In his new book, The Six Secrets of Change: What the Best Leaders Do to Help Their Organizations Survive and Thrive, author and change expert Michael Fullan warns we should be very careful to follow the latest and greatest theory and to view these theories with a critical eye.
Fullan quotes from the book The Witch Doctors: Making Sense of Management. "Management theory...has four defects: it is constitutionally incapable of self-criticism; its terminology usually confuses rather than educates; it rarely rises above common sense; and it is faddish and bedeviled by contradictions."
Sort of reminds me of educational theory too. But, can education learn something from imitating business theory and models?
A great post by Tim at Intended Consequences blog titled The Business of Education is Business has really got me, and based on the comments, others thinking. Why is education imitating business? Does business have something to offer education?
Tim wrote, “So over the years, I have seen many examples of how education has tried very hard to imitate business models. How many pieces of business jargon have made their way into the culture of education?”
I am sure we can all relate to this. Statements like, “Get the right people on the bus” are now part of our daily conversation.
Tim continues…“What interests me here is that it seems that education is quick to jump onto the business bandwagon, but we have seen time and time again how these business models do not stand the test of time. Even “Good to Great” which highlighted 12 businesses that were examples of greatness and what made them “great” has major flaws. The businesses in that book, since it has been written, have almost universally all gone through major management changes, or have had to restructure due to business losses.” What ever happened to Circuit City?
This is where the differences between education become stark and clear.
Business
Required to make fundamental internal changes in
response to external factors, such as opportunities created between
competition, innovation, ideas, global changes, technological changes,
and talent levels, etc.
Education
Education is not required to make fundamental internal changes in response to external factors.
Business
Must market to attract customers and create awareness of their service or product.
Education
Students come to us.
Business
Customers’ desires and needs are ever changing, thus driving fundamental organizational changes as necessary.
Education
Do not have to make fundamental organizational changes.
Business
Competition
Education
No competition
Business
Every person in the organization can be held accountable.
Education
Only management can be held accountable.
Business
Paradigms,
theories, methods, strategies, and organizational styles change to meet
changes and needs in the external environment.
Education
Educational model has not fundamentally changed in a century.
Business
Faces
an organizational cost for failure to adjust to external environments,
failure to meet the needs of customers, and failure to innovate and
capitalize on opportunities.
Education
No cost to the organization.
Business
Compete with other businesses globally.
Education
Not in competition.
Business
Better ideas are a source and force for organization change.
Education
Better ideas are not a force for organizational change and are often prevented by regulations.
Business
No guarantees.
Education
Guaranteed “customers”, employment, raises, and benefits.
Tim asks... “Should we, as educators, really be emulating the world where failure is not only an option, it is a way of life?”
It seems to me that business books are constantly in flux or changing because business itself is constantly in flux. This is a result to stay competitive and productive in an environment that can fundamentally change in a few decades, as evidenced by how the Internet has created whole new businesses, customers, methods, strategies and impacted nearly every facet of how business operates.
This, in turn, would create and ever changing list of books that are written to meet these ever changing environments.
Tim asks… “Should we, as educators, really be emulating the world where failure is not only an option, it is a way of life?”
We don't have to. Education, while educating people who will go on to work in places that will fundamentally change internally to meet external changes every few decades, does not itself have to undergo fundamental internal changes even in light of major external changes. The fundamentals of education have not changed in nearly a century.
Elementary, junior high, and high school are still very similar to how it was when I went to school, but business has seen the rise of the Internet, globalization, and many other external forces, and has had to adapt to them.
Education doesn’t have to change in response to failure, because the very definition of failure is subjective, subject to change, and varies from school to school, district to district, and state to state. Business has a bottom line. Make it and you stay in business for another day. Education has no such bottom line. The kids will keep coming, the schools will stay open, and teachers will keep teaching.
Another great post at one of my favorite blogs. I agree that in the field of public education, we have been quick to imitate business approaches and principles. I do not agree though with some of the "clear differences" you have stated exist between business and education. In 2010, schools and systems must market themselves; they must have a "brand" with which they are associated. In the age of choice, we really have no guaranteed customers. Also, the level of accountability and transparency in schools is quite close to mirroring that of business. Organizational change in schools, while slow, is rapidly gaining momentum. I expect that in the next ten years, public education will experience more change than in the past 100 years.
Posted by: Chuck | July 24, 2010 at 09:08 AM
Chuck, I believe your idea that public education will change more in the next 10 year than in the last 100 is true.
I am not sure I see anything resembling marketing in the public schools in which I am familiar with. In fact, I strongly doubt that there is anyone in most district who have a basic understanding of marketing and branding.
If you asked the typical classroom teacher what their school's brand is, or what their district marketing plan is, or what their role in that is, I am sure they would look at you strangely.
While transparency is increasing, accountability is not. The only accountable people in a typical district is the management team.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Posted by: Rob Jacobs | July 25, 2010 at 04:33 PM