Hello!
For many years I have worked with training instructors in the private sector, and have found that they often control the direction of how training is applied. Their impact extends from who is taught, when they are taught, and most importantly what is taught. All of these instructors provided with fixed curricula, complete with carefully crafted instructional objectives, lecture materials, lab materials, and performance assessments. There are also extensive corporate standards for student performance and conduct that are expected to be followed in the training centers.
But if you take any single course that they are teaching and observe it at any training center around the country, you will find that there are no two instructors that teach the course the same way, or deal with the learners in the same way. In some cases, instructors will collaborate with each other to modify training materials or set new student standards without the approval (or knowledge) of the corporate office. The instructors set their own policies as they have assumed the roles of “street level bureaucrats,” as discussed by Michael Lipsky in his book, “Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services” (2010).
Lipsky’s book is aimed more at the public sector than the corporate world, but almost all of his observations are salient in both realms as public school teachers have the same issues and motivations. In both cases, factors of their jobs make it difficult to follow policies from higher ups. According to Lipsksy (2010), there are three main characteristics that lead to them making their own policies, which I will paraphrase for you here:
1. The aspects of the job are too complicated to be defined by policy.
2. The workers have to deal with complex human reactions that may not be covered by policy.
3. The workers (teachers, in this case) are seen by their students as being the only path to their success in the class.
And I would like to add something else that Lipsky mentioned, and that would be the desire for autonomy on the part of the workers. This is a string motivator as people often like to “do their own thing.” But how can educational leaders manage instructors who have become street level bureaucrats? Hopefully the educational policies that they are promoting and encouraging are sound, so they have to find the best way to encourage their teachers to come back to the team.
First it would be good to look at how teachers can cope with being in the situation of not being able to meet the demands of the learners, so they end up creating their own policies. Winter and Nielson (2008) list three mechanisms that are used, including: 1) creating their own demand for output 2) limiting output, and 3) Somehow automating their processes. Respectively, I think that these are manifested though practices things such as: 1) Creating policies that create barriers to entry for enrollment, 2) Reducing the number of available courses, and 3) Creating mechanisms to reduce instructor workload.
None of these things sound good when you put yourself in the place of the learner. So why are things like this allowed to occur? Verdung (2015) offers two main reasons, and they both make sense to me. He says that this occurs because “governing bodies lack competence to make appropriate local decisions” (p. 17) and “lack time to make well-informed local decisions” (p. 18). Neither one of these statements is a surprise, and they confirm that leadership is too disconnected from what is occurring in the classroom or training center. I do not have the answer for this, would like to keep looking. I am however reminded of a Japanese phrase “genchi-genbutsu,” which translates as go-and-see, and is often used when discussing problem solving. The basic idea is that it impossible to completely understand a problem unless you have seen it with your own eye. Maybe this is something for leader to consider when they are making policy…
Thank you for checking in here today, and please let me know what your thought are on street level bureaucracy.
References:
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage, New York, NY.
Verdung, E. (2015). Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2). (15-19)
Winter, S., & Nielsen, V.L. (2008). Implementation of public policy.
Hi Rex, What I think is so interesting about street level bureaucrats in the corporate world as you describe it -- is that I would think in the corporate world -- creativity and swaying a little off the beaten path would be encouraged and celebrated more than in the public sector. Wouldn't we otherwise find the trainers to be boring and unmotivating?
ReplyDeleteAnother example of what we do being an example of a street-level bureaucrats. I imagine that Lipsky’s characteristic of “The workers (instructors in the automotive industry) are seen by their students as being the only path to their success in the class”. If they aren’t successful in the class it sounds like they don’t continue on. These instructors are having to “respond to the human dimensions of situations” (p. 15) as they start a new class and work with personalities. Is the department asking to hear from instructors what sort of interactions they had with their “clients” in order to improve the class. The discretion these instructors have must be high unless there is some sort of assessment.
ReplyDeleteThe students are most likely thankful for still having in person instruction. Lipsky (201), states that “society does not want computerized public service and rigid application of standards at the expense of responsiveness to the individual situation” (p.23). It is great that there is a relationships aspect to the company. I’m always fascinated by your world. Thanks for sharing!
Hi Rex! Nice blog – I appreciate your views from a private sector perspective. I really resonated with your point about how there can be fixed curricula and standards, yet two instructors following the same policy lead vastly different courses. In the case of faculty, their large latitude of academic freedom could have something to do with that. Nelson (2010) points out that “academic freedom establishes a faculty member’s right to remain true to his or her pedagogical philosophy and intellectual commitments”. If we consider faculty as street-level bureaucrats, they have abilities to only loosely follow their guidelines on what and how to teach. When I was working in Advising, so many students would come in to try to switch to a different section of the same course since it was taught by a different person. In theory, all sections of the course have the same assignments and syllabi, but instructors have a lot of flexibility in implementation, and that essentially created two different courses.
ReplyDeleteI also resonated with your point about how it can be hard for managers or top-level people to see that something is a problem unless they see it for themselves. I think that’s a good way to approach policy-making. In an ideal world, the people writing the policy will actually have seen or lived the experience that would be affected by said policy. I would certainly respect a manager (and the policies handed down by them) more if they worked alongside with us once in awhile. Lipsky (2010) mentions how there is often a communication divide between street-level bureaucrats and management. Perhaps the concept of managers getting in the weeds of an issue before determining policy would help bridge that divide.
Thanks for posting!
Emily G.
References
Lipsky, M. (2010 originally published in 1980). Street-Level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage, New York.
Nelson, C. (2010). Defining academic freedom. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/defining-academic-freedom
Rex,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with the point you make about policies being created by those who are not directly involved with the work. What I see in my world is that people USED TO BE heavily involved in the work but haven’t been for quite some time. Folks have come to see them as subject matter experts and resources even though because of the time lapse are not as informed and a bit out of touch. As we knew students/learners change and new approaches/practices are developed almost every 5-6 years. Policymakers have to stay connected. Their jobs are so important and our students are at the helm of their decisions.