petition calling for the Philippine Supreme Court to review the law has been presented, and rights groups are urging the government to suspend the new law until the high court rules or amendments are pushed through Congress.

The government contends that, while under this new law, suspected terrorists can be detained without charges for three days, it contains built-in measures for reparations for persons wrongfully detained to receive about 10,000 dollars for each day of detention. Still, many fear that the law could be used to crack down political dissent and opposition against the government just the same.

Just one week after the promulgation of the new law, government security officials said that they would seek several amendments in the Human Security Act of 2007. They believe that the reparation clause is too much burden for the government’s budget to bear. Instead of P 500,000 for every day of wrongful detention, they propose that it could be amended to P200,000 capped at two million pesos.

In the final analysis, just at the onset of the Human Security Act of 2007 enactment, it is already reviled from one extreme as an act “too little, too late” and on the other extreme as “too much, too soon”.

Labor Unions in Schools: Boon or Bane

The bold declaration of a legal policy in the Clayton Act of 1914 that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce" signified the global uprising of the working class to assert all kinds of workers’ rights from fair wages, reasonable work hours and protection from a slew of perceived and real abuses at the hands of their employers.

As associations of employees which exist in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, labor unions have permeated through nearly all sectors of both private and public institutions by their active, persistent and sometimes even militant efforts. All around the world, labor unions have made indelible marks in defining global perspectives on the treatment of workers and the remuneration & benefits they now enjoy. Throughout its colorful and continuing history-shaping undertakings, labor unions have crafted a labor-management landscape that is so far removed from its early beginnings.

Looming among the milestones of labor union history include venerable achievements including the origination of profit sharing at Albert Gallatin's glass works in New Geneva, Pennsylvania, USA. In 1825, carpenters in Boston were the first to stage a strike for the 10-hour work-day. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that unions were legal organizations and had the right to organize and strike. Before this decision, labor unions which attempted to 'close' or create a unionized workplace could be charged with conspiracy.

As early as 1847, teachers found the need to organize the Educational Institute of Scotland, the oldest teachers' trade union in the world. The first organized workers in the world to achieve an 8 hour day with no loss of pay were stonemasons and building workers in Melbourne, Australia. This achievement was replicated by the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions in the United States, passing a resolution stating that "8 hours shall constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886."

Realizing that more could be done to improve the deplorable plight of workers in many countries, the United Nations formed in 1919 through the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles the International Labor Organization (ILO), now a specialized agency of the United Nations.

The passing of Fair Labor Standards Act resulted to the banning of child labor and setting the 40-hour work week. The Act went into effect in October 1940, and was upheld in the Supreme Court in 1941. More than 20 years later, United States Congress passed a law mandating equal pay to women.

But four decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal air traffic controllers in the U.S. began a nationwide strike after their union rejected the government's final offer for a new contract. Most of the 13,000 striking controllers defied the back-to-work order, and were dismissed by President Reagan. This, in essence, paved the way for the widespread acceptance of hard-ball strategies employed by heads of states against union actions by invoking the greater weight of protection of national interest over workers’ rights.

Labor laws, especially the collective bargaining provisions, have, of late, granted unions in the Philippines awesome powers to dictate and influence many crucial school policies. The provisions in the typical collective bargaining agreement between unions and school are all-encompassing and affect the day-to-day operations of local schools in many ways.

Spending teacher dues, union political operatives are involved at all levels of school politics, governance, and finance. In the United States, they even contribute campaign funds to candidates who promise to pursue and protect union interests. They hire lobbyists in the legislature, where appropriations are made and where laws are passed.

Many schools using extralegal methods are successful in preventing the formation of unions. Although the Philippine Constitution allows for the right to bargain collectively and is buttressed by the 1996 Labor Code, only 14.5 percent of the workforce, or approximately 540,000 workers, are covered by collective bargaining agreements. No school-specific statistics are readily available to indicate the number of educators covered by collective bargaining agreements. Most school administrators realize that keeping their workforce content by proactively preventing any potential labor disputes is a legal way to keep out the unions. These administrators realize that it is often profitable to provide sufficient benefits and rights to their highly trained workforce, thereby curtailing the call for union representation. While other industries resort to hiring employees on a contractual basis as another way in which employers prevent unionization and evade labor regulations, this tactic is not possible in the academe because of certain provisions in their accreditation asserting the employment of a threshold percentage of permanent employees.

