Sakarya University Journal of Education, 4/1 (Nisan /April 2014) ss. 49-61.

School As A Social System

Kıvanç BOZKUŞ*

Abstract

Social system perspective which belongs to systems theory has been elaborated comprehensively using its
founders’ ideas, and characteristics of schools have been explained consulting to this perspective. The
course of social system idea has been reviewed along with its relation to other systems. How researchers
who assumes schools as social systems define the main components of the school has been reviewed. By
attaching importance to the humane side of school, social systems perspective differentiates school from for
profit organizations. For this reason, social systems theory has been one of the most realistic models for
schools. The assumptions behind this assertion are examined. It is probable that this perspective sheds light
on research conducted in educational organizations.

Key Words: Social systems, systems theory, schools.

Bir Sosyal Sistem Olarak Okul

Özet

Sistemler kuramına ait olan sosyal sistem görüşü, kurucularının fikirlerinden yararlanılarak kapsamlı bi-
çimde ele alınmış ve bu kuram ile okulların özellikleri açıklanmıştır. Sosyal sistem fikrinin gelişim süreci,
diğer sistemlerle olan ilişkisiyle birlikte incelenmiştir. Okulları sosyal sistemler olarak ele alan araştırmacı-
ların, okulun temel parçalarını nasıl tanımladıkları da ele alınmıştır. Sosyal sistem görüşü okulun insani
yönüne dikkat çekerek okulu kar amaçlı kurumlardan ayrı tutmuştur. Bu nedenle sosyal sistemler kuramı
okulları en gerçekçi açıklayabilen modellerden birisi olagelmiştir. Bu savın arkasındaki varsayımlar ince-
lenmiştir. Bu görüşün eğitim kurumlarında yürütülen araştırmalara ışık tutması mümkün görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal sistemler, sistemler teorisi, okullar.

*
Arş. Gör., Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi, [email protected]
50 SAÜ Eğ itim Bilimleri Enstitü sü

INTRODUCTION tability. For this reason, school systems were

Schools are important organizations that pre- associated with open systems perspective

pare our children for adult roles. Their working which is considered an integration of both

mechanism has a strong effect on the quality of former systems (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). Besides

education. There are many theories that try to organizational roles, behaviors of individuals

explain the nature of the school organizations. were also ruled by personal needs.

Among them, social systems theory has been Researchers needed to explain how schools
one of the most realistic models for schools. work under a more comprehensive model
This paper examines the assumptions behind called social systems theory. Parsons, Getzels,
this assertion and tries to find out the characte- Guba, Lipham, Campbell, Hoy and Miskel
ristics of schools that can be explained or inter- were the leading researchers that adapted this
preted using social systems theory. theory to schools. This theory inherits key con-

Talcott Parsons was the first formulator of cepts from its predecessors. Therefore, we

Social systems. They are based on interpersonal should explore rational, natural, and open

relationships regardless of their size and com- systems theories in order to understand social

plexity, and they consists of individual actors systems.

interacting in a culturally structured system The purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) to
full of shared symbols (Parsons, 1951). Social elaborate social systems theory and (b) to in-
systems have three basic characteristics called vestigate how scholars who accept schools as
the interdependence of the parts, their organi- social systems define basic characteristics of
zation into some sort of whole, and the intrinsic schools and relate them with the theory, or to
presence of both individuals and institutions learn how they visualize schools as social sys-
(Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968). tems.

After the Second World War, schools were Systems Theory

considered as formal organizations that are
Scholars have developed various perspectives
structured to accomplish organizational goals.
under the systems theory to analyze organiza-
Organizational behavior was assumed to be
tions through different lenses. In this section,
rational and consisted of rational interactions of
perspectives of rational systems, natural sys-
individuals. However, schools’ goals and activ-
tems, open systems and social systems will be
ities were not linked with clear lines of com-
elaborated.
munication, so people within schools were not
acting to achieve collective goals which are Rational systems
essential in rational systems. Apparently,
Rational systems perspective views organiza-
schools had resemblance to natural systems
tions as machines built to achieve some desired
which contain groups that work to achieve not
ends. Their main purpose is to mold every
only organizational goals but also their own
aspect of an organization specifically in respect
goals.
to a proven prescription in order to ensure its
Schools had features of both rational and natu- working in a solid and stable fashion. By utiliz-
ral systems and also have strong relationships ing what already is known to be working, any
with their external environment that stems risk of failure and emergence of undesired
from the dependence on resources and accoun- outcomes are eliminated. The assumption is
 Sakarya University Journal of Education 51

