Education officials between hierarchies and networks

Title: Education officials between hierarchies and networks
Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2017, vol. 22, iss. 2, pp. [117]-133
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Article
License: Not specified license

Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.

The steering of educational institutions in developed countries has changed radically during the past several decades. One of the most crucial changes has been the move from centralized rational planning to more decentralized governance with a diverse set of actors and networks. Education decision-makers (politicians and officials) must be able to steer through a very complex and fluid environment and use different forms of governing tools beyond the traditional command and control. However, the core education steering institutions — education ministries — are still governed in strictly hierarchical ways. This leads to a clash of cultures: officials must be able to operate in networks while they are themselves deeply embedded within a hierarchical organization. This may lead to role confusion. We argue that people who are more engaged in communication are more inclined to a mission orientation. Open communication also increases the level of trust among actors. However, officials who are engaged in communication networks are also less willing to accept the instructions of their superiors if these seem contrary to the utmost goal of education. It is also argued that officials should be trained in new kinds of skills, including critical thinking and social skills.
Work on this article was supported by a grant from the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (No. TD03000018).
[1] Ainley, J., & McKenzie, P. (2000). School governance: Research on educational and management issues. International Education Journal, 1(3), 139–151.

[2] Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2003). Searching for civil society: Changing patterns of governance in Britain. Public Administration, 81(1), 41–62. | DOI 10.1111/1467-9299.00336

[3] Burns, T., & Köster, F. (Eds.). (2016). Governing education in a complex world. Educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD. | DOI 10.1787/9789264262829-en

[4] Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe. Policies and measures. Brussels: Eurydice.

[5] Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change. The New Yorker, 4(1), 42–49.

[6] Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. New York: Basic Books.

[7] Hoppe, R., & Jeliazkova, M. (2006). How policymakers define their jobs: A Netherlands case study. In H. K. Colebatch (Ed.), The work of policy: An international survey (pp. 61–82). Lanham: Lexington Books.

[8] Lynn, L. (2008). What is a neo-Weberian state? Reflections on a concept and its implications. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 1(2), 17–30.

[9] Marinetto, M. (2003). Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the Anglo-governance school. Political Studies, 51(3), 592–608. | DOI 10.1111/1467-9248.00443

[10] Massé, M. (1993). Partners in the management of Canada: The changing roles of government and the public service. The 1993 John L. Manion lecture. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development.

[11] OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012. Paris: OECD.

[12] Page, E., & Jenkins, W. I. (2005). Policy bureaucracy: Government with a cast of thousands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[13] Radó, P. (2010). Governing decentralized education systems: Systemic change in south eastern Europe. Budapest: OSF/LGI.

[14] Randma-Liiv, T. (2008). New public management versus neo-Weberian state in Central and Eastern Europe. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 1(2), 69–81.

[15] Sack, R, & Saidi, M. (1997). Functional analysis (management audits) of the organization of ministries of education. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Education Planning.

[16] Savoie, D. (2003). Strengthening the policy capacity of government. Toronto: Panel on the Role of Government.

[17] Sherman, J., & Scheerens, J. (2000). Measuring functional (de)centralization. In Compendium for the 2000 General Assembly of the OECD/INES project (pp. 191–211). Paris: OECD.

[18] Steijn, A.J. (2009). Over de competenties van de 'nieuwe' ambtenaar [About the competencies of "new" civil servant]. In Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (Ed.), Rijksambtenaren van de toekomst [Civil servants of the future] (pp. 30–45). Hague: Ministerie van BZK.

[19] Theissens, H. (2016). Hierarchies, networks and improvization in education governance. In T. Burns & F. Köster (Eds.), Governing education in a complex world. Educational research and innovation (pp. 55–69). Paris: OECD.

[20] Valachová, K. (2016). Proč si v diskusích o školství tak málo rozumíme? [Why do we understand each other so little in education debates?]. Retrieved from

[21] Veselý, A. (2013). Conducting large-N surveys on policy work in bureaucracies: Some methodological challenges and implications from the Czech Republic. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(2), 88–113.

[22] Veselý, A. (2014). The profile and work of officials in central and regional administration compared: The Case of the Czech Republic. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 7(1), 107–128. | DOI 10.2478/nispa-2014-0002

[23] Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

[24] Young, J., Levin, B., & Wallin, D. (2007). Understanding Canadian schools: An introduction to educational administration. Toronto: Thomson/Nelson.