Indeed, educators who join a union do so because they believe that it helps sustain for them a decent standard of living and professionalism. It protects against job exploitation of the weak, otherwise not organized to possess the clout to bargain with employers. Unions are also increasingly looked upon as a source for supplemental unemployment insurance or benefits.

While on one hand, union officials have courageously pared down the calloused skins of unfair, deceitful and even abusive employers, on the other, they have sent, knowingly or unknowingly, through various labor actions many of their members in harm’s way, to prison and even to slaughter. Many episodes in the history of union actions were concluded with members starved into submissive defeat, maimed or killed.

Between 1877 and 1968, 700 people have been killed in American labor disputes alone. In the two years that span 1902 and 1904, one worker was killed and 1,009 were injured for every 100,000 strikers. While in the 1890s in France, three French workers were injured for every 100,000 strikers. Between 1877 and 1968, American state and federal troops intervened in labor disputes more than 160 times, almost invariably on behalf of employers.

When the Nation Labor Union in the United States eventually persuaded Congress to pass an insubstantial law stipulating an eight hour day for Federal workers, it was widely blamed for the casualty of the sweeping economic depression that followed in 1873.

When school unions demand substantially unreasonable pay raises for their members, they leave school administrators with very little option but to raise tuitions fees. These fees could become so exorbitantly beyond the reach of middle class families that prospective students are lost to less expensive competitors and nonunion schools. This results in schools having to cut back important curricular and extracurricular programs which unnecessarily triggers the pernicious cycle of retrenchment and regression in enrollment until the inevitable closure of otherwise viable schools. Unions in general and some school unions in particular, in effect, become victims of their very own unbridled power and unfettered success.

Critical Essay on the CBCP Monitor Review of the McCann Erickson Youth Studies of 2000 and 2005 and the McCann Erickson

The McCann Erickson Youth Studies of 2000 and 2005, and the McCann Erickson Inter-generation Study of 2006 as reviewed by the CBCP Monitor, tells us that the 16.5 million Filipino “youth” below the age of 21 are “technocentric”: spending an inordinate amount of time in front of either the computer monitor or the TV set, surfing the Internet, text messaging or playing computer and video games. Because 48% of them “do not have either one, or both parents, around with them”, it is not surprising that this generation of Filipino youth looks primarily to celebrities as their role models. But even more alarming, the Inter-generation study showed that there is a severe loosening of moral values among adult Filipinos, and this is reflected in what young people consider right and wrong. As a consequence, about half of them do not consider as “wrong” such acts as casual sex, premarital sex, using a prostitute, getting drunk, gambling, hazing, abortion, homosexual relationships, and suicide.

Perhaps, these same problems have plagued previous generations of Filipinos but the difference between the youth of today and that of the past is that modern youths are less modest and not as discreet with their private lives. Young people today express their sentiments openly and tend to confront private issues forthrightly than youngsters of generations gone by who tended to skirt around sensitive issues for modesty considerations.

The McCann Erickson Youth Studies of 2000 and 2005, and the McCann Erickson Inter-generation Study of 2006 appears or is made to appear like a longitudinal study when it is really just a snapshot of the current state of affairs. There is no baseline data upon which we can compare today’s youth with any previous generation of youths. Be that as it may, the current state is still dismal. Indeed, the moral desensitization of our youth could be easily blamed on celebrities, video games, or TV shows, but it takes a village to teach a child. The three major institutions known to have the greatest impact on the socialization of the youth, the home, school, and church have to share the blame for most measure of the depravity and wantonness that we see today. Many believe that the youth have become disillusioned with these institutions because they have consistently failed the youth.