that if everything stays within the lines of logic, Natural Systems

so will the outcomes.
While rational systems emphasize goals, natu-
Goals ral systems propose that organizations, in fact,
Organizations are formed for a main purpose: strive to survive and the goals are meaningful
to accomplish goals. Goals specify the out- as long as they help the organization’s survival.
comes to be achieved through organizational Therefore, the organization may modify or
activities. The nature of activities and the orga- even remove the goals when necessary. Organ-
nizational structure to carry out activities de- izations are living systems consist of social
pend on the specificity of the goals. Less speci- elements and therefore cannot be used as tools
ficity makes it harder to design a structure and thrown away when the goals are accom-
while allowing choosing among various activi- plished. They tend to exist even after there
ties. However, “vague goals do not provide a remain no more goals to achieve (Gouldner,
solid basis for formal organizations. Either the 1959). Natural systems emphasize the human
goals become more specific and limited over side of organizations, and they reject the dual-
time… or the structures developed are likely to ism that splits people and organizations
be unstable and amorphous” (Scott, 1998, p. (Greenfield & Ribbins, 1993).
35). Informal organization
Formal organization Individuals have to interact with each other to
Formalization derives from the bureaucratic carry out organizational goals. They learn each
structure of rational systems. Within rational other’s personal life, habits, feelings etc. Some
systems there are hierarchies of authority, divi- people are liked and respected while others are
sion of labor, work specialization, rules and not. Those who are followed have an informal
regulations. All these are typically associated authority over others. Those who are disliked
with bureaucracy. Organizational goals require may be alienated. Also, when personal interests
obedience to clear rules which leave little room differ from those of organizations, informal
for interpretation. Obedience is enforced structures are more likely to occur. Research
through rewards and sanctions. shows that within each formal organization,
informal structures occur inevitably (Hoy &
Individuals within organizations are assigned
Miskel, 2005).
to specific roles that are independent of their
personality. The goal here is to make behavior Although informal organization is first empha-
predictable by standardizing roles (Scott, 1998). sized by natural systems theory, it should not
So, each person does exactly what s/he is pre- be conceived of unique to natural systems.
scribed to do and produces only the desired While being a formal organization, social sys-
outcomes that are essential to working of the tems too are to some extent informal organiza-
organization. This resembles to a machine. tions. To understand a social system as a
Each part does its job and the machine works in whole, one should look at both formal and
a linear fashion. However, human beings are informal organizations within it. Social systems
not as simple as the parts of a machine and cannot survive without an informal organiza-
they cannot be expected to be always rational tion that allows “maintenance of group cohe-
and work like robots. This assumption was sion through regulating the willingness to serve
later defended by advocates of natural systems.
52 SAÜ Eğ itim Bilimleri Enstitü sü