Parents should be smarter than to use the Internet and the television to baby-sit their children as indeed children, because of their underdeveloped ability to discern right from wrong, tend to imbibe the poor moral characters portrayed in most shows of today. At school, students are entrusted in the care of teachers who sometimes physically, verbally or emotionally abuse them. If the society could barely expect teachers to keep their words at paying back loans on time, could it expect them to teach with credibility, principles and ethics? Should our children finally turn to their church leaders for guidance as a last recourse, will they find paragons of virtues there as well? In the United States, the Philippines and other parts of the world, many churches are plagued with what the Vatican denounces as “evil sex priests,” who prey on their youthful flock as wolves in religious vestments.

If it is to be assumed that our young people are inherently good and are earnestly searching for “the true, the good and the beautiful,” then the McCann Erickson study is a condemnation of the adult stakeholders of the youths’ welfare. They are guilty of abdicating their responsibilities toward the children to mold and fashion them into the ideal citizens of the society and culture we want them to inherit; guilty of abrogating their duties as the primary socializing models for the moral, intellectual, and interpersonal growth of children; and, guilty of neglecting the challenge of youth stewardship in keeping them on the straight and narrow or redirecting their paths should they unnecessarily stray.

Short of declaring the Philippines a moral wasteland, the McCann Erickson study and those who peddle its findings as gospel truth, should be well guided with the hindsight of history that the moral pendulums of human civilizations tend to swing to the farthest extreme before it swings right back to the other, and that controlling or attempting to divert the fate that is predestined by providential design could only alter its course with incalculable repercussions. Failure is a harsh teacher but it is the only one that will leave a stamp on our collective psyches to tweak our actions in the hopes of effecting a desirable outcome.

If the McCann Erickson study is of any use, it is that stakeholders are now engaged in the discussion about the moral decay among the youth. Also, by knowing the children in our homes, schools and churches, we will be able to truly align our plans of action with their shrouded needs. This, of course, requires that adults have to spend more quality time with children and engage them in a challenge not only to be appropriately responsive to adult guidance and care but also to strive ever harder to independently and unilaterally commit to maintaining universal principles and their personal dignities in the avalanche of clear and present temptations. While this is short of a miracle, St. John Baptist de La Salle’s advice echoes from centuries past: “to touch the hearts of the young and to inspire them with the Christian spirit is the greatest miracle we can perform and one that God asks of us.”

An Epiphany

You are equal to the task.

Obligations are never greater than your talents, skills and endowments.

But they can overwhelm you only with your consent.

Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

God will manifest his perfect strength in your weakness.

He will wave the banner of His awesome power on the summit of your enemy’s defeat.

As the light of hope seems to grow dimmer, a tribulation looms overhead.

Forgiveness is the courtesy to a heartfelt apology

Love outlives loathing, valor defeats compliance, and hope springs eternal!

by

Rogie Legaspi

July 4, 2006

Effective Appraisal of Principals: Path to Improved School Leadership?

Why the need for an esteemed appraisal system?

Effective schools research has established a compelling link between effective, strong, and visionary principals and improved student achievement. Because school administrators are increasingly viewed as key individuals in determining the success of schools, the need for a well-regarded appraisal system that captures the essential elements of accomplished principalship becomes apparent. Administrators should be evaluated not only on their management skills but also on their ability to be instructional leaders.

Public school principals in the Philippines use the Performance Appraisal for School Administrators (PASSA Form B-1, n.d.) to appraise their own performance. It is a self-rating tool composed of only three major components (with weight assignments in parentheses) as follows: Occupational Competence (70%), Professional & Personal Characteristics (20%) and Punctuality & Attendance (10%). Other administrator appraisal systems include criteria domains such as: instructional management; school or organization morale; school or organization improvement; personnel management; management of administrative, fiscal, and facilities functions; student management; school or community relations; professional growth and development; and academic excellence indicators and campus performance objectives.

Unlike the appraisal processes in most countries wherein the principal's supervisor is responsible for completing the evaluation, PASSA is a self-reflective, self-rating tool that, when completed by the principal, is reviewed by his immediate supervisor, who will in turn recommend it for approval by the Schools Division Superintendent. Ideally the assessment process should combine the analyses of multiple assessors of the principal's performance as suggested by Santeusanio (1998), to yield a report that defines strategies for ongoing growth and development. The purpose of principal assessment should be to urge committed school leaders toward the kind of professional growth opportunities which can support leadership for the academic achievement of all learners. It should allow the participant to assess their developmental skills and to build a profile leading to professional growth in the measured skills (Texas Principals Leadership Initiative, n.d.). Despite the research-based suggestions, the performance appraisal principals, by and large, remains a subject of criticism by many as stereotyped in Russo’s (2004) insistence that most performance reviews fail to result in improved leadership.