and the stability of objective authority” (Get- role and personality. The amounts of contribu-
zels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968, p. 42). tions of these two factors vary according to
Individual needs and social behavior persons and actions, but never only one of
them rules the behavior. One can act according
Getzels and Guba (1957) define the administra-
to the role more than personality while another
tive process as strongly related to social beha-
individual’s behavior is affected mostly by
vior of individuals within organizations. They
personality. For the authors, the administration
propose a social system theory for settings with
process in social systems is nothing but under-
a hierarchy of relationships. Two components
standing why organizational behavior cannot
of their theory are institutions and individuals.
be associated with only either role or personali-
Each of them has two sub-components. Institu-
ty.
tional roles and role expectations constitute the
nomothetic, and individual personality and Open Systems
need-dispositions constitute the idiographic Open systems theory was developed as a reac-
dimension of social behavior. The authors arti- tion to former rational and natural system
culate characteristics of institutions and indi- theories that described schools as independent
viduals. Institutions have purposes to meet of their external environment. Open systems
specific ends, have people to achieve purposes, are affected from outer forces while being si-
have organizational structure which assigns multaneously dependent on them. Their boun-
roles to people and makes rules to achieve daries are broader than those of classical closed
purposes, have norms that are represented as school systems, and hard to identify clearly.
roles that impose specific behavior on individ- The main element that distinguishes open sys-
uals, are sanction-bearing which means apply- tems from the others is the transformation
ing positive and negative sanctions to make process. It is the process of raw materials (in-
sure that norms are conformed. Roles prescribe puts) into products (outputs). In an educational
the behavior of individuals. They refer to posi- setting (e.g. school), inputs can be considered
tional authority, complement each other, and as pupils and outputs as graduates. Therefore,
adhere to role expectations defined by the insti- the system continuously takes sources from its
tution. Personality is a combination of need environment and then transforms them accord-
dispositions that direct a person to accomplish ing to the environment’s needs. An important
a desired end. element of this interaction called feedback,
In short, Getzels and Guba (1957) define social information about the quality of the process,
behavior as a result of the interaction between lets the system correct and enhance itself.
 Sakarya University Journal of Education 53

Figure 1. Schematization of open systems.

Early theorists of social systems identified them held in common were unimportant relative to
as closed systems (Getzels & Guba, 1957; Luh- the other variables, then the principal can be
mann, 1995). That perspective did not work for regarded as being loosely coupled with the
schools as they are strongly interrelated to their teacher” (p.3).
environment. Schools are dependent on exter-
Regarding to the amount of autonomy that
nal sources by nature. In a simplistic sense,
subsystems have, the school structure can be
they need funds and children from the outside
described as loosely or tightly coupled. Since
of their boundaries. They are accountable for
never a single form of coupling suits well to
producing ends that are not specified by them-
every situation, leaders should exercise both
selves but by their communities. By acknowl-
forms as needed (Kowalski, 2010). Open sys-
edging these realities, Hoy and Miskel (2005)
tems tend to be loosely coupled. Scott (1998)
assert that social systems are, at the same time,
explains this by stating that “one of the main
open systems.
contributions of the open system perspective is
Loose Coupling the recognition that many systems-especially

Research reveals that connections between social systems-contain elements that are only

rules and behaviors and among structural units weakly connected to other elements and that

may not consist of solid lines, and schools have are capable of fairly autonomous actions”

little coordination within the subsystems of the (p.88). As a result, teachers got freedom in their

organization, a situation known as loose coupl- classroom activities under weak administration

ing. Glassman (1973) was one of the first re- scrutiny. This is useful because teachers are

searchers who used the term, and he asserts experts of instruction while principals are

that “the degree of coupling, or interaction, skilled at administration. Thus, teachers can

between two systems depends on the activity make use of their expertise if they are not dis-

of the variables which they share” (p. 84). Thus, rupted by the administration. Some researchers

if there are few variables to be shared between supported teachers’ freedom and little accoun-

systems then they are independent of each tability for their professional activities to let

other. Weick (1976) adapts this to schools by them utilize various student abilities (Dellar,

remarking that “…if we did not find many 1994). Other than teacher autonomy, loosely

variables in the teacher's world to be shared in coupled structures of schools increase decentra-

the world of a principal and/or if the variables lization and adaptation (Weick, 1976). Tight
54 SAÜ Eğ itim Bilimleri Enstitü sü

coupling is a result of rationalization. There- These assumptions help us grasp the common
fore, schools that are less rational systems tend characteristics of social systems. These charac-
to be loosely coupled. teristics are elaborated under related sections of
Social Systems this paper.

To understand social systems, it is helpful to Hoy and Miskel (2005) visualize the elements
delve into the main characteristics that asserted of social systems. Their model resembles Getzel
by researchers contributing to the development and Guba’s (1957) open systems model. How-
of this theory. Hoy and Miskel (2005) bring ever, they incorporate their own perspective of
together the assumptions of various researchers social systems by blending rational and natural
and incorporate them into educational settings. systems models. They inject four sub-systems
Many researchers assert that social systems are into the transformation process. Each sub-
peopled, goal oriented, structural, normative, system will be elaborated according to their
sanction bearing, political, and open systems. view.

Figure 2. The elements of social systems (Hoy & Miskel, 2005, p. 31).

Structural system Cultural system

The structural system is similar to those of Similar to the emergence of informal organiza-
formal organizations. Bureaucratic expectations tions, culture emerges from interactions of
rule organizational behavior. Roles that are individuals within a system. As individuals
derived from those expectations are interact, they share values, beliefs, habits and
represented by positions in a hierarchy. The gain an identity as a group. This is a natural
hierarchy distributes tasks to specialized indi- outcome of all social systems. Culture is the
viduals, and the Organization is a result of the most visible aspect of the organizational life
division of labor (Parsons, 1960). The structure that distinguishes it from others. Culture signif-
of social systems inherits many elements from icantly affects behavior through establishing
rational, natural and open systems theories. For commitment to shared norms among individu-
example, social systems have both formal and als. In other words, culture represents the un-
informal organizations within them. written, feeling part that is the set of values,
 Sakarya University Journal of Education 55

norms and beliefs of the organization (Daft, profit their private affairs at the expense of the
2009). organization. It is illegitimate because it is not
Hofstede (1991) defines culture as “the collec- stemmed from any formal authority, therefore
tive programming” of the members of an or- it does not have to be in accordance with ac-
ganization (p. 262). They have attitudes which cepted standards of the organization. Hence, it
stimulate them to act on a favorable fashion is immune to the sanctions of formal authority.
(Rokeach, 1972). It can be said that attitude Also, from the social behavior perspective,
governs one’s mind while culture governs the politics utilizes the absolute use of individualis-
organizational mind. Therefore, each member’s tic needs, and thus ignores the organizational
attitudes gathered in a pool called culture. role expectations. Consequently, it benefits
individual interests only. However, this does
Individual system
not mean that politics is always harmful to the
Each individual has a different set of needs and organization. Mintzberg (1983) claims that
beliefs that affect behavior. Unlike organiza- politics can provide the organization with
tional expectations, individual needs and ex- many advantages. One advantage of the politi-
pectations are flexible and adaptable to formal cal system is that it forces a school to be re-
roles, and thus they provide a room for discre- sponsible to its environment. Schools must pay
tion in behavior. Individuals interpret their attention to external pressures, respond to their
roles according to their behavior. Confirming demands, and produce outcomes. In other
Getzel and Guba’s (1957) idea, Hoy and Miskel words, schools are compelled to be open sys-
(2005) claim that social behavior is formed by tems by political forces. Actually, the political
the interaction of bureaucratic expectations and system is in strong relation with the open sys-
individual needs. Along with behavior, indi- tem, and share many similarities. It is clear that
vidual needs and beliefs also form feelings. politics is informal and illegitimate, yet an
Social systems have strong links with “the inevitable factor affecting organizational beha-
attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, motivations, vior (Hoy & Miskel, 2005).
habits, and expectations of human beings”
Characteristics of Schools
(Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 37). Since people are an
important element of social systems, their posi- In this section, some characteristics of schools
tive feelings toward the organization signifi- including structure, culture, climate, leader-
cantly affect the overall health of the system. ship, decision making and relationships among
personnel will be elaborated from the perspec-
Political system
tive of the social systems theory.
Politics inevitably appear in organizations
Structure
(Senge, 1990). Politics emerges from the interac-
tion of authority and power within an organi- As social systems, schools’ structures have
zation. There are three sources of power in an characteristics of rational, natural, and open
organization. Formal power originates from the systems. They have hierarchies of authority,
structural system, the cultural system produces goals, and role expectations similar to bureau-
informal power, and individuals have the pow- cratic organizations. Individual needs affect
er of expertise. Politics is the way of how some employee behavior, organizational goals are
individuals use their influence for their inter- not firm, informal organizations derive from
ests. They often use their power at backstage to interactions among individuals, and schools
56 SAÜ Eğ itim Bilimleri Enstitü sü