In the United States and other countries, administrators are faced with an annual appraisal, upon which the continuation of their contract and compensation for work performance hinge. Thus, a genuine perspective on the appraisal process should include the perceptions of practicing principals because the perceived satisfaction of principals concerning the overall appraisal process influences the effectiveness and the stability of the evaluation. Their satisfaction with the process has correlation to the perceived effect of the appraisal on their future performance. If the practicing principal's role in the educational system continues to be perceived as critical in the success of students and in effecting change and reforms, knowledge about their perception on the appraisal process, that is professed as a tool to improve their performance, is consequential in improving the process should the evidence point to the fact that some of its components do not accomplish what it purports to measure and attain. Conversely, components absent from the instrument that the principals perceive meaningful and relevant may be suggested for inclusion in the review and revision of the instrument in the future.

Historical Background of Principal Assessment

Because of the preponderance of literature supporting the pivotal role of the principal in effecting educational outcomes, it is hardly surprising that some attention has shifted from teacher appraisal toward that of the principal's. Increasingly, local school boards and school district superintendents are seeking improved methods of both teacher and, more recently, principal evaluation. The understanding of perceived satisfaction of principals regarding the stages of evaluation and the overall process is important for it may influence the effectiveness of the process (Cooley & Shen, 2003; Harrison & Peterson, 1988).

In recent years, there have been various reports whose unifying themes revolve around the role of the principal as a decisive factor that determines the success or failure of public schools. Given the crucial role of the principal in determining the effectiveness of a school, it would seem vital that there be a valid proven plan for evaluating and sustaining the effectiveness of the principal. Unlike the attention given to teacher appraisal systems, principal evaluation has come about rather slowly and with great contentions in terms of the competencies and criteria to be used in the assessment of the principals' performance. It is well documented that high achievers and effective leaders depend on frequent review of their goals and progress toward those goals. They assess their own progress, and they also seek outside opinion. Secondary school principals who participated in the post-assessment surveys of administrator attitudes and self improvement efforts suggest that they perceive factors of performance to be significantly different from what they learned in school administration preparation programs.

In most cases principal evaluation comes in two broad types: formative and summative. The purpose, scope and manner of administration of these two types vary somewhat in such that formative evaluation is relatively informal and is geared toward helping principals improve, while summative evaluation is more structured. Its goal is to precisely evaluate performance and it is often used to facilitate decisions over compensation or tenure. Most statewide instruments used in the United States comprise elements of both types with varying degrees of emphasis on one type or the other.

Purposes of Principal Evaluation

The primary purpose of traditional performance appraisal plans was to link the school's assessment to the administrator’s salary. Recently, appraisal is being viewed as a means of personnel development. Appraisal is not something done to teachers and principals; it is something done for them. It is in this light that performance appraisal should be viewed as an essential and continuing activity.

Most of the purposes of appraisal systems can be grouped into three categories: (1) compensation decisions, (2) employment decisions, and (3) performance enhancement decisions (Castetter & Young, 2000).

Principal appraisal instruments, attain these general purposes: (a) identify the degree to which individual's or units deviate from accepted standards of performance or outputs; (b) sense deviation from a set of standards of performance or output which in turn may stimulate corrective actions or feedback to the principal; and (c) channel and shape behavior as well as to demonstrate to the community at large that such controls are in place.

Performance evaluation is designed to assist principals in better accomplishing their leadership role. A well-crafted principal evaluation system is important not only for the progress and welfare of the school’s students and staff but for the progress and welfare of the principal involved. An evaluation system is essential to professional growth and progress.

In an attempt to comprehensively define and capture the purpose of principal evaluation, the following list of its purposes is compiled from a review of literature about effective principal evaluation: (1) determine merit pay and advancement; (2) assist principals in better accomplishing their leadership role; (3) professional growth & development and self-improvement; (4) commendation of the principal; (5) school improvement; (6) accountability; (7) encourage communication within the organization by facilitating mutual goal setting between the principal and the superintendent; (8) foster a commitment to mutually developed objectives; (9) encourage the systematic annual evaluation of the school principal by the superintendent of schools; and (10) sensitize the superintendent to the needs of the principal and encourage him to provide assistance to the principal.

Because assessment programs can cost time and resources, school and districts have to characterize precisely what they hope to gain by principal evaluation and that they have to resist the impulse to violate that characterization.

Criteria of an Effective Principal Evaluation Process

Although there is no overwhelming agreement among experts on which criteria are best used in principal evaluation, and studies to date have been individually inconclusive in identifying the best criteria for evaluation of school administrators, there is ample evidence that certain school priorities should be identified to serve as the basis for the principal's evaluation.

The ideal principal evaluation systems are cooperative and flexible. Principals could work with their evaluators to establish individualized annual performance plans and goals. While some argue that the complexity of schools makes principals' evaluation on the basis of outcomes unrealistic, the need increases for models that tie evaluation more closely with valued outcomes.

While it is conceded that a broad range of criteria can serve as a basis for principal evaluation, it has been specifically suggested that these criteria could be combined or weighted differently, depending on the needs of the school system. It is important to carefully consider the role of internal and external forces on the school and school system when (a) identifying the criteria which will serve as the basis for a principal's evaluation; and (b) determining the purposes for evaluation. Repeated surveys of educators revealed that the many issues regarding principal evaluation eventually coalesced into three basic domains: organizational development, organizational environment and educational program.

In their meta-analytic review of 32 published and unpublished studies, Williams and Pantili (1992) found that leadership is the single greatest factor that affects administrative potential. They also noted that skill dimensions seeming to have more effect on job performance criteria are organizational ability, leadership and communication skills.

The following have been identified by Weiss (1989) as important categories of administrative competencies: leadership--the principal's ability to guide the school in accomplishing its goals; educational --the ability to provide direction and supervision to the instructional program; interpersonal --the ability to understand, interact, and communicate with all members of the school community; managerial--the ability to control the day to day operations of the school. Time management is crucial in the principal's ability to balance effectively one's role as instructional leader and building manager; and professional--includes the principal's ability to improve his/her own knowledge and status.

Experts advocate that school systems focus their evaluation process on the instructional leadership role of the principal. A primary reason for this emphasis is the result of the research that indicates that students in schools where principals exert a stronger instructional leadership role exhibit greater achievement gains on standardized tests than do students in schools where principals assume a weaker instructional leadership role (Connecticut Principals' Academy, 1990; Ediger, 2002).

Components which the experts agreed should be included in an effective principal evaluation process are: (a) a philosophical statement on the role of the principal in the school system; (b) a clear definition of the purposes on the role of the principal evaluation; (c) an accurate listing of the proficiencies of the principal; and (d) efficient procedures for evaluating the principal.

The North Clackamas School District in Oregon uses two assessment systems for principals: the Professional Accountability Program (for principals who have yet to complete three years in the district) and Professional Development Evaluation Program (for principals who have completed three years in the district). Principals in the Professional Accountability Program have eight job functions, each with several performance standards. The supervisor conducts at least three observations a year and provides narrative reports of each one. Principals who do not meet performance standards are placed in a remedial cycle (Peterson, 1991).While under the Professional Development Evaluation Program, principals establish personal goals for two to three years, and the district provides tuition, release time and travel allowances to assist them. Cash incentives of over $1000 are available for those who meet their professional goals. Formative, annual evaluations are used for its junior principal and employ surveys and frequent observations to measure performance in pre-selected areas. Senior principals are evaluated using a less structured formative evaluation and encourages autonomous projects that will benefit both the principal and the district.