have to interact with their environment. Ko- For instance, since teachers work alone instead
walski (2010) asserts that schools are social of in teams, the structure of schools tends to be
systems and have three qualities: arbitrary and hierarchically flat because it has few hierarchic-
consequential boundaries, interrelated subsys- al levels (Ben-Baruch, 1983). However, creating
tems, and multiple causation- events happen as work groups and freeing them from intense
a consequence of more than one cause. supervision let teachers be more creative and
Schools are staffed by professionals, so they responsible for teaching (Kinsler & Gamble,
have some disadvantages of professionalism 2001).
such as unions’ striving to limit principals’ When a bureaucratic organization relies heavi-
control over teachers, uneven distribution of ly on sanctions to ensure performance and
pay, teachers’ lack of skills in professionalism obedience of staff, a process called “decadence
(Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996). As open sys- of the hierarchy” becomes inevitable (Ben-
tems, schools have relationships with external Baruch, 1983, p. 112). Individuals who fear
agencies like unions. Exertion of political pow- their superiors tend to be safe by selecting
er and authority between schools and the agen- subordinates who are less competent than they
cies becomes an element of the school structure. should be. This leaves the lower ranks of the
Schools are institutional organizations whose hierarchy staffed by unskilled people. To avoid
structures are formed by societal rules and this, recruitment of superintendents and prin-
beliefs, so an emphasis on how schools re- cipals should be done by the community (Ben-
sponse to those rules and beliefs becomes a Baruch, 1983).
main aspect to explain and evaluate their struc- Schools in decentralized education systems that
tures (Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996). School as allow them to be locally involved in social
an institution is “a natural product of social needs of people around them are more likely to
needs and pressures” (Selznick, 1957, p. 5). This be open and social systems. Community mem-
too proves that schools are open systems that bers have an impact on educational decisions
are dependent on and affected by their envi- made in schools. Schools are obliged to pro-
ronment. For example, in low socio economic duce outcomes that are desirable by their envi-
status communities, parents often do not de- ronments. To please parents, schools must
mand high academic quality from schools. continuously interact with them to learn their
Because of this weak external pressure, schools needs and to get feedback on educational
in those communities expect less performance processes. Since education is complicated and
from students and have low standards (Dorn- not routine, schools can perform better with a
busch & Glasgow, 1996). decentralized structure (Bolman & Deal, 1984).
Ben-Baruch (1983) asserts that schools have six On the other hand, in centralized educational
basic traits. They are people-processing organi- systems, environmental pressures are directed
zations, goal oriented, structural, and consist of to departments of education, and thus schools
processes, communication and decision making are completely responsible to the department.
activities. The structure of social organizations This results in a formation of a pyramidal hie-
is related to relationships of professionals with- rarchy that limits community intervention.
in the organizations. Thus, the structure is However, in decentralized systems, hierarchy
closely aligned with the nature of interactions is flat, so schools are in direct interaction with
and it is affected by working styles of people. their communities.
 Sakarya University Journal of Education 57