Stages and Frequency of Evaluation

There are four stages in the process of developing and implementing the use of a performance-based principal evaluation. The first two stages of evaluation, development and preparatory involve the construction of an evaluation committee and the training of the evaluators in that committee, respectively. The formative phase outlines the two dimensional approach to evaluation: (1) procedures for assessing and improving specific skills (criteria) and (2) procedures for improving the ability to provide direction for the school (goals). In the summative phase judgments should represent a synthesis of information from the formative phase. Somewhere in the developmental stages, the necessity for principals to become involved in professional growth and self improvement activities is important and is stated repeatedly in the literature on administration.

In a survey of the perceptions of 460 teachers and principals regarding principal evaluation, principals were more approving of frequent evaluations than teachers; teachers were more approving than principals of involving more persons in the evaluation process; teachers are more likely than administrators to trust the efficacy of several instruments in determining administrator effectiveness; and that teachers felt far more strongly that they should be involved in principal evaluation (Mullins, 1988).

Criticisms of and Warnings about Principal Evaluation

The criticisms that plague principal evaluation is mostly about the gaps between the skills taught in principal preparation programs and the skills identified as important to principal performance and assessed school systems. Principals perceive the factors of performance to be significantly different from what they learned in university preparation programs or were assessed for in their districts’ principal evaluation instrument. These discrepancies between preparation, assessment and actual job performance may have enticed many employers of principals to rely more heavily on traditional selection and retention procedures such as interviews, in-house training and evaluation of self-reports. Few principals feel that their evaluation processes are appropriately linked with the process bearing on their professional development, though most feel that these processes ought to be linked. Also, little association exists between the assessment ratings and job performance criteria for principals. Several of the skill dimensions used in assessment appears to have near zero validity with job performance criteria.

Other criticisms about principal evaluation stem from the confusion and misperception about the purpose of evaluation and the formation and application of evaluation criteria. Only a handful of districts have clearly defined performance levels. Many schools also rely on standardized checklist ratings that are not tailored to a particular school's needs.

Research about principal evaluation often relies on perceptual data collected from teachers, district administrators, and parents who have little interactions with principals. Researchers warn that should this trend continue it will promote a fudge factor that allows power and influence to affect the outcomes of evaluation more strongly than do criteria related to schools' performance or outcomes.

Finally, principals believe that superintendents rely more heavily on external measures of principal performance. Experts were dismayed by a lack of explicitness in communicating the supervisor's priorities to school principals. They take this ambiguity, combined with the lack of in-depth observation of principals by supervisors, to signal failure to communicate, and thus diminution of the credibility of the evaluation process.

Synthesis

To be truly useful, principal evaluation must be based on clearly stated performance expectations, reflect established goals and entail regular observations. Although experts agree that there is no single, correct way to evaluate principals; one of the recurring themes authors of literature about principal evaluation strike is the need for close district-school communication and coordination.

Authorities recommend involving a broad base of school personnel in the process of designing an evaluation system and also consulting specialists in the field. They also emphasize the importance of direct observation, peer supervision and ongoing communication through carefully planned conferences.

Associated with effective implementation are these considerations: (1) the onsite observations of the principal by the evaluator, (2) the post-observation conference between principal and the evaluator, (3) the professional development plan developed by the principal and the evaluator, (4) the goal statement representing a direction for the school, and (5) the improvement of evaluative skills. Experts agree that the evaluation process must be tailored to the individual needs of the principal. Principals at different grade levels might even need to be evaluated differently.

The appraisal process should emphasize the importance of the establishment of goals and objectives since individuals and organizations must have goals and purposes if they are to be productive. If organizational expectations are clear to a principal, it is more likely that the principal will be able to achieve these expectations (Cooley & Shen, 2003; Weiss, 1989).

Formative evaluation, aimed at improving principal performance, can help build strong linkages and commitment to achieving the district’s long range goals. Teachers should be considered as sources of feedback that principals might use in making their own self-assessments. A summative evaluation becomes a natural progression if evaluators have already identified areas of improvement and developed growth plans during the year.

Because the effectiveness and stability of the appraisal system is the function of the principal's satisfaction with the system, only specific identifiable factors should be part of the instrument to be associated with principal satisfaction in the evaluation process. The acceptance of a principal appraisal system is necessary to influence principals' actions positively. Findings indicate that when a superintendent frequently communicates satisfaction in their performance, principals are more satisfied with the process.