Culture and Climate (Kowalski, 2010). New teachers learn shared

Distinguishing culture from the climate is a values, beliefs and norms when they interact
difficult one and vice versa. They share many and build relationships with their colleagues.
things in common, but still there are differences During conversations, they are informally
between them “whereas climate is about feel- taught ways of accepted behavior. This brings
ings and behavior, culture is more focused on us back to the natural systems theory which
values, beliefs, and assumptions underlying admits informal socialization among individu-
feelings and behavior…” (Kowalski, 2010, p. als within an organization.
43). Leadership and Decision Making
Climate represents an organization’s distin- In social systems of schools an important aspect
guishing characteristics, feeling and behavior of leadership is the quality and systematic
that can be presented with a framework which effects of functions and behaviors of principals
consists of four elements: physical frame is the as leaders. Principals’ behaviors can be in-
physical factors of a school like equipment, spected under social systems theory. In many
classrooms etc., social frame is the social envi- schools, principals’ social behavior surrounds
ronment mostly related to social behavior of all other individuals and processes from deci-
individuals within a school, structural frame sion making to the evaluation of organizational
represents factors such as hierarchy, authority, efficiency.
role, and symbolic frame is the parts of culture
Kowalski (2010) offers school improvement
like believes, norms, values (Kowalski, 2010).
through decision making as the main focus of
Kowalski (2010) categorizes school climate school leadership. However, there may be
according to disposition to interactions. He times when teachers do not agree and follow.
categorizes interactions as internal and exter- The functional perspective of Getzels, Lipham
nal. Internal interactions consist of interactions and Campbell’s (1968) administrative process
among teachers, and between teachers and the may shed light on these situations. Functions
principal while external interactions consist of are considered as the allocation of roles and
interactions with parents and other stakehold- facilities. Therefore, principals should revise
ers outside the school. He puts both internal the functions of administrative processes.
and external interactions on the same conti-
Leaders in similar social systems exhibit diver-
nuum. Therefore, individuals in schools that
gent behavior which is associated with organi-
have open climates have to interact with other
zational role and personality (Getzels & Guba,
individuals from both inside and outside of the
1957; Kowalski, 2010). Kowalski (2010) explains
school. However, this can be generalized to
why school principals even in the same districts
open systems only. A school that is closed to its
behave differently. He extends Getzels and
external environment may have a great amount
Guba’s (1957) social behavior theory by adding
of interactions among individuals inside the
a new dimension called work context. Formal
building. Therefore, we can assume that the
role expectations and personal facets are the
author already considers schools as open social
dimensions inherited from the social behavior
systems.
theory. Work context consists of culture and
School culture is preserved and transferred to politics within and around (e.g. community)
new members by the socialization process schools. His assertion is based on open systems
58 SAÜ Eğ itim Bilimleri Enstitü sü

theory and is an attempt to conceive of social political forces even when they are inconsistent
systems as open systems opposing to Getzels with the principal’s formal role expectations
and Guba’s (1957) closed social systems pers- and personal facets. For example, a principal
pective. Therefore, he implies that schools inte- who expresses his ideas about sex education
ract with their environments, and they are which are incongruent with the local values
under the influence of outer forces just like any may be chastised by the local community and
other open and social system. Principals’ lea- be given a formal warning by the superinten-
dership is influenced by cultural standards and dent.

Figure 3. Principal behavior (Kowalski, 2010, p. 52)

Individuals and organizations try to impose Relationships

their motives on each other. The process done
Social organizations like schools are stemmed
by the organization is called the socializing
from interaction among people both within and
process, and the personalizing process when it
outside of the organization. Relationships with-
is done by the individual. Problems occur if
in school building and with the community are
there is discordance between the two processes.
essential elements of socialization and have a
Therefore, leaders should seek harmony be-
significant impact on many vital processes.
tween them (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell,
Building and maintaining relationships can be
1968). In addition, there are two views about
considered as a process by which principals
the ownership of leadership. One view asserts
and teachers link learning that occurs inside
that an individual who has the greatest influ-
and outside of the building (Kowalski, 2010).
ence and leadership capabilities is the leader of
Since the social behavior forms those interac-
a group. The other view claims that leadership
tions, its perspective can be useful to some
naturally occurs and shared within a social
extent in analyzing relationships. For example,
group. Therefore, leadership belongs to the
problems may occur when roles and personali-
group instead of a single individual (Hoy &
ty conflict (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968).
Miskel, 2005). The shared leadership aspect of
Compatibility of personality with organiza-
the second view is related to the distributed
tional roles is so important that administrators
leadership framework. Spillane and Healey
must consider it from the beginning of staff
(2010) assert that individuals without any for-
relationships that is the recruitment. It is wise
mal leadership designation can be leaders too.
to hire people who fit best to the school’s goals
Therefore, even teachers and students may take
to maintain smooth relationships and educa-
responsibility for leadership roles.
tional operations. However, given the complex-
ity of personality, some incompatibilities are
inevitable, so people who can tolerate them and
 Sakarya University Journal of Education 59