It is deemed harmless for principals to be intimately involved in the goal-setting process and they should be carefully informed of how the various goals will be weighted and assessed. This knowledge encourages principals to focus on the aspects of their job deemed most important. A culture accustomed to instant gratification and constant change with the expectation of immediate outcomes without regard for the process may not be the best framework to promote high academic standards. Principals are expected, more than ever, to spend time in classrooms or communicate with students about their academic work (Cooley & Shen, 2003).

Principals are increasingly perceived as key individuals in charting success in schools. For this reason, the need for a suitable and compelling appraisal system that captures the essential elements of accomplished principalship is self-evident. Because principals perform a multifaceted job, their performance should be evaluated based on the many dimensions their responsibilities demand of them and for reasons that include accountability and professional growth, among many others.

References

Administrator Appraisal, 22 TexReg 4200 § 150.1021 (Aug. 1, 1997) reprinted as amended in 23 TexReg 5966 (to be effective June 11, 1998).

Andrews, C. (1990). Evaluating principals. National Association of Elementary School Principals Research Roundup, 6(2), 3-8.

Brown, G. & Irby, B.J. (1998). Seven policy considerations for the principal appraisal. School Administrator, 55(9),10.

Brown, G., Irby, B.J. & Neumeyer, C. (1998). Taking the lead: One district’s approach to principal evaluation. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 82(602), 18-25.

Castetter, W.B., & Young, I.P. (2000). The human resource function in educational administration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Connecticut Principals’ Academy. (1990, Spring). A guide to the process of evaluating school principals (Monograph no. 2).

Cooley, V.E. & Shen, J. (2003). School accountability and professional job responsibilities: A perspective from secondary principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 87(634), 10-25.

Davis, S.H. & Hensley, P.A. (1999). The politics of principal evaluation. Educational Leadership, 29(1), 22-26.

Ediger, M. (2002). Assessing the school principal. Education, 123(1), 90-95.

Frampton, P.M., & Hirth, M.A. (2003). Teaching leaders how to lead better. Principal Leadership, 3(9), 61-65.

Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, Republic Act No. 9155, Congress of the Philippines, 3^rd Session. (2001).

Harrison, W.C. (1988). The status of evaluation of principals: Administrators perceptions and opportunities and obstacles to improving the process. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association.

Harrison, W.C., & Peterson, K.D. (1988). Evaluation of principals: The process can be improved. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 72(508), 1-4.

Hart, A.W. (1993). The social and organizational influence of principals: Evaluating principals in context. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(2), 37-57.

Herman, J.J. (1999). School planning & personnel: A resource guide to effective administration. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.

Johnson, L.R. (1998). Performance evaluation of special education administrators: Considerations and recommendations. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82(594), 24-32.

Lewis, A.C. (1997). Standards for new administrators. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(2), 99-100.

Mullins, T.H. (1988). Perceptions of Texas elementary principals and teachers regarding evaluation of principals. Louisville, KY: Mid-South Educational Research Association.

Performance Appraisal System for School Administrators, PASSA FORMB-1 (n.d.)

Peterson, D. (1991). Evaluating principals (Tech. Rep. No. EDO-EA-91-2). Eugene, OR: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Russo, Alexander (2004), Evaluating Administrators with Portfolios: Principals Report Mostly Positive Experiences when Used as Part of a Performance Review. School Administrator 61(9) 34.

Santeusanio, R. (1998). Improving performance with 360-degree feedback. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 30-32.

Valentine, J.W. & Harting, R.D. (1988). Performance-based teacher evaluation in Missouri: A three year report (Tech. Rep. No. BBB27074). Jefferson City, MO: University of Missouri, Department of Educational Administration.

Valentine, J.W. (1986). Performance/outcome based principal evaluation: A summary of procedural considerations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED281381)

Weiss, K. (1989). Evaluation of elementary and secondary school principals. Orlando, FL: American Association of School Administrators.

Williams, J. & Pantili, L. (1992). A meta-analytic model of principal assessment. Journal of School Leadership 2(3), 256-279.