make compromises would be targeted when clarify role expectations and increase two-way
hiring (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968). communication opportunities within schools.
In some large educational settings, the recruit- After hiring people whose personalities let
ment process is standardized and strongly them adapt to their roles, administrators must
aligned with organizational needs neglecting clarify the roles in detail by engaging new staff
personal aspects. Protesting this notion, Get- in two-way communication that requires let-
zels, Lipham and Campbell (1968) propose a ting them express their feedback. Otherwise,
model for the recruitment of new personnel. administrators cannot feel certain that they are
People are very important. Social organizations understood. Two-way communication is also
are peopled and every action is carried out by important in daily organizational life. To over-
them. Their needs should be taken into consid- come problems caused by lack of communica-
eration when choosing their future peers. After tion, the authors suggest dividing the organiza-
all, the new staff will interact with them more tion into subunits, so the staff may find more
than with their administrators. Therefore, the opportunity for face to face conversations. The
prospective staff should be informed of perso- division of labor and work specialization plays
nality requirements for the job and encouraged a role here.
to interact with the already-employed staff Conclusions
before the recruitment to learn informally how
the school works. Otherwise problems result- Social systems theory has been a sound pers-

ing from conflicts between roles and personali- pective to explain the working of schools. It

ties may occur. offered scholars to consider the many aspects of

school organizations which are full of social
Their model makes sense from the point of
beings. Schools are different from for profit
social systems, but it is hard to implement in
organizations, for they produce public service
centralized educational settings in where
instead of goods. Mechanistic views fail to
people are hired through standardized
focus on human relations side of educational
processes due to the vast amount of prospects
settings. Therefore it is more rational to think
entering into the profession each year. Especial-
schools through the lens of social systems
ly in the countries where principals have no
theory. Vast amount of research are carried out
power to hire teachers and other staff, the re-
to investigate teachers’, administrators’, stu-
cruitment is carried out by the departments of
dents’ and parents’ perceptions of many va-
education, so this model has limited applicabil-
riables mostly related to interactions among
ity in those countries. To avoid problems re-
those people in schools. Social systems perspec-
sulting from role-personality conflicts, the
tive can set the stage for constructing a back-
authors suggest that administrators should
ground and rationale for those research.

References
Ben-Baruch, E. (1983). Schools as social systems. Beersheba: Ben Gurion University.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1990). The organization and control
of American schools. New York: Macmillan.
Daft, R. L. (2009). Organization theory and design. (10 ed.). Mason: South-Western College Publishing.
60 SAÜ Eğ itim Bilimleri Enstitü sü

Dellar, G. B. (1994). Schools as open social systems: A study of site specific restructuring. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, April
4-8, 1994.
Dornbusch, S. M., & Glasgow, K. L. (1996). The social structures of schooling. Annual Review of Psycholo-
gy, 47(1), 401.
Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. The School Re-
view, 65(4), 423-441.
Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M. & Campbell, R. F. (1968). Educational administration as a social process. New
York, Harper & Row.
Glassman, R. B. (1973). Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18, 83-98.
Gouldner, A. W. (1959). Organizational analysis. In R. K. Merton (Ed.). Sociology today (pp. 400-428).
New York: Basic Books. (As cited by Scott, 1998).
Greenfield, T., & Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration. London: Routledge.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill UK.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C.G. (2005). Educational administration. (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2 ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kinsler, K., & Gamble, M. (2001). Reforming schools. New York: Continuum.
Kowalski, T. J. (2010). The school principal: Visionary leadership and competent management. New York: Rout-
ledge.
Luhmann, N. (1995), Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1958). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A.W. Halpin (Ed.).
Administrative theory in education. Chicago: University of Chicago. (As cited by Getzels, Lipham, &
Campbell, 1968).
Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations. (4 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distri-
buted perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253-281.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 21(1), 1-19.